http://apartheidweek.org/
This is an article about the annual celebration of Israeli Apartheid Week, published on Apartheid Week organization, based out of Canada. It connects to our [past] study of Palestine and lasting effects of the struggle between Jews and Arabs (it makes mention of "Israel's brutal assault against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip" etc.) and adds to what we learned because I didn't know there was an "Apartheid Week" celebrated in Israel and all over different cities and stuff; it shows how the struggle in their society is still leaving marks today/trying to be resolved. A possible limitation is the exact reliability/clarity of the source, as the promotional poster claims the dates of the celebration last One week (which would make sense since it's called Apartheid WEEK), but in the article it says March 1-14, so there is some discrepancy.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Thursday, May 6, 2010
IRL #20
http://www.merip.org/palestine-israel_primer/intro-pal-isr-primer.html
This is an article, by Joel Beinin and Lisa Hajjar, published in the online "Middle East Report."
It connects to our study of the Arab-Israeli conflict in Palestine, and enhances what we learned by providing a very clear explanation/contrast of the claims of both the Arabs and the Jews to the land of Palestine, an outline of events concerning the struggle over Palestine since the 19th century, and specific numbers of populations of different ethnic/religious groups in Jerusalem in 1878, etc.
A limitation is that the date of the publication of the article is not listed, and thus the reader cannot know exactly what timeframe and context this information is being given. Also, after doing some light research on one of the authors of the article, Lisa Hajjar, it appears that she is unnaturally obsessed with the subject of torture, which does make her relation to this [non-torture-related] topic seem somewhat odd, and also this article does not say much about the hatred and tensions between and against the Israeli and Arab groups.
This is an article, by Joel Beinin and Lisa Hajjar, published in the online "Middle East Report."
It connects to our study of the Arab-Israeli conflict in Palestine, and enhances what we learned by providing a very clear explanation/contrast of the claims of both the Arabs and the Jews to the land of Palestine, an outline of events concerning the struggle over Palestine since the 19th century, and specific numbers of populations of different ethnic/religious groups in Jerusalem in 1878, etc.
A limitation is that the date of the publication of the article is not listed, and thus the reader cannot know exactly what timeframe and context this information is being given. Also, after doing some light research on one of the authors of the article, Lisa Hajjar, it appears that she is unnaturally obsessed with the subject of torture, which does make her relation to this [non-torture-related] topic seem somewhat odd, and also this article does not say much about the hatred and tensions between and against the Israeli and Arab groups.
Friday, April 30, 2010
TOK IRL #2 (based on IRLs 12-19)
Can one talk meaningfully of a historical fact? How far can we speak with certainty about anything in the past?
Because one Has to be able to speak about history and place at least Some trust in things to learn, or else everything would be useless and we wouldn't be able to glean anything from the past, and ultimately all knowledge of all facts is based on the perspective of Someone, one can talk meaningfully about history, but very few facts can be spoken about with all certainty.
When history is reported/represented, it is often reported only in part, with some parts missing, such as the [partial] map of the missile placement/target areas during the cold war in my IRL #14. When things are not taken in full context like this, they can be misleading. However, after more research to fill in the missing parts, you could speak more meaningfully about this information. IRL 15 provides some insight into how facts of 'public opinion' established by the results of polls constructed by governmental or other organizations can be inaccurate due to loaded questions, pressuring, selection of questions/wording etc. used in the taking of the polls. IRL 16, based on an article taken from "The Hindu" demonstrates the effects of subtle anti-Israeli (and thus any sort of "biased") perspectives expressed which can effect how the reader thinks or feels about the subject. IRL 18 also presents an opposite case of a pro-Israeli slant on an article. This phenomenon could/can lead to the slanted version of the "facts" being so imprinted as fact in the minds of readers that it does in fact become Fact (because if enough people with authority agree on something, in the eyes of the general world it becomes reliable truth). There is also the issue of plain mistakes being made in the recording of historical facts, such as the wrong date at the top of an article that most likely suggests faulty researching (IRL 16).
I don't think there is really a clear or correct answer to this question, but definitely confirmation with a multiple and varied diverse sources is an important factor in obtaining meaningful historical facts, and one can speak with fair certainty about things which have enough justification/evidence (e.g. photos of dead corpses in concentration camps to prove the holocaust did happen), but one always has to keep in mind the constant twisting of the "facts" done by all historians of every human type.
Because one Has to be able to speak about history and place at least Some trust in things to learn, or else everything would be useless and we wouldn't be able to glean anything from the past, and ultimately all knowledge of all facts is based on the perspective of Someone, one can talk meaningfully about history, but very few facts can be spoken about with all certainty.
When history is reported/represented, it is often reported only in part, with some parts missing, such as the [partial] map of the missile placement/target areas during the cold war in my IRL #14. When things are not taken in full context like this, they can be misleading. However, after more research to fill in the missing parts, you could speak more meaningfully about this information. IRL 15 provides some insight into how facts of 'public opinion' established by the results of polls constructed by governmental or other organizations can be inaccurate due to loaded questions, pressuring, selection of questions/wording etc. used in the taking of the polls. IRL 16, based on an article taken from "The Hindu" demonstrates the effects of subtle anti-Israeli (and thus any sort of "biased") perspectives expressed which can effect how the reader thinks or feels about the subject. IRL 18 also presents an opposite case of a pro-Israeli slant on an article. This phenomenon could/can lead to the slanted version of the "facts" being so imprinted as fact in the minds of readers that it does in fact become Fact (because if enough people with authority agree on something, in the eyes of the general world it becomes reliable truth). There is also the issue of plain mistakes being made in the recording of historical facts, such as the wrong date at the top of an article that most likely suggests faulty researching (IRL 16).
I don't think there is really a clear or correct answer to this question, but definitely confirmation with a multiple and varied diverse sources is an important factor in obtaining meaningful historical facts, and one can speak with fair certainty about things which have enough justification/evidence (e.g. photos of dead corpses in concentration camps to prove the holocaust did happen), but one always has to keep in mind the constant twisting of the "facts" done by all historians of every human type.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
IRL #19
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/73_War.html
This is the URL to a complete summary of the Yom Kippur War of 1972 (one of the incidents we have been studying in class in our arab-israeli conflict unit). It was produced by the Jewish Virtual Library (a division of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise), which implicates that the purpose of this organization/"article" to foster cooperation between the USA and Israel could present a limitation of a solely pro-Israeli and western view expressed in the communication/explanation of the events and casting Arabs and Soviets in a bad light (e.g. Russia's interest in "the APPEARANCE of detente"). However, this source is valuable for learning a western/pro-Israeli point-of-view summary of the war and it enhances what we learned in class by providing more detail as well as visual displays of the movement of the troops (2 maps on webpage).
This is the URL to a complete summary of the Yom Kippur War of 1972 (one of the incidents we have been studying in class in our arab-israeli conflict unit). It was produced by the Jewish Virtual Library (a division of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise), which implicates that the purpose of this organization/"article" to foster cooperation between the USA and Israel could present a limitation of a solely pro-Israeli and western view expressed in the communication/explanation of the events and casting Arabs and Soviets in a bad light (e.g. Russia's interest in "the APPEARANCE of detente"). However, this source is valuable for learning a western/pro-Israeli point-of-view summary of the war and it enhances what we learned in class by providing more detail as well as visual displays of the movement of the troops (2 maps on webpage).
Monday, April 19, 2010
Key Questions Assignment pp. 50-59
p. 50 What were the results of the 6 day war?
Due to aid from the French and British (airforce etc) and US technology that allowed them to intercept Arab communications, the Israelis won the war after ruining most of the Arab airforce; 15,000 Arabs died and <1,000 Israelis. The Israelis decided on military occupation of the lands they had conquered; this made their own borders more secure as there were buffer zones between Israel and each of their enemies now.
p. 54 Why did Egypt and Syria attack Israel in 1973?
There were tensions since 1968 b/w Egypt and Israel over the use of the Suez Canal, and Egypt was getting tired out by 1970 of the 'war of attrition" (both sides constantly fighting across the Canal). Nasser died and President Sadat tried to gain favor with the USA and hence convince them to force Israel into a peace agreement (Egypt wanted Sinai in return for a peace agreement), but the USA was too busy with Viet Nam and the 6 million Jews in America would not stand for bullying Israel. With the support of Syria's new president and oil-rich Saudi Arabia, Egypt decided to secretly prepare for war and then attacked Israel on October 6, 1973 (Yom KIppur).
p. 55 What happened in the early stages of the war?
Egyptian troops and tanks crossed the Suez Canal and destroyed 300 Israeli tanks and regained part of Sinai, and Syrian tanks invaded Golan Heights. Israeli air force retaliated but the Arabs had Soviet missiles. It took the Israelis 3 days to fully mobilize but then they pushed the Syrians back and surrounded the Egyptian army.
p. 57 Why and how did the superpowers become involved?
The USSR sent arms to the Arabs and the USA organized a massive airlift to Israel. The USSR and USA later met and together demanded a ceasefire. They did this because the USSR didn't want Egypt to lose Sinai and the USA was scared of the Oil Weapon, and both wanted to avoid direct confrontation.
To what extent was the war an Arab victory?
Since the Israelis only won the war on a military basis but lost in terms of all the "face" and respect gained by the Arabs via their use of planning, surprise, and the Oil Weapon (the US and rest of the world were now forced into better relations with Arabs and more likely to force Israel into a peace settlement), I would say the Arabs won the war to a fair extent.
What steps led to an Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty?
US secretary of state Henry Kissinger engaged in "shuttle diplomacy" between Israel, Egypt, and Syria. President Sadat was moved by all the Egyptian deaths and losses from the past four wars to want real peace with Israel and became willing to acknowledge Israel and visit their parliament to discuss peace. Then the Israeli prime minister flew to Egypt for peace talks. Then in 1978 US President Carter invited them both to Camp David where the frameworks for a peace agreement were arranged. In March 1978, they signed the Treaty of Washington (agreeing to what they'd set up at Camp David).
Due to aid from the French and British (airforce etc) and US technology that allowed them to intercept Arab communications, the Israelis won the war after ruining most of the Arab airforce; 15,000 Arabs died and <1,000 Israelis. The Israelis decided on military occupation of the lands they had conquered; this made their own borders more secure as there were buffer zones between Israel and each of their enemies now.
p. 54 Why did Egypt and Syria attack Israel in 1973?
There were tensions since 1968 b/w Egypt and Israel over the use of the Suez Canal, and Egypt was getting tired out by 1970 of the 'war of attrition" (both sides constantly fighting across the Canal). Nasser died and President Sadat tried to gain favor with the USA and hence convince them to force Israel into a peace agreement (Egypt wanted Sinai in return for a peace agreement), but the USA was too busy with Viet Nam and the 6 million Jews in America would not stand for bullying Israel. With the support of Syria's new president and oil-rich Saudi Arabia, Egypt decided to secretly prepare for war and then attacked Israel on October 6, 1973 (Yom KIppur).
p. 55 What happened in the early stages of the war?
Egyptian troops and tanks crossed the Suez Canal and destroyed 300 Israeli tanks and regained part of Sinai, and Syrian tanks invaded Golan Heights. Israeli air force retaliated but the Arabs had Soviet missiles. It took the Israelis 3 days to fully mobilize but then they pushed the Syrians back and surrounded the Egyptian army.
p. 57 Why and how did the superpowers become involved?
The USSR sent arms to the Arabs and the USA organized a massive airlift to Israel. The USSR and USA later met and together demanded a ceasefire. They did this because the USSR didn't want Egypt to lose Sinai and the USA was scared of the Oil Weapon, and both wanted to avoid direct confrontation.
To what extent was the war an Arab victory?
Since the Israelis only won the war on a military basis but lost in terms of all the "face" and respect gained by the Arabs via their use of planning, surprise, and the Oil Weapon (the US and rest of the world were now forced into better relations with Arabs and more likely to force Israel into a peace settlement), I would say the Arabs won the war to a fair extent.
What steps led to an Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty?
US secretary of state Henry Kissinger engaged in "shuttle diplomacy" between Israel, Egypt, and Syria. President Sadat was moved by all the Egyptian deaths and losses from the past four wars to want real peace with Israel and became willing to acknowledge Israel and visit their parliament to discuss peace. Then the Israeli prime minister flew to Egypt for peace talks. Then in 1978 US President Carter invited them both to Camp David where the frameworks for a peace agreement were arranged. In March 1978, they signed the Treaty of Washington (agreeing to what they'd set up at Camp David).
Monday, April 12, 2010
IRL #18
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/world/middleeast/22mideast.html
This is the URL of a news article from The New York Times. It connects to what we're studying in class about the war of 1967, and the current-day outcomes of the Arab-Israeli conflict. For example, it says "Syria’s motives are clear: it wants to regain the Golan Heights, captured by Israel in the 1967 war", suggesting reasons for the peace talks held 2 years ago. The value of our learning is enhanced by the details this articles gives about the effects of the anti-Israeli attacks/groups, etc. A limitation could be that the likely pro-Israeli source/purpose of this American newspaper is suggested by the 4th paragraph and especially the term "raw power" which appears to be an attempt to evoke sympathy from the reader for the under-attack Israelis, and could hence be presenting a slanted version of the situation. Due to the privacy of the talks as well as this article's focusing on other aspects, it is difficult to learn what was going on and/or being achieved by the talks between Syria and Israel.
This is the URL of a news article from The New York Times. It connects to what we're studying in class about the war of 1967, and the current-day outcomes of the Arab-Israeli conflict. For example, it says "Syria’s motives are clear: it wants to regain the Golan Heights, captured by Israel in the 1967 war", suggesting reasons for the peace talks held 2 years ago. The value of our learning is enhanced by the details this articles gives about the effects of the anti-Israeli attacks/groups, etc. A limitation could be that the likely pro-Israeli source/purpose of this American newspaper is suggested by the 4th paragraph and especially the term "raw power" which appears to be an attempt to evoke sympathy from the reader for the under-attack Israelis, and could hence be presenting a slanted version of the situation. Due to the privacy of the talks as well as this article's focusing on other aspects, it is difficult to learn what was going on and/or being achieved by the talks between Syria and Israel.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
IRL #17
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/suez.htm
This is a historical account of the Suez Crisis based on military accounts and published by globalsecurity.org. It connects to what we're studying about the Arab-Israeli crisis and the war over the Suez Canal in Egypt. It adds to what we learned because it's a more detailed explanation of the events in the crisis and the specific actions/contributions of the USA to the war in military terms (e.g. the fleets that were sent to the Middle East), but a limitation is because of the focus on American standpoint/involvement on/in the war and perhaps some ambiguity in the records, it is not made clear why the Anglo-French Attack on Egypt occurred/how it was justified.
This is a historical account of the Suez Crisis based on military accounts and published by globalsecurity.org. It connects to what we're studying about the Arab-Israeli crisis and the war over the Suez Canal in Egypt. It adds to what we learned because it's a more detailed explanation of the events in the crisis and the specific actions/contributions of the USA to the war in military terms (e.g. the fleets that were sent to the Middle East), but a limitation is because of the focus on American standpoint/involvement on/in the war and perhaps some ambiguity in the records, it is not made clear why the Anglo-French Attack on Egypt occurred/how it was justified.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)