Edward Jayne

Professor Jayne's talk on Wednesday was very informative, but not all that surprising. After he started talking, I could tell how enthusiastic he was about everything in the Middle East, but I could also immediately tell that I would need to be on the look out for some biases (especially when he started saying some of his pretty obviously-prejudiced opinions about Jews). He kept insisting that he wasn't prejudiced, and that he himself was part-Jewish, but I was definitely able to pick up on some slightly-hostile comments (and I noticed Dr. Webb did, too).

That being said, I still found his talk to be very interesting, overall. One thing that definitely struck me was when Professor Jayne told us that the United States has been borrowing money for the War in Iraq from China. This was extremely perplexing to me because I can't seem to understand why we are borrowing money from a Communist nation when we refuse to do business with Cuba because they're Communist. It seems to me that we are against Communism when it's convenient to us.

According to Jayne, we are using money that we currently don't have to fight a war. At the same time, Bush went ahead and made two huge tax reductions for the rich (Professor Jayne compared this to buying a brand new BMW at the same time that you sent your kid off to Yale on your credit card). The government is then turning around and telling us that the war is going to help our economy, when in reality, we will be paying dearly for it in a few decade's time. According to Jayne, what Bush is doing can be compared to what Hitler did during World War II - giving the citizens a prosperous economy at the time and allowing future generations to deal with the debt when he's dead and gone.

It is, in my opinion a little radical to compare George Bush to Adolf Hitler, but at the same time, I have to agree with Jayne. We all like to think that our government is nowhere near what Germany's was in the middle of the 20th century, but according to Jayne, there isn't that much of a difference when it comes to foreign policy. Some of the statements made by Professor Jayne would be enough to open anyone's eyes to the current politics of the United States.

AIPAC video

I read most of the Israel Lobby and followed it up by watching the Youtube.com videos that Allen had posted on his syllabus. When I was watching the "Israel Lobby" videos, I was distinctly struck by the second one: "The Israel Lobby: AIPAC" 2-5. I think that Earl Hilliard had some very significant points to make, many of which I agreed with.

I didn't really know who he was or what he had to do with any of this, so I consulted Allen's favorite source of information: Wikipedia. I wasn't particularly impressed with this information provided, so I Googled him. This led me to an very intriguing article.

This man had chosen NOT to support the United States giving money to Israel because of the fact that they are a relatively rich country on their own and they are using that money solely to turn around and build weapons and to kill Palestinians, amongst others. Unfortunately, Hilliard chose the wrong time to be opposing the Israelis and supporting the Arabs: this happened right after September 11th. In the Youtube.com interview, Hilliard himself admits that the ads against him that were run on CNN were great pieces of work. He knew the timing was perfect, and that the American public was very uneducated about the situation in the Middle East. "Most Americans didn't know the difference between Hussein and Kadafia, or Kadafia and bin Laden."

As I have mentioned in previous posts, I completely agree with this statement. Americans (and I fully admit that I am one of them) are extremely poorly educated about the goings-on around the world, so much so that all it takes is a couple of falsely advertised commercials to convince us that a politician supports al-Qaeda. We are often too uneducated to know the difference and to lazy to care, so we are therefore led to believe something that is not entirely true. Yes, Hilliard was opposed to giving money to Israel, but he did not support the Taliban. Someone can be opposed to what the government is doing while still supporting our country as a whole. This is the difference that many Americans are unable to grasp, but this is exactly what makes the difference between us sounding ignorant versus well-informed.

Peace not apartheid

I definitely learned a lot from reading Jimmy Carter's book (even if I only read the "required" parts). I would like to say that the book was very interesting and that I really enjoyed it, but that would be a lie. I have absolutely no interest in politics, and this is probably the main reason why I used to have no idea what was going on in the Middle East.

However, I can honestly say that Palestine Peace Not Apartheid increased my knowledge of the Middle East ten-fold. The book was an easy read and it didn't make any assumptions about the reader's background knowledge of the issues discussed. I think one of the most helpful aspects of the book was the first chapter because it gave me so much background information. Seeing that time-line really gave me a good image of why the Middle East is in shambles today.

This may sound ridiculous, but before this class I was unable to distinguish between the different conflicts in the Middle East. If you would have asked me a few weeks ago, I would have thought that Palestine and Afghanistan had something to do with one another. In the United States, we often use the term "Middle East" to refer to both the War in Iraq as well at the constant struggles in Palestine, and I was led to believe that these problems are one and the same. Therefore, when I read the time-line, I was somewhat surprised to see that the September 11th attacks were not mentioned.

I think that it is quite obvious why I was unaware of this before reading Jimmy Carter's book. Even though it seems like our news system is constantly talking about the West Bank and Israelis and the Gaza Strip, we never really learn the source of the problems. We only hear what's going on today and from our point of view. And we wonder why people always say Americans are uneducated.

wild thorns part II

Besides the theme of isolation, I also noticed the constant references to youth and the "not-so-innocent" aspect of youth streaming through Wild Thorns. Khalifeh constantly referred back to the idea of the youth holding the key to the future, the main instance being when the Arab children were taunting the Jewish soldiers in the street.

The first time Usama meets up with Basil after his return to Palestine, he is very surprised to see how involved the young people are in politics. There is a group of boys sitting around a coffee shop discussing the occupation, and Usama realizes that "It was the first time he'd heard young people discussing issues that never would have occurred to them before the occupation" (Khalifeh 59). I think that this section of the book symbolizes the loss of innocence that the occupation has caused. Normally, young men of Basil's age shouldn't be paying attention to politics, they should be concerned with school and socializing. But now that Palestine's been occupied, they have been forced to grow up much quicker and face reality.

One major problem with the loss of innocence that's occurring is that these boys are beginning to plot terrorist rebellions against the Jewish military. When Usama and Basil go to the market, they speak with Haj Abdullah, who is absolutely terrified of what the boys are plotting because his son, Hani, is one of Basil's friends. Haj Abdullah expresses his feelings to Usama on page 73: " 'I'm afraid, Mr. Usama, that these boys might get in involved in something... You know how many are in prison?... They're a generation only God can control' " (Khalifeh). Throughout this whole conversation, Usama keeps telling Haj Abdullah to "just let them talk," insisting that these boys are merely discussing politics. Finally, though, at the end of the chapter, Basil protests that they don't just talk, although he doesn't admit what exactly they're plotting. This does, however, give away the fact that the boys are no longer boys; they are men planning an attack against the military.

One of the most significant parts of Wild Thorns, in my opinion, was the scene where Basil is arrested. There are children flooding the streets, yelling and laughing at the Jewish soldiers. They are screaming in protest to show their disgust at the occupation.

But children were now emerging from all the houses, at first lurking in dark
corners like mice, starting out at the soldiers and laughing and winking at
one another... The soldiers began to chase the boys, who scampered home,
slamming the doors behind them. Then out they came again. A soldier
caught one of them and started to beat him, and the mothers let loose a
stream of curses on all who'd had a hand in the creation of the state.
(Khalifeh 104)

Just a page later, Basil is thrown into a patrol car and taken to jail for this attack on the militia. I think that this chapter is the symbol of the complete chaos that the occupation has caused. There is absolutely no innocence left in Palestine, even the children are getting arrested.

When Basil is taken off, his father is cold and shows no remorse or sadness that his son is in jail. He merely says, " "But what came over the boy? Does he think he can free Palestine all by himself?' " (Khalifeh 106). I think that that is exactly what Basil thought. Khalifeh is trying to show that the occupation will not be over until everyone pitches in to help. Basil and his friend's attack didn't accomplish much and that is because they received no help from the older men. While the children have lost their innocence, they have not lost their hope.

Wild Thorns

When I first began reading Wild Thorns, I was surprised to learn that the book was written by a woman. I was instantly intrigued by this, especially after reading the story, because of the lack of female characters in the book. I decided to look up some more information about Sahar Khalifeh, and I found an article from an Arab magazine in which the author writes about her own life, struggling to survive in a home where it appeared no one wanted her.

http://leb.net/~aljadid/features/0839khalifeh.html

I think that Khalifeh's writing style and chosen themes for Wild Thorns have a lot to do with her past. For example, one main underlying theme in the story has to do with isolation, more specifically isolation while surrounded by many. Khalifeh grew up in a household where she felt isolated much of the time herself. She came from a very big family with eight children, however, only one of these children was a male. Both her mother and her father greatly resented their daughters for not, in fact, being sons. Her mother would cry for days on end and her father virtually ignored Khalifeh and her sisters.

In such a gloomy and hostile atmosphere, I learned the meaning of my existence
and my value in this world. I learned that I was a member of a miserable, useless,
worthless sex. From childhood, I was taught to prepare myself for the risks
associated with being a woman. I was told time and again that I had to train myself
to obey and comply with all kinds of rules that covered every single aspect of my life.

I think that this feeling of isolation and being unwanted can definitely be seen in Wild Thorns. One main time that I can think of when a character is alone while surrounded by others was near the beginning of the story. Usama is trying to go home to Palestine but is held up by foreign officers. They interrogate him and accuse him of wrong-doing, when all he is trying to do is return to his homeland. When Usama finally returns to Palestine, he is surrounded by people, yet he feels so alone. He doesn't seem to fit in there anymore and can't quite get into the rhythm of life under occupation. Even though there were millions of other people going through the same thing all around him, Usama feels alone because no one seems to share his liberating views.

I think this plot line runs a distinct parallel to Khalifeh's life because she was definitely a rebel. In the article I found, she talks about trying to break free of her parents. Her six sisters were just as repressed as Sahar was, but none of them were rebellious like she was. She was constantly surrounded by her sisters who were going through the same injustices, but she was the only one who was trying to do something about the way her parents were treating her.

a hand in the grave

I read "A Hand in the Grave," a story about two young men who attempt to rob a grave in order to get a body to use in their medical class. The story is told in the first person by Nabil, who was told by someone in his class that he needed to bring a corpse for them to study. Nabil and his friend Suhail need seventy-five lire to buy a corpse, and neither has that kind of money. So they set out for a graveyard very early in the morning with the intent of digging up a body to bring to their class.

Nabil's father tries to make him feel guilty for what he is about to do by saying that he is a "Godless sinner" and that he must never have read the Koran. Suhail also shows some doubts, and as they walk to the grave, the two men are terrified. Neither wants to admit that they are scared, so they continue on. When they finally get to the graveyard, the full reality of what they're about to do hits them and they are more hesitant than ever. But Nabil eventually begins digging up a body.

When they get to the casket, Nabil tries to reach his hand in to make sure the body is in there before they continue on. His arm is too big, so Suhail gives it a try. Suddenly, Suhail wrenches his arm out of the grave, screaming with fright. After several minutes of screaming, Suhail finally says:

"My fingers! My fingers! I stuck them in its eyes!"
I was trembling, but more out of fear of Suhail than anything else. I gripped him
by the shoulders and shook him fiercely, shouting:
"You idiot! This is an old grave... it's more than 50 years old!"
He gave me a stupid look; clearly he had not heard me. He started repeating:
"His eyes... I stuck my fingers in his eyes!" (75)

The story goes on to tell us that Suhail was kicked out of the medical faculty, and that it was actually NOT necessary that the first year medical students acquire a skeleton - these men simply wanted to feel like a part of the group. At the very end of the story, Nabil discovers after seven years that the graveyard they were attempting to rob from was actually not even a real graveyard. Therefore there weren't even any corpses in it, and Suhail never did stick his fingers in one's eyeballs.

The main theme of this story, in my opinion, has to do with guilt. These two men feel very guilty for what they have done, and because of it, Suhail imagines that he has done something very disgusting. The whole time the two me were walking to the graveyard, Suhail was probably imagining what could be the worst possible thing that could happen. He was so disgusted with himself and what he was doing, he fabricated a story in his mind. The two couldn't see what was in the grave; they had no way of knowing that that was actually an eyeball that Suhail stuck his finger in. However, they let their guilty consciouses get the best of them and they assumed something terrible had happened.

I think that the moral of this story is something like that of Poe's "Tell-Tale Heart." Guilt will get the best of any man - in this case, it was enough to fabricate an entire story that cost Suhail his job. You will not get away with committing a crime as terrible as grave robbing, because even if you don't get caught, your guilty conscious will get the best of you.

Men in the sun

One of the first things I noticed about Men in the Sun is that it written by a Middle Easterner. I could tell this, not only from Ghassan Kanafani's name, but also from the way the story was written. The stories we have read thus far, for the most part, are written about Middle Easterners from the perspective of Westerners. These stories, including Othello and the Canterbury Tales, are therefore very biased and prejudiced. Men in the Sun, however, is told from the perspective of a Palestinian man in 20th century, making this story different from what we have read so far for two reasons. This is the first time we are looking to more modern times to see what exactly is going on in the Middle East.

Now I have to say that as I read Men in the Sun, I was constantly confused. We were warned that the names would be confusing to keep up with, but I was also completely lost several times because Kanafani kept switching back and forth between present time and things that happened in the past. I was definitely not a fan of his writing style.

One part of Men in the Sun that stood out to me in particular was in the chapter entitled "Assad". On page 21, the wife is driving with the husband (I'm pretty sure it doesn't say their names), and she sees what she thinks is a fox. The husband tells her it is a rat, but the wife insists:
"...This desert is full of rats. What on earth do they eat?"
He answered quietly:
"Rats smaller than them."
"Really?" said the girl. "It's frightening. Rats themselves are horrible, frightening animals."
The fat man who owned the office said:
"Rats are horrible animals..."

A little while later, at the end of the chapter on page 22, the wife says again:
"But take care the rats don't eat you before you set out."

It is very clear to me that the "rats" are actually a metaphor for mankind. The world in which these people are living is a "do-or-die" type of environment. they must do whatever it takes to survive. It is every man for himself. If someone is smaller or weaker than yourself, there is a chance that you will prevail and they won't, simple enough.

I think this whole section of the story was hugely important. It set the stage for the rest of the story, setting up the "weakest link" type of picture we get throughout the rest of the story.

the Koran

So after reading "Maryam" in the Koran, I have to admit I am still completely lost. I really was confused by the whole story. I felt like some of it would have been at least a little bit comprehensible if I had some sort of religious background (ANY religious background), but I am virtually clueless when it comes to religion. I grew up Catholic, and by Catholic, I mean that we went to church... hardly ever. I was baptized and Confirmed, but I'm pretty sure my parents only had my sisters and I do that so that my Grandmother didn't disown us. I can honestly say that while I have read some of the bible, I do not know any of the stories. However, as I read "Maryam", I had a few light bulbs go on telling me that the information was familiar.

I know that the Koran and the Bible are not the same, but I did pick up on some similarities. The whole story of Maryam ("Mary"?) was obviously familiar to me. The "barren" wife and the older husband were given a child, even when they thought they would never have one.

Many people are of the belief that Christians and Muslims share nothing in common, when quiet the opposite is actually true. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all stem from the same core beliefs. I always knew that, but I still found myself slightly surprised when I was reading "Maryam". Another light bulb went on to signal to me the connection between Christianity and Islam when I read the section about not believing in Allah to be the biggest sin.

SHAKIR: And surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serve Him; this is the right path.
SHAKIR: But parties from among them disagreed with each other, so woe to those who disbelieve, because of presence on a great Judgment Day!
SHAKIR: How clearly shall they hear and how clearly shall they see on the day when they come to Us; but the unjust this day are in manifest error.
SHAKIR: And warn them of the day of intense regret, when the matter shall have been decided; and they are (now) in negligence and they do not believe.