Gate of the Sun

Taylor Fawcett Gate of the Sun

The infamous Arab-Israeli conflict over the “Promised Land”/territory of Palestine is an ongoing conflict between the two nations that has been in existence since the mid 1900s. As shown in a documentary viewed at the beginning of the year “Peace, Propaganda, and the Middle East”, different views are shown based on the two sides of the conflict and their allies. In the United States of America, we are swayed to believe that Palestinians are evil doers, constantly dropping bombs and planning suicide missions against innocent Israeli citizens. This bias is presented because the United States of America is an ally of Israel and has supported Israel since times of conflict occurring in the mid 1900s. The novel Gate of the Sun by Elias Khoury illustrates a different view than one Americans commonly see. Gate of the Sun presents the story told from the Palestinian point of view, through a narrator, Khalil, caring for his adopted father, Yunes, who is a Palestinian refugee who suffered from the outcomes of the Arab-Israeli conflict in its early stages.
It all started when in September of the year 1947, Britain announced that the mandate of Palestine would be terminated on May 15, 1948. Both Arab and Israelis had been living under the British mandate, dealing with British government and rulings. When Britain deserted the land during this time, however, chaos broke loose between the two occupying groups of people.
According to a previous resolution put forth by the United Nations, a part of the land of Palestine was allotted to Jewish citizens. When Britain announced its desertion of the land, though, Jewish forces deemed it necessary to begin fighting and to try and secure their lands. There was, of course, resistance from Palestinian citizens living in the lands, as it had been their land since the times of their ancestors. Israeli forces, such as the Haganah and Irgun, overwhelmed Arab forces. These acts of violence on the Palestinians caused Palestinians to flee their lands. Those who fled numbered to be about 400,000 at this time.
One of the most important incidents in Palestinian history occurred during this time. A Palestinian town called Deir Yassin was massacred by Israeli forces between April 9-11, 1948. Deir Yassin had been located conveniently between Jerusalem and the Jewish area of Tel Aviv, and was desired by the Jews to be taken over and converted into Jewish lands. A month earlier, Palestinians living in Deir Yassin had signed a peace treaty with the neighboring Israeli town of Givat Sha’ul. The takeover of Deir Yassin had begun with rebel groups, but then the Haganah got involved. Any resistance to the takeover was put to death, including women, children, and men over the age of 60. Boys and men were paraded down a main road called Jaffa Road to Israeli citizens applauding the success that they believed they had just won. The boys and men were then executed. The act was done publicly because both sides of the conflict desired the rest of the world to know. For the Palestinians, this was a cry for help; for a way out of the terrors that they had been involved in as the under dog since Britain had left. For the Israelis, this was a warning to other Palestinians to get out before it got any worse. Israelis would also put actors in Palestinian cities to act as fearful Palestinian citizens. They would warn their “fellow” citizens into fleeing their homes so that the Israelis could take over their lands even easier. Deir Yassin was the starting point for the huge dispora of Palestinian refugees out of Palestine and into neighboring Arab lands where they would be kept in refugee camps.
In the days following the massacre at Deir Yassin, 700,000 to 900,000 Palestinians had left their homes. Palestinian rebel groups also took the liberty to engage in attacks on other Israelis. With the British abruptly abandoning the land that was still technically a British responsibility, it left no government, but the two sides to fend for themselves. On May 14, 1948, just one day before the British formally terminated the mandate, Israel declared its independence and it was immediately recognized by allies USA and Soviet Union.
Out of this came the first Arab-Israeli war, lasting from May 15, 1948 to December, 1948. It resulted in a huge defeat of Arab forces and an expansion of the territory that Israel was able to call its own. All dreams of a Palestinian-Arab state thought up by the United Nations were crushed. After the war, Israel, along with its allies Egypt and Transjordan, gained lands of Palestine. This left even more Palestinians to be refugees. During the spring and early summer of 1948 during the time of the war, the flee of Palestinians turned into a “mass exodus” (Cleveland 359), with Palestinians dropping everything, whether it be businesses, homes, or families, to flee and get out of Palestine and away from Israeli rule. Any and all Palestinian villages in Israeli territory were destroyed. Israelis gave themselves the right to level these towns, in addition to towns that were inside Arab lands that Israel had no political control over. The character of Yunes in Gate of the Sun had to deal with these troubles and hardships that the Palestinians dealt with first hand. He was a survivor of the horrible treatments that Israelis inflicted upon Palestinians once the land was taken over. His wife, for example, was stopped by Israeli troops because she was pregnant. Hoping that they would find out Yunes’ habitation, the troops tortured her. She heroically lied, claiming that she was a prostitute and had no knowledge of the father of her child. Yunes was saved by his wife from execution by Israeli troops. Yunes and his wife are prime examples of all that the Palestinians had to go through during the time of the Israeli occupation during the mid 1900s. While Yunes and his wife were able to find comfort in each other with secret meets at a cave called Bab al-Shams (or Gate of the Sun), they still have to deal with oppression, poverty and misery that all Palestinians had to deal with. They had to live through massacres of villages, just as it happened during the real Arab-Israeli conflict. Although the book is fiction, it gives a proper and accurate account of all the horrors and hardships that Palestinians were forced to go through.
In conclusion, Gate of the Sun by Elias Khoury outlines the true horrors that were inflicted upon Palestinian citizens due to the British termination of the mandate of Palestine and the Israeli takeover. This conflict still exists today. Through this novel, one is able to see an a fictional but accurate account of the side of a Palestinian dealing with the grueling sufferings that were dealt with.

Touba

Taylor Fawcett Touba and the Meaning of Night
Throughout the 1900s, the country presently known as Iran underwent many changes and periods of instability. With a variety of different successions of rulers, political revolts and uprisings, and different political philosophies and ideals coming into play, the country went through turmoil and chaos to become what it is today. The novel Touba and the Meaning of Night by Shahruush Parsipur tells the story of the life of a young Iranian woman named Touba and how she dealt with the shaky state of her country during the 20th century. As Touba grows up and experiences different stages of her life, Iran grows along with her.
Touba’s childhood coincides with Iran under the Qajar dynasty and the ruler Naser O-Din Shah, who ruled from 1848-1896. The reign of Naser O-Din Shah was filled with troubles. During the period of his reign, European powers were zeroing in to gain control of Iran, with Britain and Russia as the leaders. Touba constantly comes in contact with the influence these two superpowers caused, especially through Mr. Khiabani and the other parliamentary individuals who favored a constitution and supported Britain and Russia. One aspect of Naser O-Din Shah’s rule that is outlined in Touba and the Meaning of Night is the Cossack Brigade of 1879. Russian officers and weaponry were supplied to Iran to enforce a strong military to defend the country from invasion and take over.[1] Touba experiences the Cossack Brigade after her marriage to the prince, Feraydun Mirza. On their way to see Prince Gil, the carriage carrying the Prince and his bride constantly is stopped by the Cossack Brigade and asked a password to get through the streets. The Cossack Brigade eventually dissolved, due the Naser O-Din Shah’s shaky regime including the selling of offices, bribery and extortion.
The next significant event that is explained in both Touba’s story and Iran’s history is the Constitutional Revolution, lasting from approximately 1905-1911. This occurred during the reign of Mozafar O-Din Shah, who ruled from 1896-1907, and Mohammad Ali Shah, reigning from 1907-1909. As stated, a man who saves Touba in her early life during her marriage to Haji Mahmud named Mr. Khiabani was a leader of the constitutional revolution. Touba becomes enamored with Mr. Khiabani, therefore increasing her desire to know more about the subject of the constitution, the revolution, and the influence of Britain and Russia. With a constitution, Iran sought to modernize the country quickly, effectively and efficiently. The members of the triangle alliance were the main supporters of this constitution, including religious scholars (ulama), merchants (bazaaris), and nationalist students. These groups truly believed that they could used a constitution and a constitutional government to limit the authority and power of the shah. As shown in Touba and the Meaning of Night, frequent disputes between the shah and his supporters verses the supporters of a constitution caused the need for the remains of the Cossack Brigade to take action, as experienced by Touba and Price Feraydun Mirza. While Mr. Khiabani was a support of the constitution, Prince Feraydun Mirza was completely against any type of constitutional monarchy and was in support of the shah. He saw that Touba was fond of Mr. Khiabani, and believed that this corrupted her political views. The Mr. Khiabani displayed in the novel is really Mohammad Khiabani, who was a member of Iran’s parliament. He “represents the elusive promise of Persian democracy.”[2] He explained to Touba what he claimed to be horrors that the British (the source of the idea of constitutionalism for the Iranians) inflicted upon the country of Iran and its territories. He explained that the water in Tehran was controlled by the British and periodically shut off, and that the ground was continually dirtied with asphalt so that the water could not be clean even when it was running. Due to the passion of the revolutionaries for their constitution, the Constitutional Revolution of Iran was considered a “liberal version” of the French Revolution. Russia and Britain had tried to suppress this revolution, as it limited the power of the Qajar Dynasty[3] and halted the increasing European influence in Iranian finances. The two superpowers tried to halt the revolution by putting Mohammad Ali Shah on the throne, who proved to be “weak and ineffective”.[4]
In 1909, an event occurred that greatly affected Iran and also the life of Touba. Forces from Azerbaijan and Bakhitiyari took part in a coup that overthrew the shah that Britain and Russia had installed and reinstalled in the constitution in July.[5] For the ulama, bazaaris, nationalist students, and the rest of the citizens of Iran who followed the constitution, this was, for the most part, a success. This greatly affected Touba, however. As stated, Prince Feraydun Mirza was against the constitution and in total support of the shah. This coup forced him to flee to Russia, leaving Touba alone to raise her four children, as shown in the beginning of Chapter 2. Prince Feraydun Mirza eventually returns, but is plagued with bad luck that coincides with the turmoil that Iran would face in the coming years.
The reign of Reza Shah Pahlavi lasted from 1925-1941. Reza Shah overthrew the government in 1921 by bribing the Shah into installing allies of his to important positions in government, eventually taking control over them. Reza Shah started his reign by doing various positive things for the country of Iran, including contributing to the military, bringing in new forms of weapons, and suppressed ‘relentless campaigns of tribal rebellions.”[6] Later on in his rule, though, he uses his regime to torture his opponents. Touba lives through this and is at great risk with her marriage into the Iranian royal family, but avoids being murdered, as her husband, the prince, was in complete support of the Shah. Even though Touba was inclined to support the constitution due to her feelings for Mr. Khiabani, she was saved due to her marriage.
During the time of World War II and after, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the son of Reza Shah Pahlavi, came to power and reign from 1941 to 1979. Through Touba’s son Ismael, the effects of his reign are shown. In 1953, there was another coup against the Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq. Touba also goes through the events of the Islamic Revolution of 1979, and eventually passes away.
In conclusion, the life of Touba in Touba and the Meaning of Night coincides with the life and evolution of Iran as a legitimate country. Struggles in Iran’s government go along with struggles of Touba’s life, as they grow together and decline together.
Bibliography
Cleveland,William L.. A History of the Modern Middle East. 4th ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2009.
Parsipur,Shahruush. Touba and the Meaning of Night. New York: The Feminist Press, 2008.

[1] William L. Cleveland and Martin Bunton, A History of the Modern Middle East (Westview Press, 2009): 112
[2] Shahruush Parsipur, Touba and the Meaning of Night (The Feminist Press, 2008): xii
[3] William L. Cleveland and Martin Bunton, A History of the Modern Middle East (Westview Press, 2009): 146
[4] William L. Cleveland and Martin Bunton, A History of the Modern Middle East (Westview Press, 2009): 144
[5] William L. Cleveland and Martin Bunton, A History of the Modern Middle East (Westview Press, 2009): 146
[6] William L. Cleveland and Martin Bunton, A History of the Modern Middle East (Westview Press, 2009): 186

The Bastard of Istanbul: Paper

Taylor Fawcett The Bastard of Istanbul
The novel The Bastard of Istanbul by Elif Shafak is a modern day account of Turkish and Armenian relations. Through the characters Aysa Kazanci and Armanoush Tchakhmakhchian and their families, the author displays the similarities and differences between being raised Turkish and being raised Armenian. The expectations of women in society are shown through the Kazanci women and their desire to be nonconformists. The importance of learning from one’s past is stressed through Armanoush and her paternal family’s story. Nationalistic ideas and values are portrayed differently by both families. By using the characters and linking them together, Shafak brings together Turkish and Armenian worlds and telling the story of their past history together and modern day coexistence.
It is revealed through various factors like music by Madonna and cars like Toyota Corollas that the novel takes place within recent years. Even though it is explained that women have gained many rights since the early 1900s, there are still standards that Turkish women were expected to follow. Zeliha Kazanci is a true example of a rebel and nonconformist in Turkish society during modern times. Zeliha is described to use cuss words all of the time and even denounce Allah and His existence. She smokes, wears short skirts with high heels and has a nose piercing, which was seen as absolutely against conformity for Turkish women. She works in a tattoo parlor, which was also seen as out of the question for Turkish women to partake in. Perhaps most scandalous of all her aspects, Zeliha attempts to get an abortion at age nineteen. Zeliha has her child out of wedlock and becomes mother to Aysa, the title character, the “Bastard of Istanbul”. Aysa follows in her mother’s footsteps of going against the expectations of women by society. Aysa, like her mother, smokes cigarettes and marijuana. She has affairs with different men, including her current affair at the time of the book with a married newspaper cartoonist. Aysa avoids going to her classes and goes to a local café where she socializes with adults much older than she. Although is it stated in the novel that women had gained success in their liberty and independence to express themselves since the early 1900s, Zeliha and Aysa are seen as outcasts to their family, and also bring their family shame.
Different instances and situations in the novel set the scene for the attitudes of society regarding women. For example, when Zeliha attempts to get an abortion, she is required to get the consent of her husband. Even after, it is shown that Zeliha is unmarried, her patients in the gynecologist’s office look at her with shame and disdain. Also, there is an unwritten set of rules that women are expected to follow to keep themselves in the best situations, and Zeliha constantly thinks of these during her journey to the gynecologist’s office regarding a taxi driver who sees her as a prostitute and a man stalking her. She knows that, according to these rules, she must keep her head together as women are expected to do in order to get out of her current predicaments. Also, Mustafa Karnaci, the estranged son of the family, is clearly favored by his mother. It becomes apparent in the end of the novel that Zeliha has been raped by her brother, Aysa’s father, but she hides it from the rest of her family because of the dominance of the male sex over women in Turkish society. Zeliha’s mother is in constant worry that because her daughter is no longer a virgin, she will be unable to become married like Turkish women are supposed to do. All in all, the women of the Karnaci family relay to the reader what it means to be a woman in Turkish society and how they are expected to conform, and also how they will be viewed if they don’t.
Another purpose Elif Shafak had in writing the novel is to show the importance of one’s past and history in one’s present life. Armanoush and Aysa have extremely different backgrounds regarding their families, but they are related to each other. Armanoush’s father and family are Armenian. They have negative views toward any Turk, and see it is as inconceivable for Armanoush to be raised by her Turkish step father, Mustafa Karnaci. During the years right before World War I, the Armenian population was persecuted by Turkish rulers. There was a mass diaspora, or exodus, or Armenians to different areas of Asia, with women, children, and men being tortured and forced to die due to starvation, illness, and exhaustion. The Tchakhmakhchian family never forgot that their ancestors were victims of this genocide, and through her trip to Istanbul, Armanoush makes it known to the Karnaci family that the Turks are responsible for their suffering. Much to Armanoush’s disbelief, Asya and her family have no knowledge of the connection between themselves and the Turks who took part in this persecution. While Armanoush and her family rely on the fact that they survive the Armenian victims who had to go through this relentless slaughter, Asya and her family do not see it as relevant to their own history. Aysa tries to take a stand to Armanoush’s fellow Armenian friends with whom she talks online and offers to somewhat “make it up” to them. The Armenian teenagers believe that the Turks should recognize that what they did was wrong and are practically unable to let go of what happened to them. During a scene from a café that Asya takes Armanoush to, it is made clear that the Turks do not take responsibility for the actions that their ancestors inflicted upon the Armenians. They try to tell Armanoush that the Aremenians were just as bad to the Turks and that they were both equally to blame for the events that occurred between the two nations during the start of World War I. Armanoush takes pride in being an Armenian and all that she has become due to the strength of these ancestors, while Aysa’s past does not mean as much to her because she does not know as much about her heritage.
Nationalism is a theme that is presented in The Bastard of Istanbul that also directly relates to the history of the Turks and the Armenians. The Armenians of the Balkans felt very strong ties to their independence from the Turks during the years leading up to World War I. Also, young Ottoman Turks set up secret societies to try and attain their independence in order to have restoration of the Ottoman Bill of Rights through the use of newspapers and propaganda. Armanoush personifies these ideas through her pride in being an Armenian. She tries her best to keep her identity as an Armenian by keeping her name Armanoush, rather than the name “Amy” that her mother likes to call her. Also, Armanoush’s family always reminds her of her Armenian heritage, just as Asya’s grandmother reminds her of her Turkish heritage.
In conclusion, The Bastard of Istanbul describes various issues of Turkish and Armenian life that occurred during the final years of the rule of the Ottoman Empire. Through the use of Asya, Armanoush, and their families, the main ideas of the lifestyles and heritages are presented to the reader in the form of a fictional novel.

Zayni Barakat: Paper

Zayni Barakat

Mamluk Egypt existed from 1250-1517. Mamluks were an elite military core who were captured as slaves and turned into an army for the Sultan. The Mamluks, after they were captured, were converted to Islam, and trained and educated the Islamic way. After proving loyalty to the Sultan, Mamluks were able to earn freedom and rise through military ranks. Mamluks could earn their positions, and eventually be able to hold land or even attain a high social status. The Mamluks were able to keep the power hungry and ever expanding Ottomon Empire out of Egypt during their reign, a feat that was seen as impossible for other parts of the world.
The novel Zayni Barakat by Gamal al-Ghitani revolves around the Mamluk reign of Egypt in the 1516. The story revolves around the role of muhtasib, or market inspector. It is his role to perform duties in the market such as monitoring prices and such, but also is involved in moral affairs, enforcing the city of Cairo to do what is right. The purpose of this paper is to relay how corrupt the Mamluk society was, using the novel as a source.
Through the point of view of various people inhabiting Cairo, the author expresses how Zayni Barakat dealt with the situations of Mamluk Cairo when it was in its final decline. Zayni Barakat finds himself replacing Ali ibn Abi al-Jud, a muhtasib who is much less loved and

accepted by the people. It is evident that Zayni Barakat takes his role seriously, as he makes speeches to the people on his own, something his predecessor would not do. One character, Visconti Gianti, a Venetian traveler, comes to Cairo in 1516 and describes it as being the “face of a stranger”[1] and unlike itself from the other times he had visited the city. He talks of how the city of Cairo is in ruins after the Ottomon Empire had invaded and destroyed what the Mamluks had built up. Gianti introduces the character of Zayni Barakat. He explains that Zayni Barakat is loved by the people. In Gianti’s eyes, Zayni Barakat truly fulfills his role as muhtasib, doing things such as defending a slave girl who was being used as a sexual object and punishing anyone who unfairly increases the price on anything in the market.
One important factor that Zayni Barakat has to deal with involves the Head of Spies, Zakariyya ibn Radi. There are various reasons why Zakaryiyya ibn Radi is an obstacle in the wa of Zayni Barakat governing over what is right. For example, he uses a group of spies to try and control everything in the Egyptian Empire. There are even instances when Zakariyya tries to find scandals dealing with the Sultan. An example of this comes when he sends a spy out to find out if a young boy, Sha’ban is having sexual relations with the Sultan. Also, Zakariyya starts rumors regarding Zayni Barakat. He feels threatened by Zayni Barakat’s power and tries to overthrow him in these ways.
The novel also relays how Zayni Barakat finds difficulty in trying to improve an Egyptian society that is unwilling to be changed. An example of this comes with the lighting of Cairo at night. Zayni Barakat makes it a law that lamps are to be lit in the streets of Cairo during the

night. He believes that lamps will keep away evil doers and provide light for people wandering along the road at night. He also believes that the lamps will keep the Mamluks away from innocent Egyptians and help them to not be attacked by the Mamluks during the night when it is easiest to do so. The people of Cairo accepted Zayni Barakat’s idea to do so, but only because he had proved to be a positive influence on the city before. They eventually spoke out, and the lamps were taken away. This shows the relentless attitude that Egypt had to the idea of a changing society.
Another law that Zayni Barakat enacted in order to help better improve the society was that idea that all Mamluks would be required to wear veils. Toward the end of the novel, after the Ottomons take over the city of Cairo, the Mamluks are not seen wearing veils anymore. This is just another example of how the society of Cairo made it almost impossible for it to change.
Zayni Barakat is different from other rulers of his time in other ways. In addition to having a genuine deep care for those he governs over, Zayni Barakat takes part in ruling himself. He does not use spies such as everyone else does. He also makes it so that he is accessible to the people of Egypt, assuring them that if they have a problem with his ruling, they are able to come to him and express their discomfort with their current situations.
In the novel, the society of Egypt under Mamluk control is portrayed as absolutely miserable. Aside from the fact that “death, cold and heavy, hung in the air”[2] and the fact that women and children had a constant fear of being raped, society proved itself to have strict and what can be considered unfair rules and serious and dangerous repercussions for the breaking of

these rules. An example of this can be seen in an announcement revealing that Zayni Barakat had been returning to Cairo from a visit to Southern Egypt. It is announced to the people that Zayni Barakat is returning from his journey and that it is required of all people to come out of their homes and jobs and welcome him. It is also stated that anyone who does not will be “severely punished” [3] with consequences. Also throughout the novel, it is relayed to the reader that there are various consequences and punishments if one decides to speak out against the Sultan or any other government official. Punishments included being impaled, roasted slowly over a fire, having one’s hand, foot, or other body parts cut off, and various other awful ways of having pain inflicted upon oneself. These are just a few of the various hardships that people in Egypt had to deal with during the time of the government of Zayni Barakat. No matter how loved and accepted he was by the people, society was corrupted and harsh conditions prevailed that Egyptians were forced to live in and abide by.
In conclusion, Zayni Barakat displays through fiction what Mamluk Egypt was like during the declining years of the Mamluk Empire. The Ottomon Empire eventually did invade in 1517, but the Mamluks were still able to continue to engage in some sort of power. In 1798, however, Napoleon defeated the Mamluk armies completely at the Battle of the Pyramid, and the Mamluk reign came to an end.




Bibliography
1. al-Ghitani, Gamal. Zayni Barakat. Cairo. The American University in Cairo, 2004.
[1] Gamal al-Ghitani, Zayni Barakat (Cairo, The American University in Cairo Press: 2004), 1
[2] Gamal al-Ghitani, Zayni Barakat (Cairo, The American University in Cairo Press: 2004), 239
[3] Gamal al-Ghitani, Zayni Barakat (Cairo, The American University in Cairo Press: 2004), 150

Reza Shah

During the reign of Reza Shah, women underwent many drastic, yet positive, changes. Women went from being expected to work in the home and bear children, to being able to become students and important members of the workforce. Reza Shah opened up schools for girls and also made it law that no woman shall wear a veil. Reza Shah did all he could to keep up with modernity, and in his eyes this meant dealing with women and the changing expectations of them around the world. Reza Shah paved the way for women to have more freedoms and becoem more prominent members of society. While roles for women are even more different today, I definitely feel that Reza Shah set the stage for women to emerge as important people in the Middle Eastern world.

Bringing Back the Troops

A classmate of mine recently posted a link to this video:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2009/04/27/perry.iraq.suicide.shrine.cnn

The video questions as to whether or not the US will be able to remove the troops from the Middle East by June 30th. This is going to be a very difficult task. The war and violence in the Middle East regarding Sunnis and Shii'tes goes hand in hand with religion. I believe that as long as there is a passion for religion, the war will continue to go on, violence will ensue, and if the US thinks it still important for troops to occupy the Middle East in efforts to supress the violence, I believe that this will be impossible for our troops to be removed by June 30th. A peace agreement must be made, and I'm not sure whether or not either side of the conflict is ready to accomplish that feat.

Revolutions

The Iranian Revolution was shockingly similar to the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution. The Iranian Revolution, like the others, posed a threat to its neighboring Middle Eastern countries. The purpose of this revolution was to change the government, just as the French Revolution wanted to fix the class systems and the Russian Revolution did as well with the Bolesheviks. Although the French Revolution occurred in 1789, the Russian Revolution occurred in 1917, and the Iranian Revolution occurred in 1979, it is so interesting to see the patterns. Revolutions were necessary in all of these areas, and all three of these revolutions had taught other regimes what they needed to look for when partaking in revolution. A pattern is found through all three of these revolutions that comes with successful change in government.

Deir Yassin

The massacre at Deir Yassin on Palestinian citizens by Jewish rebel groups and armed forces marked the beginning of the exodus of Palestinians that occurred in 1948, affecting 750,000-900,000 men, women, and children. The documentary on the Deir Yassin foundation provides insight into the horrors that were inflicted upon innocent citizens during this time. Arabs living in Deir Yassin were “driven out simply because they were not Jewish.” Conveniently for the Jews, Deir Yassin was located right between Tel Aviv and Jersusalem, and was desired to be a Jewish land.

I found it particularly interesting that one month prior to this massacre, the village of Deir Yassin had signed a peace treaty with the neighboring Jewish town of Givat Sha’ul. Givat Sha’ul became the town to play a main role in the massacre. Women, children, and men over 60 were slaughtered within one hour, and men and boys were then marched through the streets of Jaffa Road to the sound of applause by Jews that this village had been taken over. These victims were mercilessly executued.

This was a large reason for the present day Arab-Israeli conflict. Propaganda played a large role in the impact of the massacre. Newspapers, such as the New York Times had advertised that more numbers of victims were killed than actually were. For Arabs, this exaggeration was an even bigger cry for help. For Jews, this was an even bigger warning to Arabs to flee their lands.

Today, Jewish groups hardly even recognize that this was a massacre. As shown in the documentary, the mental health clinic that currently inhabits the lands of Deir Yassin cannot even be filmed. The Jews are trying hard to hide that this place was ever even in Arab hands.

Deir Yassin is a huge factor in the current day struggle over Palestinian territory. Had this massacre never taken place, would the fight today be as bad? Would Arabs be as passionate about fighting for a land that is supposedly rightfully theirs? Would Jews be able to build upon that massacre to have the incentive to fight even more today?

The Bastard of Istanbul

The Bastard of Istanbul was most definitely the most interesting and enjoyable form of literature that we have read thus far in class. The novel was able to outline what it means to be a woman in Armenian or Turkish society through characters that were easy to follow. The novel had its way of keeping the reader wanting more while still informing the reader of the situations that really did occur during the time of the Ottoman Empire. The Armenian Genocide was a brutal slaying of Armenian intellect and citizens, as shown through Armanoush's family and their stories of suffering. It is also true that present day Turks do not associate themselves with the Turks who were responsible for the genocide, just as was shown was Asya and her family.

The Bastard of Istanbul further enriched my knowledge of Turkish society and is a great accopanyment to learning the lessons in class.

Slavery?

Should slavery in the Middle East during the time of the Ottomon Empire really be called slavery?

The conception of slavery that Americans have encompasses the harsh and brutual conditions that countless men, women, and children obtained from Africa suffered during the time of the discovery of the Americas until the time of the Civil War. They faced disease, merciless hours of working, abuse, disgusting and dehumanizing treatment, and so much more. Slaves in America were seen as property.

Slaves in the Ottomon Empire knew a whole different life than those unfortunate enough to suffer through the American concept of being enslaved. When taken from places such as the Ivory Coast of Africa, slaves found in the Ottomon Empire better lives than they had seen before in their homes. Slaves were able to have a place in society, whether it be owning property or even holding some type of power. As shown in The Imperial Harem, the children of a sultan were almost always going to be children of slave mothers! In America, it wasn't practically impossible for a slave child to be anything important in the society unless they were able to escape to the North. In the Ottomon Empire, was there even a reason to try and run away?

True, slaves were taken away from their homes and forced to fight for the Ottomons, but the Ottomons had a strategic way of engaging in the act of takin slaves. Ottomon laws drew up a "human tax" in which at least one boy of some households was to be given to the Ottomons to be raised in the Empire. The boys were strategically placed and trained far from their homelands to destroy any prior attachment they had to the place of their births. The boys were so inspired by the sultan to be completely loyal that once they were trained, slaves were a vital part of the fighting that eventually gave way to the sucesses of the Empire.

So, even though these people were forced to live under the conditions that set forth by the Ottomons, was it really that bad of a life? Should it really be called slavery?

During the colloquiam discussion on The Imperial Harem, the question was posed that, had we not known what slavery was in American history, would we even call what these people were put through actual slavery? My answer is no. For people living in some of the harshest places in Africa even as slaves in their homeland, this could have been the biggest breaks of their lives. Africans had a common idea to enslave their fellow Africans, and getting away to the Ottomon Empire could have been the answer to their prayers.

While all forced living situations do have a downside, I personally think that the slaves of the Ottomon Empire pretty much had it made.

The Ottomon Empire

The success of the Ottomon Empire is of a particularly interesting sort. The Ottomons used various means to take over the territories that they felt would be of the most significance to their growing empire. Interestingly enough, one of the main concepts that the Ottomons carried out was the adaptation of new ideas used to their advantage in the ongoing fighting and warfare. For example, the Ottomons introduced gunpowder into their strategies. Hardly anyone in the Middle East or Europe had known what the concept of using gunpowder entailed, or the damage that it could do on the people affected by it.

This idea made the Ottomon Empire be able to destroy opponants, such as the famed downfall of Constantinople in the Byzantine Empire from April 4, 1453 to May 29, 1453. In addition to gunpowder, the Ottomons also showed what I believe to be extremely intelligent ideas with regards to the building of a castle to blockade ships, a ramp to get over a water barrier, and a turret to allow access over the wall protecting the city.

In these various ways, the Ottmons show modern day intelligence over 500 years ago. To think that people in the 1400s were able to use their minds and resources in such relevent ways such a long time ago is extremely impressive and perhaps the most important reasons the Ottomon Empire was so sucessful for such a long while.

Islamic Culture/ Documentary --> Islam: Empire of Faith

I hadn't known as much about Islamic Culture as I learned from the background learned in class. I found it particularly interesting how the Ottomon Empire had so many situations and conflicts fall into place to allow for their great success. Various migrations from their ancestors, the perfect timing of the reign on the Mongol Soldiers and their eventual downfall from with contribution from the Black Death, and the Crusades causing the Byzantine Empire to never be the same gave way for the eventual success of the Ottomons. It was interesting to see how all of these events were related in making the eventual success of the Muslim people a possibility.

An interesting fact that I found out in this week's studies came with our studies of Mohammad. I hadn't known that Mohammad was given the honor of helping to reconstruct the Kabba when it was destroyed. This shows the reverence the Muslims had for Mohammad even before his initial legacy took off.

Peace, Propaganda, and The Promised Land (2003)

The ongoing conflict in the Middle East between Palestinians and Israelis has lasted for centuries. Being an American exposed to the American news and media, I have, unfortunately, always been brought up seeing the Palestinians as evil doers, unnecessarily attacking Israel with suicide bombs and other crimes. The documentary, Peace, Propaganda, and the Promised Land, makes a very valid point with strong details that, because of the alliance between America and Israel, American newscasters and journalists are swayed to portray stories as Israel being a martyr and Palestine being a terrorist. While it is true that Palestinians do display violent behavior, is it ostentatious that Israel can certainly be to blame.

Until seeing the documentary, I had never been interested enough to watch the news and learn about this matter. Truthfully, I had never even known that Israel had a military occupation in Palestine. I didn't know, either, that Israel is now the fourth largest military for "a country the size of New Jersey" thanks to Americans helping both economically and militarily. American newscasters will explain an uprising as "Palestinian Hatred", while the reason that the Palestinians could have been revolting violently is due to Israel destroying 2,000 houses and leaving families (including women and children) completely helpless, or blocking an ambulance so a Palestinian women could not give birth, or even simply having a curfew for Israelis that keeps them stuck in their homes for days. The documentary showed me that the "Palestinian Hatred" can sometimes only be a revolt against oppression by a much larger and more powerful country.

Both Palestine and Israel have serious issues that need to be dealt with and solved before any more lives get taken. Chaos ensues with violence and with words. But really, with America's help today, who's really fighting the battle? The soldiers and civilians, or CBS and NBC?

Clearly, both play a huge role. At least for naive eighteen year olds like myself.