Lauren's Family's Story

I do not remember hearing about the Armenian Genocide until Lauren talked to Ashley and me about it in our meetings.
According to Britannica (2009) "it is estimated that nearly two million Christian Armenians lived in the Ottoman Empire by the late 1880s." That is not a small number, even in the large Ottoman Empire. Many Armenians began to support autonomy, and in response, their taxes were raised significantly, in addition to a collective resentment towards the Armenians and Kurds. However, when Armenians revolted, by not paying these taxes, they were killed, first in 1894 and again later, after an Armenian demonstration, in 1896. Between 1914-1918 about 600,000 Armenians were murdered or died of starvation. Many others went into exile.

The book The Bastard of Istanbul discusses the generations affected by the genocide on both the Turkish side and the Armenian side alike, in the form of a modern novel. As I was reading the book, I found astounding similarities between Lauren's blog entry and what she had told me, in relation to the book. The concept of Armenians dropping the "-ian" at the end of their last name as to not be found out to be Armenian, is one example.

(The Bastard of Istanbul P.114 - "Armenianness" #3: "If you have a picture of Mount Ararat hanging in your house, garage, or office.")

(Cited: "Armenian massacres." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica 2009 Deluxe Edition. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2009.)

Time of Favor

I'm a little unsure of what to think about the film Time of Favor. Although, it won several awards, I was not particularly impressed with the film. I was confused about the plot for the majority of the time, the characters seemed underdeveloped, and the film style seemed outdated for its time. I did find the plot very original, however. Even though there are similarities to Paradise Now, the story is uncommon. Since the story line and it's characters are so unique, I wish the film was further developed. I felt no attachment to any of the characters. Maybe that's because the scenes jumped from character to character too quickly, instead of focusing on them for longer. I would have liked to figure out Rabbi Meltzer's character better. He seemed to have been a powerful person in the plot, but I never exactly understood what he said to his students. Also, his relation to Menachem and the orthodox military group was somewhat unclear.

The Bus driver Who Wanted to be God

Some of the stories in The Bus driver Who Wanted to be God are very serious, while others seem simply bizarre. Etgar Keret truly has a unique writing style, one that I am not sure if I have ever encountered before. His work seems somewhat dream-like. The stories are highly imaginative and some are very unrealistic, but it's exciting to read each story.
The story that gave me some trouble, was "Cocked and Locked." The story seems like it will have a hopeful ending because the Israeli soldier and the Arabic man come closer together when the rifle is thrown between them, and the soldier puts on a scarf like the Palestinian wears his keffiyeh . At the end however, the soldier beats up the other... I wonder why Keret does that??
"Shoes," a story about a boy who goes to a Holocaust museum with his class where they meet a Holocaust survivor. The survivor is angry and tells the young students to never buy anything made in Germany. He says that people should never forget that the Holocaust happened in Germany. "People have short memories... especially where bad things are concerned" (p.57). At the end of the school day, the boy goes home. His parents, just back from a trip, give him Adidas sneakers, which is a German brand. As the boy wears them to play soccer, he thinks of his grandfather, who died in a concentration camp. He speaks to his shoes as if they are his grandfather. Keret shows that forgetting can be comfortable, because it's not really forgetting, but rather forgiving or continuing living.

Article "Palestinians urge Israeli..."

The Associate Press article (also found in Oct. 15, 2009 Western Herald) written by Edith M Lederer, describes the current events revolving around Palestine and Israel. The issue is to hold both Palestine and Israel accountable for their December 2008 human rights violations. Although, I believe that building a wall to contain a people should be in itself considered a human rights violation, the issue is solely based on the bombing of Gaza and southern Israel, by both Hamas and the Israeli military and government. However, Israel considers this "one-sided, biased and therefore wrong." Also, since the U.S. has put "heavy pressure" on the situation, the report will only be investigated in March 2010. The excuse: "the U.S. feared it would jeopardize attempts to revive the Mideast peace process."
I have several things to say about this. I'm not sure I believe the U.S. is doing this to work on the peace process. I think there is another motive involved. Also, the events took place in 2008! The issue should have been dealt with by now. By disregarding it for this long, the peace process will only be pushed farther into the future. As Palestinian Foreign Minister said, "[the report is] another wake-up call to the international community that must not be ignored.... The credibility and foundations of international human rights and humanitarian law, as well as of the U.N. as a whole, is at stake."
The United States is standing in the way of the Security Council to take actions, because it believes the issue should be handled by the Human Rights Council. Does it really matter who out of those two councils handles the issue? I think it's just a way to have control over the actions and processes. The U.N. Ambassador to France believes that both Palestine and Israel should "conduct independent investigations that meet international standards." How is that suppose to work? Both sides will "overlook" certain issues and not admit to their wrongdoings. I believe someone from the outside, someone who cannot be bribed by either position, (not a U.S. American) should investigate each side.
Another interesting aspect to the situation is that both sides are blaming each other of the same violations. They both state that the other "aimed their rockets at innocent... civilians."
I hope to see peace between Israel and Palestine within my lifetime.

Paradise Now

I was so impressed with this film, and so glad that it won an award! I believe that choosing this film to win an award must have been a statement to the world. The film was filled with messages, not only through its existence, its dialogues and monologues, but also through its rich cinematography.
One scene I found incredibly meaningful was when Said and Khaled are sitting in the hills after work, smoking and talking. A boy brings them tea. After Khaled takes the tea from the boy, the two stare at each other; the boy wants to be paid for the tea. Khaled throws one coin on to the tray, but the boy continues to stare... and wait. At this, Khaled motions with his head for the boy to move on, but the boy does not; he just stands their and waits. Finally, he gives in and with a small sign of disgust on his face, he walks away. Said then remarks ungratefully that the tea is cold.
This little scene is so significant because it symbolizes so much: the waiting that everyone in Palestine is suffering, the oppressor (Khaled sitting higher looking down at the child, while the child, who is the one getting "ripped off," looks up at Khaled), the victim (the boy tries to stand his ground by staring back and waiting, but is eventually forced to give up and carry on), and the economic despair (Khaled tosses a coin onto the tray). The film is filled with subtleties that are clearly not accidents, like Khaled and Said's "last supper" scene.
Another interesting device are the non-obvious differences between Said and Suha's lives. He grew up in the refugee camp, and she grew up in Europe and Morocco. The questions that she asks him are of another world: "do you go the the cinema? What's your favorite genre? " She is quite wealthy too. Her home is warm in colors, and there are beautiful pillows and throws. Her place looks rather European, or maybe more like a romanticized idea of an Arabesque style. The place in which he lives has colder colors, and looks authentic. There is no elaborate furniture around and he sleeps on a regular thin mattress on the floor.
Although the end (which I won't spoil here) leaves one almost hopeless, I truly enjoyed Paradise Now. It's a film that is incredibly honest and crafted beautifully . I find it a work of art - a work of art that could change one's life - and am glad that it has been recognized.

What IS a terrorist?

Sophie Scholl, a young student of the University of Munich in the early 1940's, was considered a terrorist by the government that ultimately executed her. Her terrorist act was handing out anti-war leaflets in her University. Today she is celebrated as a hero.
So, I wonder: what is the definition of terrorist? Who is a terrorist and who is not? Who decides and has the power to label someone as a terrorist?
The first place I looked for a simple definition is the Oxford English Dictionary. It states: "One who entertains, professes, or tries to awaken or spread a feeling of terror or alarm; an alarmist, a scaremonger." Or "any one who attempts to further his views by a system of coercive intimidation." I don't think Sophie Scholl tried to intimidate anyone, although she rightfully resorted to "awaken[ing]... a feeling of alarm."

I wanted to see what the CIA had to say about terrorism, but got a little nervous... hmmm... (I did learn that the CIA website has a section for kids, as well as educational tools on it though....)
Anyway, I checked wikipedia.org and its entry seems to be quite reasonable. It explains that there is no precise definition to the term terrorism (the term "terrorist" is not in wikipedia.) The entry states that " some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war." That's a statement worth thinking about.

In regards to researching the question: who decides and has the power to determine a terrorist, wikipedia has another very interesting entry: list of designated terrorist organizations. This list shows which countries/unions consider which groups as terrorist groups. It is interesting to see that the USA might consider one group a terrorist group while the EU, for example, does not. Also, the KKK of the United States is not listed.
So, while someone might consider another person a hero, someone else may label them as terrorist.

(wikipedia may not always be a reliable source, but I believe that these two entries are reasonable for these purposes)