Earlier this week, I attended a lecture given by the Israeli ambassador. I was not surprised that many people attended the event, but I was very surprised at how the evening panned out.

I understand that people are very passionate about, and in some cases directly effected by, the situation in Gaza and other such conflicts in which Israel is involved. I was surprised, however, at most of the crowd's behavior. The majority of people who asked questions seemed like they were looking for a fight more than they were interested in hearing a response.

It is important to raise one's voice and to ask tough questions, but I can't help thinking it was naive and rather immature to throw stones at a lecture. The man is a diplomat. Of course he is not going to admit that Israel was overtly wrong about anything--he was chosen for that (what I am sure is a very competitive) position because he is qualified to answer incendiary questions in a diplomatic fashion. I obviously did not learn anything new at the lecture, since an ambassador is not meant to just introduce facts and ideas, but to do so in a way that makes his or her country look innocent and correct in all matters. If nothing else, the evening was useful in that it reinforced the notions (that have been made rather clear in this class) that there is no unbiased opinion in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Although he spoke for over an hour and a half without really saying much, he mentioned something that I thought was very interesting. He noted that the UN and the media focus so heavily on the conflict between Israel and Palestine that they act as though there are no other conflicts in the world. I disagree with his assertion that this justifies caring less about the problems in Gaza, but agree that there are problems of equal importance that are oftentimes ignored by a majority of the public.

The importance of public opinion and sentiment is reminiscent of major themes found in Zayni Barakat. This further supports the notion we discussed in class that the author meant the story to be an allegory for the present world

Imperial Harem--Post Colloquium

After the class discussion of Imperial Harem, I find that many of the topics I found most interesting and most of the questions I hoped to pose to the class did not really come up. The discussion was certainly thought-provoking and forced me to consider the connotations of Ottoman Slavery when contrasted with slavery in the United States and the other places in the world--a topic that I had taken for granted while reading.

There were many subjects and themes discussed in the text of which I had never before heard. For instance, I did not have any idea of what a “harem” was before the reading. Although I had heard the word, I did not know that it carried any political connotations or that it was a vital component of Royal Family life. I gathered from the text and class discussion, however, that the generalized Western perception of a Harem is reminiscent of a whorehouse (based strongly on the sexual fantasies of ill informed, European men). I know now that a Harem was really a structured environment under which the sexual activities of the ruling class could be carefully scrutinized and monitored.

Despite the fact that the idea of a "harem" is not recognized or put into practice in the West, I feel that comparisons in sexual activity can certainly be drawn--especially in regards to Western ruling dynasties. Very rarely was sexual activity kept within the bonds of marriage, but it was covered with secrecy and generally ignored by the public. A harem, on the other hand, served as an arena for the ruling class to play out sexual desires while still ensuring the well-being of the dynasty's future, and being kept in check by the public. It is very interesting to me that even though the Ottomans did not exercise a democratic government system, they allowed public opinion to matter so much (leading to the implementation of the Imperial Harem).

The Gaza War has been over for about three weeks, and is almost entirely gone from the U.S. media. After the tenuous ceasefire came into effect the Western World has seemingly forgot there was a conflict to begin with. According to an article in the Washington Post, however, (the article can be accessed at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/02/07/ST2009020702246.html ) the problem is far from solved.

Something that seems strange to me is that the article did not mention there being any aid to Palestine coming from the Muslim world. From what I know understand about Islam from the Esposito reading, Muslims tend to feel a certain sense of solidarity with eachother (as evidenced from the Koran forbidding a Muslim from killing another born Muslim). This most recent bloody conflict between Israel and Palestine appeared to be the final incident that would get the Western World to intervene. Now the U.S. is sending relief money, the European Union is considering what to do next, but Palestine's neighboring countries are doing next to nothing--seems odd.

I want to note, however, that I was very impressed with the reaction of the Manhattanville Community after the Gaza War. A Seeds of Peace presentation by two students from Palestine drew a large audience, and served as an effective platform to inform students ignorant of the news about what occured on the West Bank. Throughout the week, I also noticed several students asking for donations to send to Gaza for relief work--those who could not donate money often took black arm bands to show their support for the cause. One can tell from these demonstrations that the War in Gaza affected and matters to many people on campus, as Manhattanville is not usually a stage for much open political activity.

I hope that grassroots efforts like the ones practiced by the Manhattanville Community this previous week can help to alleviate some of the suffering of displaced Palestinians, since large scale relief efforts (according to Witte at least) are doomed to failure.