After witnessing commencement at Dickinson College this afternoon it was announced that a Dickinson Alum had received a Fulbright Scholarship to pursue a Masters in Egypt this coming year. I'm not exactly sure how to interpret the relation between this and in February with the revolution that occurred. But I think that it is pretty amazing that a fellow Dickinsonian, not even one year after the College had to pull their two students from Cairo will be studying there in the fall.
Just felt the need to get that down and out there, maybe after this all sinks in I will re-post. Also will post once I am able to digest Obama's speech from last week in connection to the upcoming APAIC conference and its meaning etc...
Feel free to help me draw meaning.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Osama's Death
May 1st, the main face of terrorism has been killed. Osama bin Laden is dead. After a 10 year search for him through Afghanistan and Pakistan a US Navy Seal team caught up with him and it ended in a firefight inside his security compound located about 30 miles outside the capital city of Islamabad, Pakistan.
The reality of the situation is that although he is dead, it really doesn't change much in regards to the fact that terrorism is not over. In fact in the aftermath one can expect a rash of attacks in response to the death. The reason for this is that al-Qaeda is a transnational organization, and while bin Laden was the leader, he was more of a figurehead. There are various offshoot terrorist organizations and cells that operated independently of direction from bin Laden. The only real impact of Osama's death is that his image and weight can no longer used for propaganda against the US, Israel, and other western countries.
For example the NBA has increased security at their playoffs games, by adding metal detectors to games. Whether or not there is a legitimate threat of al-Qaeda attacking the Bulls-Hawks game, it is still interesting to notice the varying responses. Another response in the sports world was the outbreak of USA USA USA at the Phillies Met's game, which had gone into the 14th inning. Than probably the most covered response by the media was over the outbreak of demonstrations/celebrations/gatherings/riots (whatever you want to characterize them as) at college campuses across the country.
The analytical explanation that I can give for the outbreaks across college campuses nationally is the a sense of catharsis. This is not to say that I necessarily approve of the actions taken by some of the students at least on Dickinson's campus but it is important to put it into context. First of all what occurred at Dickinson was not a riot, there were many campuses across the country that truly had to deal with student riots. I believe it can best described as a catharsis, because members of my generation were exposed to the images of the towers falling and people jumping out of the building rather than waiting for them to fall. Those are images that are ingrained into my mind and that I can vividly recall. The person responsible for those attacks was killed by a military action that many people have been waiting for for 10 years. With that it is also important to point out that bin Laden killed thousands of people who were not Americans. And now that he has been brought to justice it is a weight off their shoulders.
The reality of the situation is that although he is dead, it really doesn't change much in regards to the fact that terrorism is not over. In fact in the aftermath one can expect a rash of attacks in response to the death. The reason for this is that al-Qaeda is a transnational organization, and while bin Laden was the leader, he was more of a figurehead. There are various offshoot terrorist organizations and cells that operated independently of direction from bin Laden. The only real impact of Osama's death is that his image and weight can no longer used for propaganda against the US, Israel, and other western countries.
For example the NBA has increased security at their playoffs games, by adding metal detectors to games. Whether or not there is a legitimate threat of al-Qaeda attacking the Bulls-Hawks game, it is still interesting to notice the varying responses. Another response in the sports world was the outbreak of USA USA USA at the Phillies Met's game, which had gone into the 14th inning. Than probably the most covered response by the media was over the outbreak of demonstrations/celebrations/gatherings/riots (whatever you want to characterize them as) at college campuses across the country.
The analytical explanation that I can give for the outbreaks across college campuses nationally is the a sense of catharsis. This is not to say that I necessarily approve of the actions taken by some of the students at least on Dickinson's campus but it is important to put it into context. First of all what occurred at Dickinson was not a riot, there were many campuses across the country that truly had to deal with student riots. I believe it can best described as a catharsis, because members of my generation were exposed to the images of the towers falling and people jumping out of the building rather than waiting for them to fall. Those are images that are ingrained into my mind and that I can vividly recall. The person responsible for those attacks was killed by a military action that many people have been waiting for for 10 years. With that it is also important to point out that bin Laden killed thousands of people who were not Americans. And now that he has been brought to justice it is a weight off their shoulders.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Peace in Palestine
So as the title suggests yes there has been peace in Palestine. However the title is not meant to imply that there has been an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict. What I am referring to is the agreement that was reached between the leaders of Fatah (West Bank) and Hamas (Gaza), which have been separate entities since the civil war in 2007 shortly following the election of Hamas.
There have been varying reactions to this agreement, Benjamin Netanyahu (Israel's PM) has come out to say that Abbas can't expect there to reach an peace agreement with Israel while associated with Hamas, which has been classified as terrorist organization by the US, Israel, and the EU. However, the Guardian article suggests that this new agreement gives the Palestinians greater bargaining power to lobby in front of the UN in September for independent declaration of statehood.
Now those are two opinions and it is way to soon to tell what the future holds. This story was just broken today, I found out about from @MJRosenberg on twitter, and I'll continue to follow it. But my opinion is that while yes Hamas is a terrorist organization that lobs rockets at Israel, there must be some sense of hope that this new alliance can be beneficial to the peace process rather than detrimental as Netanyahu suggests. Another thing to take into consideration is funding and aid, currently the US does provide aid to the West Bank, however since Hamas took control it cut off its supply to Gaza. With this in mind will the US's policy towards Palestinian territories change at all?
Please weigh in and discuss....
There have been varying reactions to this agreement, Benjamin Netanyahu (Israel's PM) has come out to say that Abbas can't expect there to reach an peace agreement with Israel while associated with Hamas, which has been classified as terrorist organization by the US, Israel, and the EU. However, the Guardian article suggests that this new agreement gives the Palestinians greater bargaining power to lobby in front of the UN in September for independent declaration of statehood.
Now those are two opinions and it is way to soon to tell what the future holds. This story was just broken today, I found out about from @MJRosenberg on twitter, and I'll continue to follow it. But my opinion is that while yes Hamas is a terrorist organization that lobs rockets at Israel, there must be some sense of hope that this new alliance can be beneficial to the peace process rather than detrimental as Netanyahu suggests. Another thing to take into consideration is funding and aid, currently the US does provide aid to the West Bank, however since Hamas took control it cut off its supply to Gaza. With this in mind will the US's policy towards Palestinian territories change at all?
Please weigh in and discuss....
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Libyan Civil War
The crisis in Libya has continued now for months with seemingly no end in sight. It has grabbed the media's and US attention while unrest continues throughout the Arab world. It seems like half of Gaddafi's government has defected while at the same time his loyalist military is still decimating the Libyan rebels.
This brings to question whether the international community is doing enough and what actually can be done by other countries. The "no-fly zone" that was imposed awhile ago has seemed to help but has not done enough to turn the tide in the favor of the rebels. Recently Obama has announced that armed predator drones will be deployed over Libya in order to aid the rebels. With the military technology today it begs the question why not just find and assassinate Gaddafi? My reasoning is that killing Gaddafi would only send the country farther into Civil War. I believe that the only option would be to somehow force Gaddafi to step down and force a transfer of power to a coalition government until a permanent solution can be agreed on.
Any thoughts? Discuss....
This brings to question whether the international community is doing enough and what actually can be done by other countries. The "no-fly zone" that was imposed awhile ago has seemed to help but has not done enough to turn the tide in the favor of the rebels. Recently Obama has announced that armed predator drones will be deployed over Libya in order to aid the rebels. With the military technology today it begs the question why not just find and assassinate Gaddafi? My reasoning is that killing Gaddafi would only send the country farther into Civil War. I believe that the only option would be to somehow force Gaddafi to step down and force a transfer of power to a coalition government until a permanent solution can be agreed on.
Any thoughts? Discuss....
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Palestinian Statehood
According to a report I first saw on Al-Jazeera the UN stated that the Palestinian Authority (PA) is capable of governing their own state, and the only thing holding them is Israeli occupation. I do not agree with this assessment, for a few reasons. My main point of contention is that the land the PA is requesting for it's new state include the Gaza strip, which it doesn't control. And in recent events it has been the actions of Hamas in Gaza that have been disrupting the peace process. Granting statehood to the PA when they don't have control of the area they are requesting is a ridiculous proposition. According to the article, Israel occupies 62% of Gaza and if there were to be a Palestinian state Israel would withdraw and the violence would likely escalate.
As I am writing this blog post I realize that there are too many problems with certifying the PA as a government ready to assert control over an autonomous state. Other problems include borders, and economic viability etc.
As I am writing this blog post I realize that there are too many problems with certifying the PA as a government ready to assert control over an autonomous state. Other problems include borders, and economic viability etc.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Israel and Gaza
Recently there has been an uptick in cross-border violence between Hamas in Gaza and Israel. Highlighted by an anti-tank rocket fired at an Israeli school bus and the subsequent (expected) heavy retaliation by the Israeli military. As of today Ehud Barak has stated that Israel would observe a truce if Hamas stops firing into southern Israel. Now at this point it is wait and see, hopefully the violence will die down and some sort of normality and calm will take its place, but one could only hope.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Framing and Censorship
Recently I came across a video that was posted on my friends Facebook with the title, "A story you won't see in Arab media". This raised the question of what would the video contain that wouldn't be shown in the Arab media. The video's caption reads "the story of a Palestinian who was brutally attacked by Hamas and was saved by Israeli Soldiers" and was posted on Youtube by the user JewishMessiah.
With all of this information with out even clicking on the link one can draw conclusions on the message that the video is trying to convey. It would be reasonable to conclude that the user is Pro-Israel, based on their user name and that they are attempting for the video to contribute to the ongoing debate on the Arab-Israeli conflict.
The issue of framing and censorship come into play when considering the claim made by the user that the video would not be something viewable in the Arab media. The assumption of censorship is another thing entirely, but before watching the video the viewer is able to prejudge the content.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)