After learning about the vastly underrated Battle of Manzikert, I felt it appropriate to find out more about the Suljuk Turks. It turns out that most historians agree on pinpointing the Battle of Manzikert as the moment the decline of the great Byzantine Empire began. Although the Byzantine army did not suffer many causalities and many units continued fighting within a few months, the loss proved the Byzantines were not indestructible and began the series of events that lead to the downfall.

Now the Seljuks, the army that defeated Romanus and his troops, were a very interesting people. The Cleveland and the Esposito books both make a point of discussing how the Western idea of savage Muslims slaying Christians in order to spread their religion is a raging inaccuracy; examining the contributions of the Seljuk Turks furthers to prove their arguments. Although the Seljuks ruled over a majority of Muslims, there were plenty of Christians and even some Jews tolerated under their rule. Math and scientific progresses flourished under the Seljuks, as did scholarly and artistic endeavors.

Interestingly, because of all of the patronage of arts and scientists, the Seljuks are responsible for having a strong influence over the modern architecture of mosques, hospitals, and seminaries. J.M Rogers describes in his article, "WAQF and Patronage in Seljuk Anatolia" that Seljuk architecture is both beautiful and distinctive. It is fascinating that the architecture is a product of so many different influences (Persian, Turkish, and Greek were all fairly common within the empire), as that principle is reminiscent of the beginnings of Islam itself.

Blog 1--"Peace, Propoganda, and the Promise Land"

Although "Peace, Propoganda, and the Promise Land" does a solid job of pointing out the oftentimes extreme bias in the American news media, it also clearly serves to persuade audiences to "side" with Palestine; by showing how unfairly the conflict is often depicted, the documentary causes an emotional response in (primarily American) viewers that makes them want to backlash against the injustices that have been pointed out to them. After watching the film, viewers ignorant of the details of the conflict run the risk of automatically responding with "anti-Israel" feelings. Since the struggles between Israelis and Palestinians is such a serious issue with so much at stake, it seems irresponsible of any press agents to treat the entire situation like a sporting match by reporting information in slanted ways so as to persuade viewers to "take a side." It is important for all people, especially those who have watched the film, to keep a critical eye on the news for pro-Israel bias, and to not just automatically "side" with Palestine.

Despite the severity of the Israel-Palestine conflict, Americans (as a whole) do not generally seem particularly involved with it. News of violence in the West Bank is not uncommon, but is hardly ever front page news. Even with the recent surge of violence due to the end of the ceasefire Since the United States provides Israel with an abundant amont of military aid (a solid fact, not a piece of propaganda), Americans are more involved in Middle East situation than they may think. Since so much of their tax dollars are going toward aiding Israel, it seems obvious that every American should have in-depth knowledge of what exactly their money is going toward, and should therefore be presented with completely unbiased news information.

What is so problematic, however, is that there is a real lack of unbiased information readily accessable to most people. Since most individuals and groups most concerned with the conflict are those directly involved with it, they are almost sure to have some sort of bias. If there were to be a plethora of unbiased reporting and information available to Americans, and they were to have stronger background knowledge and opinions of the problems, I am curious to know if it would have any effect at all on what is occuring. What exaclty could the United States citizenry do to bring change and/or stability if armed with more knowlege?

Another point that stood out in the film that has stuck in my mind is how almost every person interviewed discussed how they condemn Palestine for resorting to violence to try to prove points. I can't help but think that this may be just another tactic to make Palestine appear appealing to viewers of the film--producers chose testimonies that condemn violence in order to endear Palestine to viewers and consequently feed the pro-Palestine propaganda machine. Non-violent resistance is very appealing to most American audiences, as is proven by how young children are often taught the heroism of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi.

Nelson Mandela was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, after having been imprisoned for "terrorist activity." It is common knowledge that Mandela had no qualms with resorting to violence when he knew that non-violent tactics would not end apartheid policies. Americans today are aware of Mandela's name and that he went to jail but are not aware of his entire story. This proves that Americans are willing to forget unpleasantness and replace it with idealized versions of the truth. It makes me wonder, if Palestine should ever "win" the conflict, if the United States (and the film's commentators) would commend Palestinians for doing whatever they could (violent or otherwise) to struggle for peace.

It is also very interesting that the film (which audiences originally had to purchase) is now available for free online. Although it is clearly because of the recent surge of violence, it seems that there should be some amendments or additions since the film was created so many years ago. This further proves that the makers and distributors of the film film intend to pander to American audiences' sense of pathos much more than their logic and concern over fact.

In sum, I believe that Americans are very susceptible to pro-Peace propaganda and will probably accept everything said in the film as the gospel truth instead of becoming inspired to look up hard facts for themselves. Thus, I am not entirely sure how effectively "Peace, Propaganda, and the Promise Land" truly informs Americans of the conflict in the West Bank.