In history, during war time, it is common to have "casualties of war" but some of these casualties are the result of the abuse of power from the soldiers against communities and neighborhoods that are pacific and they are not involved in the armed conflict. In other words, soldiers take the upper hand in the advantage of carrying a gun. The atrocities committed during war or turmoil sometimes are guarded very secretly, so people out of the area would not know what incident had happen.
In many cases presented during the History of Modern Middle East we have seen all of the massacres, genocide, killings and eradication of human being with complete disregard of justice.
First, the Armenian genocide that happen between 1915 and 1923 killing about 1.5 million Armenians in the hand of the Turkish army. Incident that have been denied by Turks for 90 or so years and it is still refused by them. In Germany the Holocaust, this incident was carried on by Adolph Hitler an army general that was known for his determination and aspirations of world dominance, and extermination of the weak race.
Now, in Deir Yassin village about 750 Palestinian residents were killed with no reason or motive.
Ironically one month prior to the massacre the residents of the village had signed a pact of non-aggression with a neighboring Jewish village of Givat Sha'ul. But the intervention of the people from the Jewish village avoid the execution of the remaining people in the Deir Yassin village. The massacre took place in April 9, 1948, almost 51 years ago, it seems that when Jewish communities were killed in German hands and concentration campus, Jewish were likewise were killing Palestinians occupying their territory and displacing them in order to have more land to settle their communities.
The cemetery, where Palestinian people is buried, has no entrance, no importance because the cemetery is not Jewish. People can pass by and do not even know there is a cemetery.
This attack that started only to take control of the village is another part of history that from the 1900 to 1950 it seems that mass killings where a good idea for dominance and extermination of the enemy. A good idea for expansion of territory, show power to potential enemies, and very effective to drive people out of their homes.
Now Arabs have to suffer an occupation from people that do not have a home or place to go. These people,Jewish, now claim independence along the way and intentions to form a state.They are forcing people out of their land and homes violating their rights and by force to reconstruct their homes in someone else land.
IS THIS CORRECT???
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Palestinian-Israeli Forum
A few weeks ago, Manhattanville College students had the opportunity to hear about the Israeli-Palestine conflict search for peace and agreement. The representatives from this region in conflict were very clear on the objectives of their reunion as well as the current position of their respective regions, and the willingness and effort to achieve the peace agreement between the two of them.
The key players representing the regions in this conflict are Saeb Erakat, Chief Negotiator for Palestine, and Avi Gil, former Director-General of Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Israel's Ministry of Regional Cooperation. They talk about the sensitivity and volatile stance of their regions and accept the need of a third party involvement to set the environment for the negotiations to take place.
A very interesting topic since the history behind the players and the conflict itself is extensive, since the British Mandate and the Balfour Declaration, that has not been resolved for almost 3 generations. The Palestine negotiator project the conflict as a transition that is difficult to do and hard to achieve, but necessary for the health of the two regions. He set a sample involving the new generation and how the two of them can get along perfectly. The young generation, in the example, which were females, from Palestine and Israel, called each other regarding the welfare of the other concerning a flood that had happen a few years ago. The concern was from the Israeli friend, who was preoccupied for her Palestinian friend.
Given this information it is clear that young generations of Israelis and Palestinians can get along together, but the question is why the older generation can't accept each other???Probably the meaning of the conflict is getting lost through generations.
Well, it is a fact that peace will be here soon and according to both of the speakers the job does not end there. It fact, it is where it begins, signing a paper will mean nothing if we do not make the effort and make it happen.
The key players representing the regions in this conflict are Saeb Erakat, Chief Negotiator for Palestine, and Avi Gil, former Director-General of Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Israel's Ministry of Regional Cooperation. They talk about the sensitivity and volatile stance of their regions and accept the need of a third party involvement to set the environment for the negotiations to take place.
A very interesting topic since the history behind the players and the conflict itself is extensive, since the British Mandate and the Balfour Declaration, that has not been resolved for almost 3 generations. The Palestine negotiator project the conflict as a transition that is difficult to do and hard to achieve, but necessary for the health of the two regions. He set a sample involving the new generation and how the two of them can get along perfectly. The young generation, in the example, which were females, from Palestine and Israel, called each other regarding the welfare of the other concerning a flood that had happen a few years ago. The concern was from the Israeli friend, who was preoccupied for her Palestinian friend.
Given this information it is clear that young generations of Israelis and Palestinians can get along together, but the question is why the older generation can't accept each other???Probably the meaning of the conflict is getting lost through generations.
Well, it is a fact that peace will be here soon and according to both of the speakers the job does not end there. It fact, it is where it begins, signing a paper will mean nothing if we do not make the effort and make it happen.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Islamic Religion stance in Honor Killing
Several weeks ago a classmate of mine held an interesting forum on a topic that i have not hear about it, honor killing. It is happening everywhere. it consist of the murder of the females family members who are seen as dishonoring their families through real or perceived acts of indiscretion, such as premarital sexual relations, marital infidelity, unapproved dating, elopement, divorce without consent of family and even rape. The murder act is committed and has to be supported by males in the family.
"The practice of honor killings has absolutely no sanction in the Qur'an, t he Prophetic practice or the evolved systems of Islamic law. It is purely tribal and cultural practice. It is based on ignorance and disregard of moral laws. According to Sharia, the Islamic Law, the only circumstance a person might be charged and put to death is when a married person commits adultery. It applies to male and female. It does have to be confirmed at least by four people that the intercourse occur or their testimony would be rejected. The only purpose of this is to avoid false accusations. There is no such concept in Islam as called "honor killing". "Islam holds every soul in high esteem and does not allow any transgression upon it". Islamic law, Shariah, does not justify honor killing because people are not permitted to take the law into their own hands.
"The practice of honor killings has absolutely no sanction in the Qur'an, t he Prophetic practice or the evolved systems of Islamic law. It is purely tribal and cultural practice. It is based on ignorance and disregard of moral laws. According to Sharia, the Islamic Law, the only circumstance a person might be charged and put to death is when a married person commits adultery. It applies to male and female. It does have to be confirmed at least by four people that the intercourse occur or their testimony would be rejected. The only purpose of this is to avoid false accusations. There is no such concept in Islam as called "honor killing". "Islam holds every soul in high esteem and does not allow any transgression upon it". Islamic law, Shariah, does not justify honor killing because people are not permitted to take the law into their own hands.
Monday, March 9, 2009
I am so sorry Wrong website
i recently saw i made a mistake placing a web link. please my apologies and this is the right link. again im sorry to all
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/
just click on any of the icons on the left that says CLICK TO PLAY it is interesting information
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/
just click on any of the icons on the left that says CLICK TO PLAY it is interesting information
The Hatt-i-Humayun and Hatt-i-Sharif of Gulhane
The Hatt-i-Humayun Proclamation (1856) is a confirmation of what the Hatt-i-Sharif of Gulhane established 17 years before (1839). It comes directly from the sultan’s ideas and it is directed to the inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire, Muslim and non-Muslim, man and woman. It is not like other proclamations, the ottoman document did consider woman involvement. Perhaps the sultan considered the potential that women could bring together with men to the empire’s production. Perhaps the document just reflected the fear remaining on the sultan from the powerful western European Empire influence pressing on the neighboring ottoman provinces. The Hatt-i-Humayun Proclamation is created to make sure the reinforcement of the reforms establishment, consolidation and effects and restructure of its military and social system as well as religious stability promised in previous decrees and proclamations and inclusion of these provinces.
It confirms the previous proclamations and of course promises made by the sultan’s ancestors over the Ottoman Empire. It addresses many points that the Ottoman Empire was not aware before or was simply not important to consider. The release of this document offered a religious security, for non-Muslim religions, mostly Christians and Jews, and promised equality in education, government appointments, administration of justice making people sovereign and gave them power of decision whether to participate in the reformed Ottoman military system or not.
The Hatt-i-Humayun Proclamation is the sultan’s promise to Ottoman population. It tried to create citizens and considered officially the non-Muslim religions as part of the ottoman system instead of just forcing their participation just because they were taken over by the sultan’s army. This time the proclamation includes every single person without discrimination of gender or religious beliefs, or age. The document is revolutionary for its time. It takes care of the discrimination issue and preference in between Muslim and non-Muslim religions. It promised that court disputes will no longer be Muslim-based religious legislation; instead court legislation will be directed by mixed courts, which is the inclusion of non-Muslim members into the court legislation. The proclamation gave the people the right to establish their own school system. It was more advance and covers specifically the points of religion and civic duties that, compared with the U.S. bill of rights, are just left out. This proclamation denotes the French and British influence since they helped the Ottoman Empire to fight against the European power and their modernism.
The Hatt-i-Humayun Proclamation included Christians and Jews communities giving them the choice of joining the army, instead of forcing their participation as it was done before. It was a big advance for the reformation purposes, possibly viewed by other empires. Consequently it served as a sample to neighbor governments. Leverage amongst all ottoman population was promised by the Ottoman sultan. He basically offered to treat everyone equally, not like the past emperors or like in devshirme period of time, when janissaries take the oldest son of the Christian communities that were conquered and forced them into military life style. Now new generation of janissaries were going to be a mix in religion and beliefs and not forcibly converted into Muslim religion.
The Hatt-i-Humayun Proclamation of 1856 involves all the aspects that society needed to synchronize with the new ottoman system in order to function as a whole. It promises individuality, security, ownership, opportunity to have options and choose from them respecting the individual decision without retaliation from emperor’s institutions and its members. As a result the non-Muslim religions of the Ottoman Empire were able to live and work more freely in their homelands. These reforms and freedoms promised in the proclamation made them wealthy and vital component of the Empire they lived in.
It confirms the previous proclamations and of course promises made by the sultan’s ancestors over the Ottoman Empire. It addresses many points that the Ottoman Empire was not aware before or was simply not important to consider. The release of this document offered a religious security, for non-Muslim religions, mostly Christians and Jews, and promised equality in education, government appointments, administration of justice making people sovereign and gave them power of decision whether to participate in the reformed Ottoman military system or not.
The Hatt-i-Humayun Proclamation is the sultan’s promise to Ottoman population. It tried to create citizens and considered officially the non-Muslim religions as part of the ottoman system instead of just forcing their participation just because they were taken over by the sultan’s army. This time the proclamation includes every single person without discrimination of gender or religious beliefs, or age. The document is revolutionary for its time. It takes care of the discrimination issue and preference in between Muslim and non-Muslim religions. It promised that court disputes will no longer be Muslim-based religious legislation; instead court legislation will be directed by mixed courts, which is the inclusion of non-Muslim members into the court legislation. The proclamation gave the people the right to establish their own school system. It was more advance and covers specifically the points of religion and civic duties that, compared with the U.S. bill of rights, are just left out. This proclamation denotes the French and British influence since they helped the Ottoman Empire to fight against the European power and their modernism.
The Hatt-i-Humayun Proclamation included Christians and Jews communities giving them the choice of joining the army, instead of forcing their participation as it was done before. It was a big advance for the reformation purposes, possibly viewed by other empires. Consequently it served as a sample to neighbor governments. Leverage amongst all ottoman population was promised by the Ottoman sultan. He basically offered to treat everyone equally, not like the past emperors or like in devshirme period of time, when janissaries take the oldest son of the Christian communities that were conquered and forced them into military life style. Now new generation of janissaries were going to be a mix in religion and beliefs and not forcibly converted into Muslim religion.
The Hatt-i-Humayun Proclamation of 1856 involves all the aspects that society needed to synchronize with the new ottoman system in order to function as a whole. It promises individuality, security, ownership, opportunity to have options and choose from them respecting the individual decision without retaliation from emperor’s institutions and its members. As a result the non-Muslim religions of the Ottoman Empire were able to live and work more freely in their homelands. These reforms and freedoms promised in the proclamation made them wealthy and vital component of the Empire they lived in.
Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World
During the Spring break week, I had time to watch some movies and i happen to find one that interested me. The movie is about a actor that is sent to research the comedy in the Muslim world and investigate what make them laugh.
First he goes to New Delhi. The actor performs in a theater that is lack of the basic needs to hold an audience and a well performance. The theater that all Americans know is laid out with certain basic but fundamental needs. Just to mention a few to illustrate a sample, bathroom. It has to be accessible to people and close to the theater. A store to buy snacks and/or beverages. Backstage rooms, for actor to take a break, change clothes, or just relax a bit before the function. But while in America this is the standard basic need in New Delhi, the nearest to the theater bathroom is 3 block away, also a key is required to have access to it. No store to buy snacks and/or beverages, and actors do no have a place out of the audience view to even change their clothes, so the audience watched whatever is happening on stage even what they are not suppose to.
The central comedy researcher, that happens to be American, start his show telling some of the funniest jokes of his career, but nothing worked. Now the information given in this movie says that New Delhi Muslims do not have sense of humor and lack of basic need in building theater for a successful play.
Then he arranges a secret meeting in Pakistan with some comedians, they look more like soldiers and the surroundings were very hostile looking. This raised the nervousness and concern for safety, but the actor found that this people were different, Pakistanis pull a joke on him and he was greeted with laughs and humor. The actor performs the same act in front of the hostile looking audience and his jokes worked. Everyone was laughing with their guns on hand but laughing.
This interesting fact made me think on the other side of this people projected as highly violent .
Why is this contrast in people?Violent ones had a good sense of humor while peaceful ones had none? Is it real information or just the movie plot? that will be the questions that I will ask my professor next time we meet.
First he goes to New Delhi. The actor performs in a theater that is lack of the basic needs to hold an audience and a well performance. The theater that all Americans know is laid out with certain basic but fundamental needs. Just to mention a few to illustrate a sample, bathroom. It has to be accessible to people and close to the theater. A store to buy snacks and/or beverages. Backstage rooms, for actor to take a break, change clothes, or just relax a bit before the function. But while in America this is the standard basic need in New Delhi, the nearest to the theater bathroom is 3 block away, also a key is required to have access to it. No store to buy snacks and/or beverages, and actors do no have a place out of the audience view to even change their clothes, so the audience watched whatever is happening on stage even what they are not suppose to.
The central comedy researcher, that happens to be American, start his show telling some of the funniest jokes of his career, but nothing worked. Now the information given in this movie says that New Delhi Muslims do not have sense of humor and lack of basic need in building theater for a successful play.
Then he arranges a secret meeting in Pakistan with some comedians, they look more like soldiers and the surroundings were very hostile looking. This raised the nervousness and concern for safety, but the actor found that this people were different, Pakistanis pull a joke on him and he was greeted with laughs and humor. The actor performs the same act in front of the hostile looking audience and his jokes worked. Everyone was laughing with their guns on hand but laughing.
This interesting fact made me think on the other side of this people projected as highly violent .
Why is this contrast in people?Violent ones had a good sense of humor while peaceful ones had none? Is it real information or just the movie plot? that will be the questions that I will ask my professor next time we meet.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Video to Die in Jerusalem
After watching this video, my point of view of life changed. Most importantly my understanding of the conflicts in Palestinian-Israeli people. It is very difficult to take sides or to sympathize with either side. Both sides of the conflict, Israelis and Palestinians, have their reasons to fight. And right to protect their space and territory. It is ashamed that it has to be that way, killing each other.
But most difficult is to be the mother of the 17 yr. old victim Abigail Levy. Just to know that she was randomly selected by a suicidal person to make up a point on their Jihad, means to me to appreciate much more who we have around and the kind of living and freedom we have in America.
The Palestinian bomber's mother did not have an idea of her daughter's whereabouts. That fact could tell us as outsiders and analysts of the information that parents do not have an idea of what their kids are doing or thinking, what the plans are and what groups they are involved in. the kind of friends and all those questions that come up with a mother's testimonial like the one of the suicidal girl mother.
Again is it is obvious how the news and in this case video takes sides, why is it that news and media make such effort to take sides on the stories they present. Israeli girl Rachel Levy is portrayed as sweet, not daring to hurt anyone, while Ayat Al-Akhras is a martyr on her school, pictures of her with guns and being excused and justified for her actions and deviation from school. It is just projected bye the media as a crazy non sense behavior that is impossible to understand, but easy to reprimand. By this comment i meant that they focus only on the bombing attack but they do not see it as a reaction for an previous action from the other party. I just can think that the reason would be that Israeli and therefore Jewish community is dominant around the world and they are represented in more countries than Palestinians.
Israeli population is much more large and its members are holding positions in society of power and status. Most of the Israeli people I happen to know are holders of PhD's, Masters Degrees, Doctors, Lawyers or somehow they have influence and power in society while Palestinians are barely making it out day by day. To better explain my point is to point the huge Menorah that was placed in NYC commemorating the Hanukkah, or how some regular calendar shows a remainder of Jewish holidays and celebrations.
Changing the perspective a little and going back to the suicidal girl, her family seems to justify her actions by enforcing and promising to kill more people, and that lack of courage of others had push her to blow herself up. But how and what the point of killing people is? What is the purpose of having this kind of madness and ideology around? Maybe Palestinians think that murder is the only option to solve this problem. That radical answer is the only option they have. But as the movie goes along it is understandable that their "resistance" is demonstrated in art, word, or by violence in some cases.
But most difficult is to be the mother of the 17 yr. old victim Abigail Levy. Just to know that she was randomly selected by a suicidal person to make up a point on their Jihad, means to me to appreciate much more who we have around and the kind of living and freedom we have in America.
The Palestinian bomber's mother did not have an idea of her daughter's whereabouts. That fact could tell us as outsiders and analysts of the information that parents do not have an idea of what their kids are doing or thinking, what the plans are and what groups they are involved in. the kind of friends and all those questions that come up with a mother's testimonial like the one of the suicidal girl mother.
Again is it is obvious how the news and in this case video takes sides, why is it that news and media make such effort to take sides on the stories they present. Israeli girl Rachel Levy is portrayed as sweet, not daring to hurt anyone, while Ayat Al-Akhras is a martyr on her school, pictures of her with guns and being excused and justified for her actions and deviation from school. It is just projected bye the media as a crazy non sense behavior that is impossible to understand, but easy to reprimand. By this comment i meant that they focus only on the bombing attack but they do not see it as a reaction for an previous action from the other party. I just can think that the reason would be that Israeli and therefore Jewish community is dominant around the world and they are represented in more countries than Palestinians.
Israeli population is much more large and its members are holding positions in society of power and status. Most of the Israeli people I happen to know are holders of PhD's, Masters Degrees, Doctors, Lawyers or somehow they have influence and power in society while Palestinians are barely making it out day by day. To better explain my point is to point the huge Menorah that was placed in NYC commemorating the Hanukkah, or how some regular calendar shows a remainder of Jewish holidays and celebrations.
Changing the perspective a little and going back to the suicidal girl, her family seems to justify her actions by enforcing and promising to kill more people, and that lack of courage of others had push her to blow herself up. But how and what the point of killing people is? What is the purpose of having this kind of madness and ideology around? Maybe Palestinians think that murder is the only option to solve this problem. That radical answer is the only option they have. But as the movie goes along it is understandable that their "resistance" is demonstrated in art, word, or by violence in some cases.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
