Answer three questions. The required question will be specified at the exam.
Please use the entire hour for the test.
1. Who were the Sophists and why were young Athenians willing to pay for their instruction? How did they influence Plato and Aristotle?
2. Give an account of Plato's theory of the forms and explain why Aristotle found it wanting.
3. Why did Aristotle not consider women and slaves fully human and what were his requirements for full humanity?
4. Describe Plato's myth of the cave and explain how it reflects Plato's view of reality.
5. Compare Raymond Ibrahim and Osama bin Laden's views of (a) the Muslim conquests and (b) the creation of the State of Israel.
6. Compare the views expressed by the Saudi scholars in their response to the American letter, "What We Are Fighting For: A Letter from America" and Osama bin Laden on the legitimacy of offensive jihad.
7. What were the differences between slavery in pre-Civil War America and slavery at I.G. Farben Auschwitz?
8. Explain the following statement: The Holocaust was an expression of some of the most significant political, moral, and demographic tendencies of Western civilization in the twentieth century.
9. How did the phenomenon of surplus people aruse and how did it lead to the World War I Battles of Verdun and the Somme and ultimatel to the Holocaust?
Monday, October 6, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Thucydides-The Melian Dialogue
New Assignment for Comparative Religious Ethics
In addition to the assignments in Norman for Wednesday October 1, 2008, study the Melian Dialogue found in Thucydides, History of the Pelponesian War, written in 431 BCE. For background information, read the Wikipedia articles on Thucydides and on The Melian Dialogue.
In addition to the assignments in Norman for Wednesday October 1, 2008, study the Melian Dialogue found in Thucydides, History of the Pelponesian War, written in 431 BCE. For background information, read the Wikipedia articles on Thucydides and on The Melian Dialogue.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Offensive Jihad and Conquest
In his essay "Moderate Islam is a Prostration to the West" in The Al Qaeda Reader, Osama Bin Laden argues that offensive jihad is both essential to Islam and ethically justified and has been since the days of Muhammad and his Rightly Guided Companions. His reasoning is based on the belief that Islam alone expresses perfectly God's Will for His creatures. Thus, there is for Bin Laden no such thing as illegitimate Muslim conquest. Such military measure are not truly considered harb or war, but, fatuha, or the “opening” of the non-believing world to Islam. Given that framework, it is possible for Muslims to regard any war against non-Muslims waged for the expansion of Islam as morally justified whereas wars waged against Muslims are by their very nature unjust. In fairness, it must be stated that non-radical Muslims reject this view in practice, often citing the verse, “'You shall not kill-for that is forbidden- except for a just cause.” (Qur’an, al-An'am 6.151) The problem arises in defining "a just cause." As we have seen, offensive jihad against anyone who resists the call to Islam (da'wa) is considered both justified and mandatory.
At the same time, you will notice in both the Letter of the Saudi Scholars and in Osama Bin Laden's Letter to America, the State of Israel is regarded as an illegitimate political entity, based on conquest and oppression, that must be destroyed. Thus, Osama Bin Laden condemns American support of Israel and Israel's ability to sustain itself:writes:
"The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased."
The question of conquest has often been a vexing one for the field of ethics and international affairs. The University of Bridgeport sits on conquered land, taken from its original inhabitants, as does all of the United States and Canada. In "Survival of the Fittest: The Arab-Israeli Conflict in Context," Raymond Ibrahim, an Arabic-speaking Christian, argues that the land of Israel has been through numerous conquests going back thousands of years and that Israel is but the latest conqueror. Ibrahim also argues that the spread of Islam was made possibled through conquest.
The difference between Ibrahim and Osama Bin Laden is that Bin Laden believes that the Muslim conquests were blessed by Allah and were a blessing to the conquered people. Because he is a Christian, Ibrahim cannot accept Bin Laden's claims concerning the legitimacy of the Muslim conquests. Neither can the Jews in Palestine.
Realistically, this means that what is taken in conquest can either be retaken or subdued by another conqueror. This has been the way of the world from time immemorial. A question arises concerning how this fact can be reconciled with the field of ethics and international affairs.
At the same time, you will notice in both the Letter of the Saudi Scholars and in Osama Bin Laden's Letter to America, the State of Israel is regarded as an illegitimate political entity, based on conquest and oppression, that must be destroyed. Thus, Osama Bin Laden condemns American support of Israel and Israel's ability to sustain itself:writes:
"The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased."
The question of conquest has often been a vexing one for the field of ethics and international affairs. The University of Bridgeport sits on conquered land, taken from its original inhabitants, as does all of the United States and Canada. In "Survival of the Fittest: The Arab-Israeli Conflict in Context," Raymond Ibrahim, an Arabic-speaking Christian, argues that the land of Israel has been through numerous conquests going back thousands of years and that Israel is but the latest conqueror. Ibrahim also argues that the spread of Islam was made possibled through conquest.
The difference between Ibrahim and Osama Bin Laden is that Bin Laden believes that the Muslim conquests were blessed by Allah and were a blessing to the conquered people. Because he is a Christian, Ibrahim cannot accept Bin Laden's claims concerning the legitimacy of the Muslim conquests. Neither can the Jews in Palestine.
Realistically, this means that what is taken in conquest can either be retaken or subdued by another conqueror. This has been the way of the world from time immemorial. A question arises concerning how this fact can be reconciled with the field of ethics and international affairs.
WREL 305 Revised Syllabus
WREL 305 Syllabus
August 27 and September 3: In the aftermath of 9/11, the Institute for American Values published an open letter posted on its web site by 60 leading American thinkers on the subject, What We’re Fighting For: A Letter from America. The thinkers who represented a cross-section of mainstream, Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish thought, presented an ethical perspective on the “war on terror.” The letter was dated February 2002. It is important to note that the letter was not a statement about or a defense of the Iraq War, which did not begin until March 20, 2003. The letter is required reading for the class. On the same web site, there is a letter from 153 Saudi “establishment” intellectuals, How We Can Coexist and a response by the American thinkers, Can We Coexist? Taken together, the letters show the vast differences in values between Muslim thinkers who do not regard themselves as extreme and the American thinkers who see themselves as coming out of a common Judeo-Christian background. (Both letters are required reading.)
Undoubtedly, the most important response is by Osama Bin Laden. He was outraged by the response of the Saudi scholars and wrote his own response, Moderate Islam is a Prostration to the West. This essay, with an introduction by Victor Davis Hanson, can be found in Raymond Ibrahim, ed. The Al Qaeda Reader (New York: Broadway Books, 2007), pp. 17-62. This essay is required reading. Because it cannot be found on the internet, I have ordered two copies of the book from Amazon.com and I have placed them on reserve at UB’s Wahlstrom Library for the class now that they have arrived. I highly recommend this book. Ibrahim is an Arabic-speaking Christian and is the head of the Middle East Section of the Library of Congress. Much of the material in the book has never before been translated into English. The whole book is worth reading. If time is a problem, read Victor Davis Hanson’s Introduction in addition to the Bin Laden essay. http://www.americanvalues.org/htm/follow-up.html
Also on the Institute for American Values web sites is Letter to America (required reading). The author is listed as Al Qaeda, but it was reportedly written by Osama Bin Laden and certainly had to be authorized by him before publication. Note that all of Al Qaeda’s letters are religious documents that claim that the attack on the World Trade Center was morally justified. There are none of the appeals to national interest one would find in Western sources justifying an attack; all values are represented as fully in accordance with the will of Allah. Finally, it should be noted in a course on Comparative Religious Ethics how vastly different are the systems of religious ethics in Al Qaeda’s messages from those in the American letters.
There is also a response by David Blankenhorn, Director of the Institute for American Values, Reading an Enemy: Analyzing al-Qa'ida's response to ‘What We're Fighting For’ (required reading).
September 10: Richard L. Rubenstein, The Cunning of History, Introduction, and chapters 1-6.
September 17: The Cunning of History, continued.
September 24: The Cunning of History, Norman, Preface, Plato, and Aristotle, pp. 1-40.
October 1: Norman, Plato and Aristotle, continued; .
October 8: No class. Assigned reading,Thucydides, "The Melian Dialogue" (See Blog) Norman, “Egoism and Altruism” and John Stuart Mill;
October 15, Norman, Kant, pp. 70-92. 7:30-8:30, Mid-Term
October 22, Norman, Hegelian Ethics and Nietzsche
August 27 and September 3: In the aftermath of 9/11, the Institute for American Values published an open letter posted on its web site by 60 leading American thinkers on the subject, What We’re Fighting For: A Letter from America. The thinkers who represented a cross-section of mainstream, Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish thought, presented an ethical perspective on the “war on terror.” The letter was dated February 2002. It is important to note that the letter was not a statement about or a defense of the Iraq War, which did not begin until March 20, 2003. The letter is required reading for the class. On the same web site, there is a letter from 153 Saudi “establishment” intellectuals, How We Can Coexist and a response by the American thinkers, Can We Coexist? Taken together, the letters show the vast differences in values between Muslim thinkers who do not regard themselves as extreme and the American thinkers who see themselves as coming out of a common Judeo-Christian background. (Both letters are required reading.)
Undoubtedly, the most important response is by Osama Bin Laden. He was outraged by the response of the Saudi scholars and wrote his own response, Moderate Islam is a Prostration to the West. This essay, with an introduction by Victor Davis Hanson, can be found in Raymond Ibrahim, ed. The Al Qaeda Reader (New York: Broadway Books, 2007), pp. 17-62. This essay is required reading. Because it cannot be found on the internet, I have ordered two copies of the book from Amazon.com and I have placed them on reserve at UB’s Wahlstrom Library for the class now that they have arrived. I highly recommend this book. Ibrahim is an Arabic-speaking Christian and is the head of the Middle East Section of the Library of Congress. Much of the material in the book has never before been translated into English. The whole book is worth reading. If time is a problem, read Victor Davis Hanson’s Introduction in addition to the Bin Laden essay. http://www.americanvalues.org/htm/follow-up.html
Also on the Institute for American Values web sites is Letter to America (required reading). The author is listed as Al Qaeda, but it was reportedly written by Osama Bin Laden and certainly had to be authorized by him before publication. Note that all of Al Qaeda’s letters are religious documents that claim that the attack on the World Trade Center was morally justified. There are none of the appeals to national interest one would find in Western sources justifying an attack; all values are represented as fully in accordance with the will of Allah. Finally, it should be noted in a course on Comparative Religious Ethics how vastly different are the systems of religious ethics in Al Qaeda’s messages from those in the American letters.
There is also a response by David Blankenhorn, Director of the Institute for American Values, Reading an Enemy: Analyzing al-Qa'ida's response to ‘What We're Fighting For’ (required reading).
September 10: Richard L. Rubenstein, The Cunning of History, Introduction, and chapters 1-6.
September 17: The Cunning of History, continued.
September 24: The Cunning of History, Norman, Preface, Plato, and Aristotle, pp. 1-40.
October 1: Norman, Plato and Aristotle, continued; .
October 8: No class. Assigned reading,Thucydides, "The Melian Dialogue" (See Blog) Norman, “Egoism and Altruism” and John Stuart Mill;
October 15, Norman, Kant, pp. 70-92. 7:30-8:30, Mid-Term
October 22, Norman, Hegelian Ethics and Nietzsche
WREL 305-Reading List
Comparative Religious Ethics
World Religions WREL 305-1
Required
Rubenstein, Richard L: The Cunning of History (New York: Harper Collins, 1987) ISBN 0-06-132068-4, also available as an Amazon Kindle electronic book.
Norman, Richard: The Moral Philosophers: An Introduction to Ethics, Second Edition (
Gill, Robin, The
Recommended
Glover, Jonathan: Humanity: The Moral History of the Twentieth Century (
Ibrahim, Raymond, ed., The Al Qaeda Reader (
Kelsay, John: Arguing the Just War in Islam (
Niehbuhr, Reinhold: Moral Man and Immoral Society (Louisvlle: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2001) ISBN 0-664-2274-1
Scruton, Roger: The German Philosophers: Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997) ISBN 0-19-285424-0
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Benny Morris on Iran and Nuclear Attack
Benny Morris has written about the possibility of an Iranian nuclear attack, "The Second Holocaust." It is important as one of the scenario for what could happen in an Iranian attack on Israel.
More on Benny Morris
In the current issue of The New Yorker, David Remnick, the magazine's editor-in-chief, has written a fair and balanced review of Benny Morris's new book entitled "Blood and Sand" on the Arab-Israeli conflict. This essay is important for an understanding of the conflict and its possible outcome.
See also April 4 post on this blog, "A Historian's View of the Middle East Conflict."
See also April 4 post on this blog, "A Historian's View of the Middle East Conflict."
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Syria's Attempt to Build a Nuclear Reactor
In September 2007, Israel launched a bombing attack that destroyed a Syrian group of buildings. News of the attack became public when North Korea vehemently condemned it. But, why would N. Korea be that interested in an attack against Syria unless N. Korean personnel were involved? Adding to the mystery was the fact that Syria failed to protest the attack or demand that Israel be condemned for its "aggression." Also, mysterious was the fact that neither Israel nor the United States had anything to say about the incident. On April 24, 2008, the Wall Street Journal published an article, " U.S. to Link North Korea to Syria" in which the motive for Israel's attack, long suspected, becomes clear." Syria was indeed building a nuclear reactor with North Korean assistance and Israel had destroyed it, as it had Iraq's Osirak reactor in the 1980s.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Why Is Ahmadinejad Smiling?
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1207649985892&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinterIf there is one country that has benefited from the war in Iraq, it is Iran. Under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's strategy of making Iran the dominant power or hegemon in the Middle East proceeds along a predictable course while both the US and Israel "dither." Harvard-trained Caroline Glick offers her analysis of Ahmadinejad's continuing success in a Jerusalem Post article Ahmadinejad's Smiles.
A Historian's View of the Middle East Conflict
Cambridge-educated Benny Morris is widely regarded as one of Israel's pre-eminent historians and political analysts. He has just published a new book, 1948-A History of the First-Arab Israeli War in which he offers a bleak analysis of both the Arab-Israel and the Israeli-Iranian conflicts. He also offers a hardline analysis of Israel's probable response. His views are summarized in an interview he gave to the Jerusalem Post recently with the title It Was Always A Jihad.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
WREL 374 Blog Quiz
There will be a 30 minute blog quiz Wednesday March 27, 2008 for WREL 374. Answers to 3 questions will be required.
1. How does Fouad Adjami evaluate 5 years of war in Iraq?
2. How does George Freeman understand the real motive for going to war in Iraq?
3. Explain how modernization led to the rise of ethno-nationalism in Europe in the twentieth century and are there parallels between that development and the rise of a sense of national identity among Palestine's Arabs today?
4. How does Bret Stephens see General John J. Pershing's response to Pancho Villa's attack of an American town in New Mexico in 1916 as offering a model of how the Israelis should respond to Hamas's rocket attacks on Sederot, Israel today?
5. Who was Imad Mughniyeh and why was his assassination important?
6. To what region of the Middle East has the center of gravity shifted from Israel and Palestine?
7. How does Andrew Cordesman see a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel playing out?
1. How does Fouad Adjami evaluate 5 years of war in Iraq?
2. How does George Freeman understand the real motive for going to war in Iraq?
3. Explain how modernization led to the rise of ethno-nationalism in Europe in the twentieth century and are there parallels between that development and the rise of a sense of national identity among Palestine's Arabs today?
4. How does Bret Stephens see General John J. Pershing's response to Pancho Villa's attack of an American town in New Mexico in 1916 as offering a model of how the Israelis should respond to Hamas's rocket attacks on Sederot, Israel today?
5. Who was Imad Mughniyeh and why was his assassination important?
6. To what region of the Middle East has the center of gravity shifted from Israel and Palestine?
7. How does Andrew Cordesman see a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel playing out?
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Five Years of War In Iraq
There have been many views of America's war in Iraq. George Friedman's article "Stratfor's War: Five Years Later" suggests that the conventional wisdom concerning Iraq has failed to understand what is at stake for the United States and the region. I strongly commend this article to your attention.
Fouad Adjami, an important Middle Eastern scholar, has offered another view of the war in the Wall Street Journal for March 19, 2008. His "No Surrender" is worth reading, as is everything Adjami writes, but I believe Friedman's article is the more insightful. Adjami's article can be found at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120588186774146747.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries.
You may have to Google this one to bring it up. I am having difficulty with the link.
Fouad Adjami, an important Middle Eastern scholar, has offered another view of the war in the Wall Street Journal for March 19, 2008. His "No Surrender" is worth reading, as is everything Adjami writes, but I believe Friedman's article is the more insightful. Adjami's article can be found at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120588186774146747.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries.
You may have to Google this one to bring it up. I am having difficulty with the link.
Monday, March 3, 2008
No Class for WREL 374 Wednesday March 5, 2008
Because of a death in the family, the instructor will be unable to meet the class Wednesday March 5, 2008. There will be a make-up session later in the semester.
RLR
RLR
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Modernization and the Rise of Ethnic Nationalism
One of the least recognized tendencies of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries has been the rise of states of based upon common ethnic inheritance. Put differently, unlike the United States, there has been a world-wide tendency for the nation and the state to become one.
Palestine was one of the countries in which that tendency became manifest. When the Palestine Mandate was created after World War I, the British had no idea that two states might arise in Palestine. Nevertheless, as a result of the Arab Revolt that began in 1936, a Royal Commission under the Chairmanship of Sir William Peel was set up to explore ways of arriving at a viable political solution to the conflict between Jews and Arabs in Palestine. In July 1937, the Commission issued its report which advocated that Palestine be partitioned into Jewish and Arab lands, save for a small "corridor" stretching from Jerusalem to the Mediterranean south of Jaffa. The Commission also recommended a "transfer of populations" based on the model of the transfer of populations between Turkey and Greece in the 1920s because "The gulf between the races is thus already wide and will continue to widen if the present Mandate is maintained."
Although the Jews received the smaller land area, they decided to accept the Peel proposal. The Arabs vehemently rejected it. Both sides were seeking to create an ethnic-nationalist state. They differed on the extent of territory each sought. In the 1990s the PLO proposed to establish a secular state in Palestine consisting of Muslims, Jews, and Christians. This was unacceptable to Hamas that sought a religiously legitimated Muslim state. It was also unacceptable to the Jews who believed they had no reason to trust their safety and security to Palestians.
One of the fundamental reasons for the rise of the ethic-national state was the fact that, more often than not, people concluded that if they could trust anyone, it could only be members of their own kinship group which is basically what an ethnic -national state is, rightly or wrongly, taken to be. Jerry Muller, Professor of History at the Catholic University of America, has written an essay, "Us and Them: The Enduring Power of Ethnic Nationalism," in Foreign Affairs, March/April 2008 explaining why he believes that ethnic nationalism "will drive global politics for generations to come." Required reading for WR Rel 374.
Palestine was one of the countries in which that tendency became manifest. When the Palestine Mandate was created after World War I, the British had no idea that two states might arise in Palestine. Nevertheless, as a result of the Arab Revolt that began in 1936, a Royal Commission under the Chairmanship of Sir William Peel was set up to explore ways of arriving at a viable political solution to the conflict between Jews and Arabs in Palestine. In July 1937, the Commission issued its report which advocated that Palestine be partitioned into Jewish and Arab lands, save for a small "corridor" stretching from Jerusalem to the Mediterranean south of Jaffa. The Commission also recommended a "transfer of populations" based on the model of the transfer of populations between Turkey and Greece in the 1920s because "The gulf between the races is thus already wide and will continue to widen if the present Mandate is maintained."
Although the Jews received the smaller land area, they decided to accept the Peel proposal. The Arabs vehemently rejected it. Both sides were seeking to create an ethnic-nationalist state. They differed on the extent of territory each sought. In the 1990s the PLO proposed to establish a secular state in Palestine consisting of Muslims, Jews, and Christians. This was unacceptable to Hamas that sought a religiously legitimated Muslim state. It was also unacceptable to the Jews who believed they had no reason to trust their safety and security to Palestians.
One of the fundamental reasons for the rise of the ethic-national state was the fact that, more often than not, people concluded that if they could trust anyone, it could only be members of their own kinship group which is basically what an ethnic -national state is, rightly or wrongly, taken to be. Jerry Muller, Professor of History at the Catholic University of America, has written an essay, "Us and Them: The Enduring Power of Ethnic Nationalism," in Foreign Affairs, March/April 2008 explaining why he believes that ethnic nationalism "will drive global politics for generations to come." Required reading for WR Rel 374.
New Thoughts on the Gaza Hot Spot
In my last post on Gaza, I called attention to Steven Erlanger's article that suggested that Hamas was seeking a Hudna, a truce on its own terms with Israel. In this post, I call attention to two analysts who are of the opinion that a massive Israeli effort may be in the offing to put an end to the 2,500 Kassam rockets that have been fired from Gaza since the beginning of the Intifada in 2000. Bret Stephens' article in the Wall Street Journal, "The Sderot Calculus," discusses the potential difficulties facing Israel should it decide to take strong action. Michael Oren discusses in the Washington Post, "It's The Middle East, Stupid!" how a major Middle East war might result from any Israeli move to curb Hamas in Gaza. Both writers are highly regarded authorities on the region. (Both articles required for WREL 374)
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Hamas: The Strategic Use of Rocket Attacks
For several years Hamas and other Palestinian groups have been firing short-range rockets into Israeli territory from Gaza, mostly aimed at the nearby Israeli city of Siderot. Although one cannot know with certainty what is in the minds of the leaders of these groups, it is possible to hazard a guess concerning their short and long-term strategic objectives. Short-term, Hamas may want to create a situation in which the Israelis, unable to stop the rockets by conventional military or diplomatic means, agree to a hudna, a truce in which, to start with, several hundred Palestinian prisoners are exchanged for the single Israeli prisoner held by Hamas, Gaza is assured normal fuel, food and electricity supplies, and the border to Egypt is reopened, monitored Egyptian border, and Hamas is recognized as the power in charge of Gaza. Such a deal would be a model for a later truce for the West Bank, if and when, Hamas gains control of the territory. Such an agreement would be a strategic defeat for Israel because Hamas is openly committed to its destruction and will make no deal that includes recognition of Israel's right to exist. It would also be unacceptable to the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, and Jordan, none of which have any interest in enhancing the power of a radical Ismamist regime in Gaza. The long range strategic goal of Hamas might be to use its rockets over an ever-increasing area of Israel to make life untenable for Israelis and their state. This, however, might be a very dangerous policy to pursue because of the kinds of massive retaliations of which the Israelis are capable.
Steven Erlanger of the New York Times has written an analysis of the dilemmas facing Israel in dealing with Gaza, "For Israel, Gaza Offers A Range of Risky Choices."
Steven Erlanger of the New York Times has written an analysis of the dilemmas facing Israel in dealing with Gaza, "For Israel, Gaza Offers A Range of Risky Choices."
WREL Quiz February 27, 2008
WREL 374 QUIZ
On Bernard Lewis,
Semites and Anti-Semites
February 27, 2008
Answer three questions from the following list. One of the three questions on this list will be identified as a required question when the quiz starts. You have one hour.
1. Briefly describe the rise of racist theory in Europe and explain how it influenced the implementation of the Holocaust.
2. What government was responsible for the first major anti-Semitic campaign in post-World War II Europe? Briefly describe the campaign.
3. Describe the confusion of race and language in the designation of certain peoples as Aryan and others as Semites. What location is believed to have been the originating point of Semitic language speakers. In addition to Hebrew and Arabic, name three other languages regarded as Semitic.
4. Briefly describe the history of the Jews in Eastern Europe from 1648 to 1882.
5. What is Zionism? Briefly describe its rise in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
6. Briefly describe the rise of modern anti-Semitism up to the Nazi seizure of power in 1933.
7. Briefly describe the career of Theodore Herzl
8. What was the traditional Muslim attitude toward the Jews and how did it change with the birth of the State of Israel.
9. What was the role of Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, in forming an Arab-Nazi alliance during World War II?
10. Briefly describe “the war against Zionism”
On Bernard Lewis,
Semites and Anti-Semites
February 27, 2008
Answer three questions from the following list. One of the three questions on this list will be identified as a required question when the quiz starts. You have one hour.
1. Briefly describe the rise of racist theory in Europe and explain how it influenced the implementation of the Holocaust.
2. What government was responsible for the first major anti-Semitic campaign in post-World War II Europe? Briefly describe the campaign.
3. Describe the confusion of race and language in the designation of certain peoples as Aryan and others as Semites. What location is believed to have been the originating point of Semitic language speakers. In addition to Hebrew and Arabic, name three other languages regarded as Semitic.
4. Briefly describe the history of the Jews in Eastern Europe from 1648 to 1882.
5. What is Zionism? Briefly describe its rise in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
6. Briefly describe the rise of modern anti-Semitism up to the Nazi seizure of power in 1933.
7. Briefly describe the career of Theodore Herzl
8. What was the traditional Muslim attitude toward the Jews and how did it change with the birth of the State of Israel.
9. What was the role of Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, in forming an Arab-Nazi alliance during World War II?
10. Briefly describe “the war against Zionism”
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
The Assassination of Imad Mughniyeh
The last time a major Hezbollah leader was taken out was when Israelis assassinated Abbas Mussavi, Hezbollah’s first leader, in March of 1992. Iran's response was to mobilize Hezbollah operatives to carry out a suicide bombing on July 18, 1994 that leveled the seven-story building of the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina (AMIA), Buenos Aires’ Jewish community center. 85 men, women, and children were killed and more than 300 wounded in the greatest single assault on a Jewish target since World War II. The attack was approved by Ayatollah Sayed Ali Khameini, then as now, Iran's Supreme Leader, and Ali Akhbar Rafsanjani, president of Iran and widely regarded as a "moderate." The professional in charge of carrying out the attack on the AMIA was none other than Imad Mughniyeh.
Whoever killed Mughniyeh took out a "big fish," one of the biggest. It is widely assumed that the Israelis were behind the assassination. It is consistent with their fighting Hamas and other enemies of Israel by targeting the known leaders. Caroline Glick, the Harvard trained deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post, for which she writes a weekly column. She has written an essay dealing with the question of "Who wanted Mughniyeh, "Mughniyeh's true legacy" (Jerusalem Post, February 17, 2007).
Mohammad Bazzi, a Fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations who is writing a book on Hezbollah, was interviewed on the assassination on February 14, 2008, "Who Killed Imad Mugniyah?" He offers an alternative perspective. It is also worth noting.
Finally, a Pakistani Islamist web site, "Pakistan Land of the Pure" describing the memorial ceremony for Mughniyeh in Beirut is worthy of note. The principal speech was delivered by Hassan Nasrallah, the current leader of Hezbollah, spoke at the memorial gathering in Beirut. Nasrallah and the other who spoke take it for granted that Israel was behind the assassination and promise a terrible revenge, not necessarily on Israel and Israeli assets, but on Jewish targets throughout the world. Usually, mainstream opponents of Israel claim that they oppose Zionism not Jews and Judaism outside of Israel. We know from the AMIA bombing in Buenos Aires that Hezbollah is not making an empty threat.
Whoever killed Mughniyeh took out a "big fish," one of the biggest. It is widely assumed that the Israelis were behind the assassination. It is consistent with their fighting Hamas and other enemies of Israel by targeting the known leaders. Caroline Glick, the Harvard trained deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post, for which she writes a weekly column. She has written an essay dealing with the question of "Who wanted Mughniyeh, "Mughniyeh's true legacy" (Jerusalem Post, February 17, 2007).
Mohammad Bazzi, a Fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations who is writing a book on Hezbollah, was interviewed on the assassination on February 14, 2008, "Who Killed Imad Mugniyah?" He offers an alternative perspective. It is also worth noting.
Finally, a Pakistani Islamist web site, "Pakistan Land of the Pure" describing the memorial ceremony for Mughniyeh in Beirut is worthy of note. The principal speech was delivered by Hassan Nasrallah, the current leader of Hezbollah, spoke at the memorial gathering in Beirut. Nasrallah and the other who spoke take it for granted that Israel was behind the assassination and promise a terrible revenge, not necessarily on Israel and Israeli assets, but on Jewish targets throughout the world. Usually, mainstream opponents of Israel claim that they oppose Zionism not Jews and Judaism outside of Israel. We know from the AMIA bombing in Buenos Aires that Hezbollah is not making an empty threat.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
The Persian Gulf and the Future of the Middle East
For a very long time, many western politicians and pundits have claimed that "solving" the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the key to peace, stability, and constructive development in the Middle East. When former Prime Minister Tony Blair accepted his new position as Middle East Peace Envoy of the "Quartet," the United States, Russia, the European Unon, and the United Nations, he told Parliament, "The absolute priority is to try to give effect to what is now the consensus across the international community - that the only way of bringing stability and peace to the Middle East is a two-state solution."
A different opinion has been expressed by Ray Takeyh, Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies of the Council of Foreign Relations and Vali R. Nasr, Professor of International Politics at Tufts University in their article, "The Costs of Containing Iran: Washington's Misguided New Middle East Policy" published in Foreign Affairs, January-February, 2008.
Both men are important authorities on Iran. Both are fluent in its language. I agree with them that the political center of gravity of the Middle East is no longer in Israel-Palestine-Lebanon but in the Persian Gulf. Where I disagree somewhat is in their judgment that, "Iran is not, despite common depictions, a messianic power determined to overturn the regional order in the name of Islamic militancy; it is an unexceptionally opportunistic state seeking to assert predominance in its immediate neighborhood." They may be correct, but nevertheless there is a dangerous messianic-apocalyptic trend among some senior Iranian leaders. The jury is out on who will ultimately prevail, but if the messianic-apocalyptic tendency carries the day in an Iran armed with nuclear weapons, the world will be a much more dangerous place than it is today.
A different opinion has been expressed by Ray Takeyh, Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies of the Council of Foreign Relations and Vali R. Nasr, Professor of International Politics at Tufts University in their article, "The Costs of Containing Iran: Washington's Misguided New Middle East Policy" published in Foreign Affairs, January-February, 2008.
Both men are important authorities on Iran. Both are fluent in its language. I agree with them that the political center of gravity of the Middle East is no longer in Israel-Palestine-Lebanon but in the Persian Gulf. Where I disagree somewhat is in their judgment that, "Iran is not, despite common depictions, a messianic power determined to overturn the regional order in the name of Islamic militancy; it is an unexceptionally opportunistic state seeking to assert predominance in its immediate neighborhood." They may be correct, but nevertheless there is a dangerous messianic-apocalyptic trend among some senior Iranian leaders. The jury is out on who will ultimately prevail, but if the messianic-apocalyptic tendency carries the day in an Iran armed with nuclear weapons, the world will be a much more dangerous place than it is today.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Nuclear War Between Israel and Iran?
On September 21, 2004, Iran celebrated her “Sacred Defense Week” with a military parade commemorating Iraq’s 1980 attack and the eight-year war that followed. A principal feature of the parade was the display of Iran’s Shahab-2 ballistic missile and the introduction of the newly developed Shahab-3. A banner was draped over the side of the Shahab 2 with the message, “ISRAEL SHOULD BE WIPED OFF THE MAP”; another banner reading “WE WILL CRUSH AMERICA UNDER OUR FEET” was draped over the side of a trailer carrying the more advanced Shahab-3 missile.
The messages were no idle threats. Long-range ballistic missiles have few, if any, peaceful uses. No country goes to the enormous expense of producing technologically sophisticated missiles like the Shahab-3 or the Shahab-4 for any purpose other than carrying a nuclear or a biological bomb. And, an official commentary on the missiles was carried live on state television openly stating: "These missiles enable us to destroy the enemy with missile strikes wherever he is." The Shahab-3, based on a North Korean update of the Soviet Scud missile, was Iran's most advanced missile. It had a range of 800 miles and a payload of 1,540 pounds enabling it to strike almost any Middle Eastern target, including Tel Aviv, Ankara, Riyadh, Cairo, as well as U. S. Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf. Iran also possesses the Shahab-4 missile and is working on a missile with range of 1,875 miles. Such a missile would put every major European capital within range.
From the start of the 1979 Revolution, mixed messages have come out of Iran. Enthusiastic crowds responded to the Ayatollah Khomeini’s characterization of America as the “Great Satan” and Israel as the “Little Satan” by chanting “Death to America; Death to Israel.” Clearly, some officials, both Iranian and foreign, take such threats literally. Others, both Iranian and foreign, insist that Iranians do not really mean what they say.
The most extreme threats have come from religious and political extremists, such as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his allies. On October 26, 2005 during the final week of Ramadan, Ahmadinejad repeated to Teheran university students that “that Israel must be wiped off the map of the earth.” More cautious elements both inside Iran and in the Arab world sought to distance themselves from Ahmadinejad’s threat, but the Iranian president had no intention of being explained away. Two days later, cheered on by thousands of supporters, he repeated the threat and reminded the world of his official status: "My words are the Iranian nation's words."
Ahmadinejad’s genocidal threat was but the latest in a long series of threats by Iranians promising Israel’s destruction. On December 14, 2001, in an address at Tehran University, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Ahmadinejad’s predecessor as president of Iran and widely considered to be a “moderate,” stated that, "If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the [their] global arrogance would come to a dead end because the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam." Moreover, not only did Rafsanjani threaten Israel with annihilation, he also played a singularly important role in creating Iran’s nuclear weapons program with which to carry out the threat.
Israel's leaders in both the political and the cultural spheres have characterized the Iranian position as`an "existential threat," thus indicating that they take Iran's threats with the utmost seriousness and if they believed that Iran was ready to carry out its threat, they might very well strike first.
What would be the likely outcome of a nuclear war between Iran and Israel? In a comprehensive analysis on the subject, Andrew Cordesman,"Iran, Israel, and Nuclear War," one of the most widely respected American strategists, has come to a very different conclusion than Rafsanjani. He has concluded that, though seriously wounded, Israel would survive both demographically and economically. His analysis includes photos, graphs and text, and is perhaps the most comprehensive current analysis publicly available on the subject. Also available here is a brief summary of Cordesman's analysis by Daniel Pipes, "The Unthinkable Consequences of an Iran-Israel Nuclear Exchange."
In reality, there could be no winners in such an apocalypse. Cordesman got it right when he concluded his analysis with the following comment: "The War Game Paradox: The Only Way to Win is Not to Play."
The messages were no idle threats. Long-range ballistic missiles have few, if any, peaceful uses. No country goes to the enormous expense of producing technologically sophisticated missiles like the Shahab-3 or the Shahab-4 for any purpose other than carrying a nuclear or a biological bomb. And, an official commentary on the missiles was carried live on state television openly stating: "These missiles enable us to destroy the enemy with missile strikes wherever he is." The Shahab-3, based on a North Korean update of the Soviet Scud missile, was Iran's most advanced missile. It had a range of 800 miles and a payload of 1,540 pounds enabling it to strike almost any Middle Eastern target, including Tel Aviv, Ankara, Riyadh, Cairo, as well as U. S. Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf. Iran also possesses the Shahab-4 missile and is working on a missile with range of 1,875 miles. Such a missile would put every major European capital within range.
From the start of the 1979 Revolution, mixed messages have come out of Iran. Enthusiastic crowds responded to the Ayatollah Khomeini’s characterization of America as the “Great Satan” and Israel as the “Little Satan” by chanting “Death to America; Death to Israel.” Clearly, some officials, both Iranian and foreign, take such threats literally. Others, both Iranian and foreign, insist that Iranians do not really mean what they say.
The most extreme threats have come from religious and political extremists, such as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his allies. On October 26, 2005 during the final week of Ramadan, Ahmadinejad repeated to Teheran university students that “that Israel must be wiped off the map of the earth.” More cautious elements both inside Iran and in the Arab world sought to distance themselves from Ahmadinejad’s threat, but the Iranian president had no intention of being explained away. Two days later, cheered on by thousands of supporters, he repeated the threat and reminded the world of his official status: "My words are the Iranian nation's words."
Ahmadinejad’s genocidal threat was but the latest in a long series of threats by Iranians promising Israel’s destruction. On December 14, 2001, in an address at Tehran University, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Ahmadinejad’s predecessor as president of Iran and widely considered to be a “moderate,” stated that, "If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the [their] global arrogance would come to a dead end because the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam." Moreover, not only did Rafsanjani threaten Israel with annihilation, he also played a singularly important role in creating Iran’s nuclear weapons program with which to carry out the threat.
Israel's leaders in both the political and the cultural spheres have characterized the Iranian position as`an "existential threat," thus indicating that they take Iran's threats with the utmost seriousness and if they believed that Iran was ready to carry out its threat, they might very well strike first.
What would be the likely outcome of a nuclear war between Iran and Israel? In a comprehensive analysis on the subject, Andrew Cordesman,"Iran, Israel, and Nuclear War," one of the most widely respected American strategists, has come to a very different conclusion than Rafsanjani. He has concluded that, though seriously wounded, Israel would survive both demographically and economically. His analysis includes photos, graphs and text, and is perhaps the most comprehensive current analysis publicly available on the subject. Also available here is a brief summary of Cordesman's analysis by Daniel Pipes, "The Unthinkable Consequences of an Iran-Israel Nuclear Exchange."
In reality, there could be no winners in such an apocalypse. Cordesman got it right when he concluded his analysis with the following comment: "The War Game Paradox: The Only Way to Win is Not to Play."
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
The Damascus Affair of 1840
One of the events in the Muslim world that pointed to the rise of anti-Semitism in the nineteenth century was the Damascus Affair of 1840 in which a Capuchin monk in Damascus, Father Thomas, disappeared with his servant. The Jews of Damascus were accused of killing him to secure Christian blood which allegedly was required for their rituals. This was known as the Blood Libel. The accusation was very old but wholly without substance. It was often related to the Passover meal and seen as a satanic Jewish Holy Communion. The libel accusation was energetically fostered by Ratti-Menton, the French consul at Damascus and the Quai Dorsay, the French Foreign Office, that saw the incident as a means of strengthening French-Muslim bonds at Jewish expense. In the twentieth century, France was usually hostile to Jewish ambitions in Palestine.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Do Presidents Make History or Does History Make Presidents?
George Friedman of Stratfor Strategic Forcasting, an influential authority on intelligence and international politics, has written an important piece titled "Foreign Policy and the President's Irrelevance." At a time when America is going through the lengthy process of choosing its next president, Friedman asked the question of whether presidents make history or history makes presidents.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
The Gaza Break Out
My first reaction to the breaching of the border wall separating Gaza from Egypt was to regard the event as a strategic disaster for Israel. This may very well turn out to be the case, but the course of events has become complex indeed. However one looks at the break out, the event is extremely important. No Israeli government can agree to an American-brokered peace with Mahmoud Abbas's Palestinian authority if Hamas, dedicated to Israel's destruction, continues to control Gaza and has a realistic chance of controlling all of the Palestinian territories and, as Bret Stephens suggests in his column below, stands a chance of controlling Egypt.
Three views of the Gaza break out appear worth of note. (All are required reading for WREL 374.) They are:
a. Steven Erlanger, "Israel's Experimental Pressure Backfires," Sunday New York Times Review of the Week, January 27, 2008. Erlanger has been following the story on the scene from the start. He has a pro-Palestinian bias although in true liberal style, he would probably say that he is only trying to be fair to all sides. His account can be found
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/world/middleeast/27mideast.
html?scp=7&sq=steven+erlanger&st=nytat:
b. Daniel Pipes, a Harvard PhD in Middle Eastern Studies, who writes a column for the New York Sun and is regarded as a reliable analyst of the Middle East and its conflicts, has offered his own ideas as to how to solve the problem of Gaza. His essay is "Jordan to the West Bank; Egypt to Gaza." He rejects the idea of an independent Palestinian state and argues for a Jordanian take- over of the West Bank and an Egyptian take-over of Gaza. His views reflect those of a number of influential Israelis. His analysis can be found at:
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog_pf.php?id=484
c: Bret Stephens is a member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board. In my opinion, he has written one of the most insightful analysis of the consequences of the breakout for both Israel and Egypt, "The Gaza Breakout." It can be found at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120156765863623885.
html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Three views of the Gaza break out appear worth of note. (All are required reading for WREL 374.) They are:
a. Steven Erlanger, "Israel's Experimental Pressure Backfires," Sunday New York Times Review of the Week, January 27, 2008. Erlanger has been following the story on the scene from the start. He has a pro-Palestinian bias although in true liberal style, he would probably say that he is only trying to be fair to all sides. His account can be found
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/world/middleeast/27mideast.
html?scp=7&sq=steven+erlanger&st=nytat:
b. Daniel Pipes, a Harvard PhD in Middle Eastern Studies, who writes a column for the New York Sun and is regarded as a reliable analyst of the Middle East and its conflicts, has offered his own ideas as to how to solve the problem of Gaza. His essay is "Jordan to the West Bank; Egypt to Gaza." He rejects the idea of an independent Palestinian state and argues for a Jordanian take- over of the West Bank and an Egyptian take-over of Gaza. His views reflect those of a number of influential Israelis. His analysis can be found at:
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog_pf.php?id=484
c: Bret Stephens is a member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board. In my opinion, he has written one of the most insightful analysis of the consequences of the breakout for both Israel and Egypt, "The Gaza Breakout." It can be found at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120156765863623885.
html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Monday, January 28, 2008
Iran's Threat to Destroy Israel
No Muslim nation has been as overtly hostile to Israel as the Islamic Republic of Iran. With a population of more than 65,000,000, one of the world's highest literacy rates (80%), and 10% of the world's known petroleum reserves, Iran has the potential to become the dominant power in the Middle East. Even apart from Iran's disputed efforts to develop a "civilian" nuclear capacity and its undeniable efforts to develop medium and long-range ballistic missiles, such as the Shahab-3 and 4, its potential ability to carry out its threat cannot be underestimated.
Currently, Iran is sending out mixed signals. Speaking to Israel Radio from the World Economic Conference at Davos on January 26, 2008, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said, "Iran is not threatening Israel and does not want nuclear weapons." He added that it was Israel that possessed nuclear weapons and "it is threatening Teheran." (Jerusalem Post, January 26, 2008).
The same day, Hossein Shariatmadari, the editor of the Iranian daily newspaper Kayhan who is close to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and often reflects the latter's views, called on Muslims worldwide to unite in "retaliatory" attacks on American, European, and Israeli "sensitive centers" because of "the war crimes that these countries are committing in the Gaza Strip" and because of their support for Israel.
In his op-ed, "The Defenders of the Enemy," Shar'iatmadari stressed that American and European civilians must be harmed in these attacks, so as to make the U.S. and the European countries change their policy towards Israel. He also called for harming Israelis worldwide, and explained that Islamic regimes that prevent an Islamic attack on Israel must be toppled, because they are defending the enemy. He further stated that such attacks are legitimate according to Islamic law, both Shi'ite and Sunni.
Whom are we to believe?
Currently, Iran is sending out mixed signals. Speaking to Israel Radio from the World Economic Conference at Davos on January 26, 2008, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said, "Iran is not threatening Israel and does not want nuclear weapons." He added that it was Israel that possessed nuclear weapons and "it is threatening Teheran." (Jerusalem Post, January 26, 2008).
The same day, Hossein Shariatmadari, the editor of the Iranian daily newspaper Kayhan who is close to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and often reflects the latter's views, called on Muslims worldwide to unite in "retaliatory" attacks on American, European, and Israeli "sensitive centers" because of "the war crimes that these countries are committing in the Gaza Strip" and because of their support for Israel.
In his op-ed, "The Defenders of the Enemy," Shar'iatmadari stressed that American and European civilians must be harmed in these attacks, so as to make the U.S. and the European countries change their policy towards Israel. He also called for harming Israelis worldwide, and explained that Islamic regimes that prevent an Islamic attack on Israel must be toppled, because they are defending the enemy. He further stated that such attacks are legitimate according to Islamic law, both Shi'ite and Sunni.
Whom are we to believe?
Sunday, January 20, 2008
WREL 374 Syllabus
WREL 374: The Middle East Conflict
Class Readings and Syllabus
Richard L. Rubenstein, STM, PhD
Office hours: By appointment only
E-mail- rlr@bridgeport.edu
Blog- http://21stcenturytheologian.blogspot.com/
Class Calendar
January 16- Introductory session, “What is at stake in the Middle East Conflict?"
http://21stcenturytheologian.blogspot.com/2008/02/assassination-of-imad-mughniyeh.html
Reading assignments
• “The Charter of Hamas”
• “Is the Peace Process Realistic?-Max Boot, “Of Braveheart and Bush,” Wall Street Journal, January 5, 2008.
(Both documents are available at the blog, Religion, History and Theology http://21stcenturytheologian.blogspot.com/ )
January 23- Bernard Lewis, Semites and Anti-Semites: An Inquiry into Conflict and Prejudice
• Introduction, pp. 11-24
• Ch. 1: The Holocaust and After, pp. 25-41
• Ch. 2: Semites, pp. 42-57
• Ch. 3: Jews, pp. 57-80
• Ch. 4: Anti-Semites, pp. 81-116
January 30- Lewis, Semites and Anti-Semites
• Ch. 5: Muslims and Jews, pp. pp. 117-139. For a darker view of Islamic tolerance, especially Islamic anti-Semitism, see Andrew Bostom, “The First and the Last Enemy,” Front Page Magazine, http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/10/the_first_and_last_enemy_jewha.html
See also my postings, Iran's Threat to Destroy Israel and "The Gaza Breakout". Both are posted in this blog. (Both are required).
• Ch. 6: The Nazis and the Palestine Problem, pp. 140-163.
• For an important essay, translated from the German, conserning recently discovered Nazi plans to exterminate the Jews of Palestine upon the expected victory of Field Marshall Erwin Rommel’s Afrika Korps over the British in North Afrika in 1942, see Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Kuppers, “’Elimination of the Jewish National Home in Palestine’: The Einsatzkommando of the Panzer Army Africa, 1942”, (Jerusalem: Yadvashem, 2007), http://www1.yadvashem.org/about_holocaust/studies/vol35/Mallmann-Cuppers2.pdf. This is a required reading.
• Ch. 7: The War Against Zionism, pp. 164-191.
February 6- Anton LaGuardia, War Without End: Israelis, Palestinians, and the Struggle for a Promised Land
• Ch. 1: A Small Country with a Big History, pp. 1-16.
• Ch. 2: One God, Many Religions, pp. 17-61
Read the text of the brief, but historically important, Balfour Declaration of 1917 in which the British Government declared that it viewed with favour "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."
There is a very useful Wikipedia article on Theodore Herzl. (Required reading for WREL 374)
February 13- LaGuardia, War Without End
• Ch. 3: Every Man Under His Vine, pp. 62-104.
• Ch. 4: The Hundred Years War, pp. 105-153
February 20- LaGuardia, War Without End
Ch. 5: Victims of Victims, pp. 154-212
Ch. 6. The Tribes of Israel, pp. 212-260
Quiz on Bernard Lewis
See also my postings The Assassination of Imad Mughniyeh and "Hamas: The Strategic Use of Rocket Attacks."
http://21stcenturytheologian.blogspot.com/2008/02/
hamas-strategic-use-of-rocket-attacks.html
March 5- LaGuardia, War Without End
Ch. 7. The Curse of Peace, pp. 261-370
Ch. 8. Among the Nations, pp. 371-391
Epilogue, 392-401
Mid-term Exam
May 7- Final Exam
Further details forthcoming.
Class Readings and Syllabus
Richard L. Rubenstein, STM, PhD
Office hours: By appointment only
E-mail- rlr@bridgeport.edu
Blog- http://21stcenturytheologian.blogspot.com/
Class Calendar
January 16- Introductory session, “What is at stake in the Middle East Conflict?"
http://21stcenturytheologian.blogspot.com/2008/02/assassination-of-imad-mughniyeh.html
Reading assignments
• “The Charter of Hamas”
• “Is the Peace Process Realistic?-Max Boot, “Of Braveheart and Bush,” Wall Street Journal, January 5, 2008.
(Both documents are available at the blog, Religion, History and Theology http://21stcenturytheologian.blogspot.com/ )
January 23- Bernard Lewis, Semites and Anti-Semites: An Inquiry into Conflict and Prejudice
• Introduction, pp. 11-24
• Ch. 1: The Holocaust and After, pp. 25-41
• Ch. 2: Semites, pp. 42-57
• Ch. 3: Jews, pp. 57-80
• Ch. 4: Anti-Semites, pp. 81-116
January 30- Lewis, Semites and Anti-Semites
• Ch. 5: Muslims and Jews, pp. pp. 117-139. For a darker view of Islamic tolerance, especially Islamic anti-Semitism, see Andrew Bostom, “The First and the Last Enemy,” Front Page Magazine, http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/10/the_first_and_last_enemy_jewha.html
See also my postings, Iran's Threat to Destroy Israel and "The Gaza Breakout". Both are posted in this blog. (Both are required).
• Ch. 6: The Nazis and the Palestine Problem, pp. 140-163.
• For an important essay, translated from the German, conserning recently discovered Nazi plans to exterminate the Jews of Palestine upon the expected victory of Field Marshall Erwin Rommel’s Afrika Korps over the British in North Afrika in 1942, see Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Kuppers, “’Elimination of the Jewish National Home in Palestine’: The Einsatzkommando of the Panzer Army Africa, 1942”, (Jerusalem: Yadvashem, 2007), http://www1.yadvashem.org/about_holocaust/studies/vol35/Mallmann-Cuppers2.pdf. This is a required reading.
• Ch. 7: The War Against Zionism, pp. 164-191.
February 6- Anton LaGuardia, War Without End: Israelis, Palestinians, and the Struggle for a Promised Land
• Ch. 1: A Small Country with a Big History, pp. 1-16.
• Ch. 2: One God, Many Religions, pp. 17-61
Read the text of the brief, but historically important, Balfour Declaration of 1917 in which the British Government declared that it viewed with favour "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."
There is a very useful Wikipedia article on Theodore Herzl. (Required reading for WREL 374)
February 13- LaGuardia, War Without End
• Ch. 3: Every Man Under His Vine, pp. 62-104.
• Ch. 4: The Hundred Years War, pp. 105-153
February 20- LaGuardia, War Without End
Ch. 5: Victims of Victims, pp. 154-212
Ch. 6. The Tribes of Israel, pp. 212-260
Quiz on Bernard Lewis
See also my postings The Assassination of Imad Mughniyeh and "Hamas: The Strategic Use of Rocket Attacks."
http://21stcenturytheologian.blogspot.com/2008/02/
hamas-strategic-use-of-rocket-attacks.html
March 5- LaGuardia, War Without End
Ch. 7. The Curse of Peace, pp. 261-370
Ch. 8. Among the Nations, pp. 371-391
Epilogue, 392-401
Mid-term Exam
May 7- Final Exam
Further details forthcoming.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
The Charter of Hamas
One of the most important documents of the conflict in the Middle East is the Charter of Hamas, dated August 18, 1988. In view of the fact that Hamas now controls the Gaza strip, no realistic exploration of the prospects for Middle East peace can ignore this document. Of especial importance is the fact that the Charler is formulated as a non-negotiable religious document.
The Avalon Project of the Yale Law School has made this reliable translation available on the Web. It can be accessed at: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm.
The Avalon Project of the Yale Law School has made this reliable translation available on the Web. It can be accessed at: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm.
Is The Peace Process Realistic?
Max Boot, Senior Fellow for National Security Studies has written an important essay on the viability of the "peace process" for solving the conflict between Israel and the Arab/Muslim world:
Of Braveheart and Bush
| Author: | Max Boot, Senior Fellow for National Security Studies |
|---|
January 5, 2008
Wall Street Journal
President Bush will travel to the Middle East next week, where he will become the latest U.S. president, going back to the 1940s, to make a major push to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians. It is hard to see what in the current situation—with the Gaza Strip in the hands of a rabidly anti-Israel group and the West Bank in the hands of only a mildly less anti-Israel group—makes him think he will succeed where his predecessors failed.
Those who insist on pursuing the “peace process,” notwithstanding the low probability of success, claim that we have no choice. “What is the alternative?” they ask. “Perpetual war?”
Well, yes.
To be skeptical of the peace process is not to suggest that such never-ending strife is desirable, but merely to acknowledge that it may be inevitable. The contrary view—that even a conflict as intractable as this one should end soon—rests on a sunny, if ahistorical, Enlightenment faith that peace is the natural order of things and war a temporary aberration.
To view the entire article, go to:http://www.cfr.org/publication/15180/of_braveheart_and_bush.html.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
