Don Quixote and Hamlet

The question of who would be considered a better knight comes up as we discussed Don Quixote and Hamlet. Using information from both Don Quixote and Hamlet, I will discuss what Don Quixote’s evaluation of Hamlet as a knight would be.  Based on the ideals of what a knight should be Don Quixote will take at Hamlet’s use of arms, pursuit of a lady and overall behavior in tough situations.  Using information from how Hamlet conducts himself, I believe that Don Quixote would classify Hamlet as failing to upholding the standards of good knight.

                First we take a look at Hamlet’s use of arms through the play. It is very clear that Hamlet is very skilled in the use of weaponry through the play. I believe that Don Quixote would admire his ability to use a variety of weapons with great skills. Quixote would state that his ability to use weapons effectively would help him fair better in combat as a knight. This is particularly seen in Hamlet’s duel with Laertes, he is able to use his skills successfully despite being poisoned and wins the dual. Don Quixote seems to be a fan of dueling other knights so Hamlet’s role in the dual would win him some admiration from Quixote. Hamlet, however does seem to have a certain degree of carelessness with use of weapons and a civilian population. The scene of him stabbing of Polonius who was hiding behind the tapestry is a perfect example. Hamlet is quick to act, doing so he takes an innocent life without remorse. Don Quixote would be highly opposed to Hamlet’s behavior in this situation; no knight would so carelessly take a civilian life and not be remorseful of his action. In no way would Quixote ever imagine killing innocents, he has read too much on the rules of chivalry to allow this to happen. When it comes to the use of weapons, Quixote would have a neutral opinion of Hamlet due to the positives and negatives of his actions.

                Apart from usage of weapons, we can also take a look at the dealings with a mistress. The main goal of Don Quixote is to find his lady, Dulcinea and win her affection. He attempts to do this by tracking her down and freeing her from any enchantment she is under.  It is clear that Don Quixote places great importance on serving his lady, I think he would have a problem with Hamlets actions.  First of all, Hamlet confuses Ophelia in his plot to seem crazy. Don Quixote would not approve of his deceit especially of the lady that he supposedly admires. Don follows proper chivalry and does everything in his power to try to win the affection of his lady; Hamlet does not seem to care about trying to win Ophelia.  On top of causing her grief and confusion, Hamlet even allows her to take her own life without doing anything to stop it. Quixote would have a big problem with this, Hamlet could have stepped in and made things right with her but instead did not care and let her die. Quixote would not be able to support this at all, his whole quest was to save his lady while Hamlet caused the death of his. The fact that Hamlet is more focused on his own goals of avenging his father’s death, he is quick to disregard the health of his mistress. In Quixote’s eyes this is a huge failure. Quixote has read and learned that in the end, a proper knight comes to the rescue of his lady and is there to save the day. Hamlet seems to do the opposite of this therefore; Quixote would not look upon him favorably when it comes to serving his lady.

                Another thing that Quixote would need to consider when evaluating Hamlet is his day to day actions. Quixote lives by the philosophy of trying to help anyone he can through his travels. He is a knight errant, not attached to any lord but rather to the quest to do well in the world. He would take a look at Hamlet and be disappointed with his involvement with royal matters. Through the whole story, Hamlet is only worried about his stake in the court and avenging his father’s death. Nowhere does he attempt to make time to go out and do good deeds. Quixote would have a problem with this, if Hamlet truly called himself a knight he would make an attempt to proved justice for the world not meddle with personal affairs. Apart from daily travels, Quixote would also look at how Hamlet conducts himself when he converses with others. According to Quixote, a good knight should be a good listener and excellent at telling stories. Quixote’s excellence in this category is seen through the story as he retells stories of knights with great success. Don Quixote would take a look at how Hamlets used his speech but also how it affected his audience. From the extravagant speeches Hamlet makes, I would say that Quixote would admire his ability to use words and entertain. While in the graveyard for example, he gave a extravagant speech about life to his friend Horatio, who was left in awe after Hamlet’s discussion of death. Hamlet has a great ability to be dramatic while delivering an excellent performance; this would prove to be helpful in his consideration of having knightly attributes.

                Taking a look at Hamlet at a whole, there is no doubt that Don Quixote would take a fair look at his attributes and would make a good assessment of how he would fair as a knight. Quixote would look favorably upon Hamlet’s ability to use weapons with great skill. He would also admire Hamlet’s skill with speech and moving a audience. The problem that Quixote would have would be the misuse of weaponry on civilians, lack of chivalry towards his lady. He would also point out how Hamlet seems to just be in things for him and personal gain rather than serving the world for a greater good. Weighting the positives and negatives, Don Quixote would seem to see Hamlet to be a bad representation of what a knight should be. Hamlet fails to fit well in the criteria that Quixote has learned from his readings and would not fare well in a world following chivalric code.

What defines me? A philosophical look at identity

What defines me?

                The philosophical topic that I believe is the most important to understand is personal identity. There are multiple theories that attempt to define identity. To better understand what these arguments are trying to prove, we need to define what personal identity is. Personal is defined as, "of, pertaining to, or coming as from a particular person; individual; private", according to Dictionary.com.  So what we are talking about is the self, who you are as a person. Identity is defined as, "the sense of self, providing sameness and continuity in personality over time". This tells us that the term 'personal identity' refers to a particular person's self and how it is affected by time.

          There are four main theories that explain the 'personal self'. These are commonly known as the illusion, body, soul and memory theories. Through time, each has had support and popularity with strong arguments being made in support. I believe that the memory theory is the strongest argument for 'personal identity' because it follows logical premises that make sense.

                To better explain and compare the theories of personal identity, I will use a situational example to place them all into. In class, we watched a video which brought up the case of the World War Two officer. During the war, this man was a SS officer who committed a number of war crimes which he was not tried for. Later in his life, charges were brought on him for his past crimes. He argued that he can no longer has memory of what happened and cannot be held responsible for what he does not remember.  I will use this example to help explain what each argument would say regarding this case and if should be found guilty or not.

The memory theory is pretty simple to understand. When applied to a subject, it seems logical. I like to keep things simple and prefer to use logic to explain things, rather than pondering something such as the existence of the soul. This reasoning leads me to support memory theory as the best approach when it comes to 'personal identity'.

                The memory theory bases identity on the recollection of past memories. Memory is defined as, "the mental capacity or faculty of retaining and reviving facts, events, impressions or recalling previous experiences". The key point is that it relies on remembering things that happen in the past. 

                Based on this theory, we are the same person today as we were in the past as long as we have memories of the person we use to be. Our current self is connected to the past by memories, when a bond exists; you are the same person as you were in the past.  As time goes on, your self will be the same as long your can remember back. The memory theory believes that it is the recollection of past memories that make the self.

                If the self is made from memories, it is not a physical thing; therefore your self is a psychological entity.  The reasoning I really liked this theory is because it takes into account memories and experiences into determining who you are. I can remember my experiences from elementary school. It seems logical that for however long I remember my past, I am still the same person I can remember. The memory takes a very important role in life, take a look at the example of choosing losing your memories and becoming a king, or keeping your memories (Rauhut 129). Most people choose to keep their memories. They value them because memories are what make up who they are.  They are correct, based on the memory theory, memories are what make up the self and when put into that context of the king, a person would tend to agree.

                I agree with the position memory theory would take on the World War Two example. This officer, now old, has lost his memories that connect him with his past self. He has no recollection of what he did in the past. Taking this into account, I determine that he would not be responsible for his actions because he not the person who committed those acts. His memory of that person is gone, if you're "self" is your recollection of your past memories. Then he is no longer the person he cannot remember.  Some would argue that he still needs to be punished, but based on the memory theory. He does not deserve any punishment because he is not the same person.

                When I take a look at different situations, the memory theory seems to be a good choice. I agree that the memory is the factor that determines what your 'personal identity' is. There are, however, strong arguments that disagree with what the memory theory proposes.

                While the memory theory describes the self as a physiological entity, there are two arguments that define the self as a substance that actually exists rather than just something in the mind. This vies is divided into the body and soul theories which are relatively popular especially in religious points of view.
                The body theory focuses on the existence of the physical form to define the self. Body is defined as, "the physical structure and material substance of an animal, or plant, living or dead". So the body theory deals with physical things that you can actually touch to verify existence.

The body theory believes that we are the same person as long as we have the same physical body.  I can see how people would like this idea, it is pretty easy to understand and relate to. Take a look at modern science and there is many popular applications of the body theory; dna testing, fingerprints, ect (Rauhut 123). In America's legal system, these things have become paramount in proving guilt or innocence in criminal court. I can agree with some of the things the body theory is able to accomplish. There are, however, some problems that arise when I look at the body theory.

Let's take a look at the World War Two example again. There is no doubt that he is the same physical form today as he was during the war. The body theory would argue that he is guilty because he is the same person that committed the crimes; his physical form has not changed.  Although Dna testing and fingerprinting would prove this to be correct, I do not believe that is what makes up the person. This man has no memory of what occurred in the past, no connection to it besides being the same physical body. I would argue that regardless of him being the same physical form, he is not the same person because of the lack of memories connecting him to the event.

Another example which relates would be that of someone who has amnesia or becomes a vegetable. Based on the body theory, a person would still be the same self even after experiencing these conditions. That seems like a pretty weak argument to me. If someone had lost all memory and even mental function, I cannot believe that they can possibly the same person they use to be. I would argue that after the events, their past self ceases to exist when they lose memory of it, regardless of having the same physical form.

When taking into account the examples I described, the body theory has some holes in it's argument. It is unable to account for things beyond the physical form like the memory theory can. This leads me to support the memory theory over the body theory because it can fulfill situations where the body theory would not work to define the self. The other theory within the self as substance tree is the soul theory.

Prior to presenting and arguing the soul theory, I would like to state my personal bias when it comes to souls. The soul theory has a large connection to religion and the afterlife. I do not believe in the possibility of an afterlife or a soul, therefore I would not even consider the soul theory a valid argument. For the purposes of providing all sides, I will present the soul theory like any other.

The soul theory is all based on the existence of this thing called the soul.  Soul is defined as, "the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body". So were talking about something that exists but is not verifiable, you cannot see or touch your soul. It is something that is separate from the physical form; therefore it does not end when the physical body dies.

The soul theory holds a similar view to the body theory of "same body, same person" (Rauhut 117), but instead it is "same soul, same person" (Rauhut 117). Where the soul is what defines who the person is and this is an eternal entity. In a way, soul theorists argue that the person survives beyond life into something else. They argue this because they believe the self is tied to a thing called a soul, which endures the passing of the physical form. This is a view that is commonly accepted in many of the world's major religions.

Using the example of the Officer a soul theorists would say that he is indeed guilty. This is seen as the case because he posses the same soul as he did when he committed these acts regardless of remembering. Based on soul theory, it is the same soul doing these things; therefore he is guilty because within his soul, he is the same person who did those things.

Although the soul theory is widely supported and makes sense to most people, I have a few problems with it. The first thing that jumps out is the possibility of the soul theory to exist. It seems hard to prove something that there is no physical or mental connection to. Memory is a physiological thing, but you can connect to it by simply thinking about past memories.  There is no way to do this with the soul. I find it hard to believe in something that is not easily proven with evidence.

Another question with the soul theory is; how does it change over time? Is it possible to lose your soul or does it ever changes? There is no way of knowing if the soul changes along with the person.  With the memory theory however, your 'self' changes as your memories change. You are whoever you can remember back to be. There is an alternative to the body and soul substance theories.

The other major theory used to argue 'personal Identity' is the illusion theory. Illusion is defined as, "something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality". In essence, the illusion theory is talking about something that is not real and only appears to exist. This is the stance this theory takes when it comes to the self.

According to Illusionists, there is no self that is present through time. The self changes from one moment to the next and is constantly turning into something new. If the self is going through constant change, there actually is no self. There is only an illusion of a self. This point of view was described to be like a river according to Heraclitus, "It is not possible to step twice in the same river…It scatters and again comes together, and approaches and recedes"(Rauhut 119). He uses the analogy of a river to describe the self. It is always changing and flowing and will never be the same from one moment to the next.

The illusion theory would find the World War Two officer not guilty. This happens because if they believe the personal self is always changing. You cannot be held responsible for things in the past because it was not done by you. This is a big problem when it comes to the criminal justice system. If people are not responsible for their actions; why is that we have so many people incarcerated in jails for their actions? That is a similar argument to that of the memory theory but there are a few differences that separate the two greatly.

On the surface, the idea of the illusion theory makes sense because humans are constantly exposed to new things but there some very big issues when it comes to practicality in life. If you are always changing and you are never the same, why do humans put so much into their future and life? Look at college for example; I am one of many college students in America. The reason I want to get my education is to have a better chance of getting the job I want in the future. Under the illusion theory, it would not matter what you are doing in the future because you are not the same, this contradicts most people's life choices. Memory theory however, argues that you are still the same person in the future as long as you can remember things from the past. If this is true, then the memory theory provides reason to go to college and look forward to having a future unlike the illusion theory.

There are many points of view when it comes to arguing the existence of a 'personal self'.  Each has their own strengths and weaknesses but I believe it is clear that one is more logical and applicable than the others.

A lot of people want to accept the soul theory to be right; it has too many unknowns that cannot be accounted for. It is hard to justify believing in something that you can never really prove to exist. As much support as it gets, it is destined to never be provable until a connection between the soul and person can be made, this however is not likely to occur.

The body theory is a very simple argument that uses some basic logic to explain. The problem with the body theory is that it is too simple; it does not take into account the mental state of the person, just the physical form. I find it hard to follow unless some of those issues are dealt with.

The illusion theory does seem to make sense with their view that the person is always changing over time. The problem comes with how they connect the self with the self of the past, they do not. This poses a big problem, if this were to be true, the reason for existence and living would be hard to support.  Illusion theory does not apply to practical life.

This is why I believe the memory theory to be more correct than other ways of describing the 'personal self'. It makes sense that you are made up of your past and it will always influence who you are in the future as long as you can remember it. The argument about losing connection with your past is simply solved by stating, if you lose the memory connection with your past, you are no longer the person you were in the past. Although the memory theory is not perfectly sound, for the most part I believe it to be the best way to understand what the self actually is.

Works Cited:

Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com, LLC, Web. 12 Nov 2009. <http://dictionary.reference.com/>.

Rauhut, Nils Ch. Ultimate Questions: Thinking About Philosophy. 2nd Ed. New York, NY: Pearson Education, 2007. 113-136. Print.

Is it possible for animals to have rights?

Is it possible for animals to have rights?

                When looking at the issue of animal rights, we need to first define what rights are. The United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights says, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood" (Human Rights 1). This document clearly defines rights that are given to specifically humans however; globally there are no rights specifically for animals. I believe animals do posses rights based on local animal protection laws and species preservation.

                Animal rights are evident in the protection and preservation of animals. This is done through the endangered species list, which protects species of animals from becoming extinct by forbidding hunting and killing of that animal. Steps to preserve animal's habitats have been taken with the regulation of zoos and national parks. These serve to separate animals from humans allowing them to live in relative peace. What these programs do is preserve animals rights to live a safely with a smaller chance of being killed. These are not the only step to protect animal rights.

                There are governments around the world that have passed laws protecting animals against cruelty and killing. Laws against mistreating animals have been set in place to protect their rights. In parts of India, for example, killing a cow is almost as bad legally as taking a human life. The United States has many animal protection laws in place. Inhumane treatment of animals has lead to court cases and prison time. One case that was in the media recently is the Michael Vick dog fighting trial. Dog fighting is an animal rights issue that the U.S. government takes a strong stance against, "Dog fighting is a felony in Virginia and 47 other states. Transporting dogs over state lines for dog fighting is a federal crime"(Maske). Fighting dogs has been considered inhumane and against the rights of the animals, therefore Michael Vick went to prison for his crime. The Animal Welfare Act of 2002 reaffirmed laws that enforce the humane slaughter and testing of animals (Animallaw). Having these laws in place helps protect and enforce infringing on animal rights.  

                By no means is the treatment of animals perfect, there are still a lot of things that need to be addressed when looking at animal rights. The system is never prefect, and as times goes on, animal rights will be more developed. Take a look two hundred years ago; there was whole industry on the trafficking and selling of people. As time went on, this disappeared and human rights have grown to where they are now. Thought animal rights are limited to preservation of species and enforcing laws against animal cruelty, in the future animal rights could be entirely something else. There is no doubt that animal rights do exist in the world today in limited forms.

               

"In the face of fear" Omaha Beach

"In the Face of Fear"

The Image I have chosen depicts American Soldiers in a landing craft at Normandy. This picture was taken on June 6^th, 1944 at Omaha beach in northern France. This picture depicts the allied invasion of Germany's "Fortress Europe" during World War Two.  The Battle of Normandy consisted of five amphibious landings across the beaches of France, combined with airborne landings on the previous night.  The image of the beach landing depicts the character of the soldiers involved and America as a whole.

                The surface level of the soldiers themselves says a lot about this photo. Looking at the gear they are carrying, it seems that they are members of the U.S. Army. Their faces look young, depicting that it is a good chance they are either volunteers, or have been drafted. Imagine being in your late teens and early twenties and entering combat for the first time at Omaha beach. They must feel terrified, but still they approach shore in the face of chaos.  They look to be in a follow up wave approaching the beach; crafts from the prior waves are visible in the distance. If one were to look at this image as an American citizen in 1944, they would not only be proud of their fellow citizens for fighting for their country, but also be thankful of their country staring evil in the face and not backing down. The American fighting man in World War Two is an ultimate testament to individual patriotism and bravery.

Not only is this image a testament to American soldiers in World War Two but also illustrates what America is. This image seems to be a personification of the American spirit. When faced with obstacles, America has never hesitated to be in front and storm the beach.  The world looks to America for leadership; we are at our best when we lead from the front. In World War Two, we were not the first country to fight, but when our time came, we saw the job through. This image is timeless in its representation of America never giving up, and having a wining spirit to make it through tough time. That is something that will continue to unite our country despite all the differences we all have, we will always be American. This picture sends the message, in the end; America will always overcome adversity and come out a winner. Even today, America is seen as a power of good fighting the righteous fight against evil forces in the world. America is the tower on the hill that people look at for support. Like in both World Wars, America will be there to answer the call. The men in the boat are all from different backgrounds but one common bond brings them together, they are Americans.

                Something about this image seemed to just speak to me. It not only presents the courage of a group of soldiers in World War Two, it represents America's place in the world.  The beach they are taking is the source of evil in the world. America and other good willed countries will take this head on and storm the beaches no matter the cost. Although it may not appear that way, the American spirit remains strong, in times of crisis it will prevail.  Being able to capture images of war on film has both hindered and helped public opinion. In this case, I feel this image is a testament to facing danger in the name of doing what needs to be done for the greater good. Like the militia during our founding, and the soldiers fighting against terror today, the ideas have not changed. The American soldier has always been seen as a force fighting for what is just. This image just captures a specific instance one of times where America was at the vanguard of what is right. In the future from now, this picture will have the same message that it brings today. America can always succeed if we come together for a common beneficial cause.  I hope in the future, we do not become a force of evil in the world, but remain a bastion of sanity.

" How am I not myself" A study of personal identity.

"How Am I Not Myself"

                Benjamin Franklin said once, "The only things certain in life are death and taxes." In a way, this is very true. Life is a journey, discovering the unknown. It is hard to be sure about anything in life because the answer is not clear. Marcus Aurelius, roman emperor, had many writings discussing life and the purpose of the human soul. In his book Meditation, Aurelius discussed the purpose of the soul and identity. The ideas he brings forth over eighteen hundred years ago are still questioned today. During the 60s, Bob Dylan discussed the same issue. Dylan, a musician, uses his songs do bring out ideas he wants to discuss. His song, "Like a Rolling Stone" is an example of the questions he asked. The movie "I Heart Huckabees" is discusses the issue of life and existence. The movie follows a modern character in his quest to find the reason for his life. Marcus Aurelius, Bob Dylan, and "I Heart Huckabees" explore the same message of existence and the purpose of life.

                One idea presented is that all humans are the same. We are all connected to one another in some way.  This idea of being connected is present in all three of the sources, even though they are written years apart. In "I Heart Huckabees," a blanket is used to represent the world. In the blanket, we are all sharing the same space on earth together, connected. The investigator goes on to explain one person's life always has a bond to others. Bob Dylan also presented this idea in his song, "Like a Rolling Stone". The message of the song relates to all youth no matter what time period. It tells a story of the struggles youth face in their lives no matter what background. Facing similar struggles with others in your age group connects you to them. People are connected by a common bond of growing up in the song, similar to by the blanket in the movie. Marcus Aurelius brings forth connectives the quote from Meditations. Pondering that state of his soul he includes, "A child's, a boy's, a woman's, a despot's, a dumb animal's, a dangerous beast's." The fact that he mentions all of these things when thinking about his soul relates to how all of these things are connected to the life he lived. Aurelius did not just write about the state of his soul but how his life affected others. Like the movie and the song, everything is connected; Marcus Aurelius is just another person in the blanket of life. Even written years apart, all three sources cling to the idea that something unites people, all people have something in common. I can agree that the world is connected; actions of one part of the world have a chain reaction on another part. One example that I would like to point out is the "War on Terror." The whole war was caused by a single act by a group of men; their action caused a reaction from the whole world. Another example is the murder of Archduke Ferdinand prior to World War One. The death of one man became the spark of a global conflict. I believe that all human history is connected; each individual is just another piece of the puzzle.

                Another main idea is that of being remembered after death. All three sources bring up in some way being remembered and known. Dylan mentioned being unknown in the chorus of his song, "How does it feel ... Like a complete unknown."He brought up the idea that youth are unknown, have not made a name for themselves and will be unknown. Aurelius also touched on the subject of being known and remembered. Stating, "and whose soul have I at present?" He asked this about himself. Aurelius felt that knowing the answer will give him a picture of how he will be remembered. Aurelius worried about being remembered. He knew that being Emperor, his name will live on, but did not know the manor which it will live. In "I Heart Huckabee's", the character Albert is also dealing with making a mark on the world to be remembered. In the movie, he places pictures of himself in a store along with pictures of famous people. He does this because he believes that they will be remembered, and if his picture is in with theirs, maybe he too will not be forgotten. All three of these put an emphasis on being known, and remembered. I believe that the individual is unsecure about their life. They wonder if they have had any meaning of their existence. People feel like they need to do something in order to be remembered. They feel like just living does not make a good enough impact on the future.

                Personal identity is also a topic that is paramount amongst the examples. In each, there is someone who is unidentified with whom they are. Aurelius tried to understand what the state of his soul is. He honestly did not know how his life has effected and changed who he was. This is evident when he stated, "To what purpose...am I now using my soul?" Not only does he wonder how he is using his soul but to what extent is that affected who he is. In "I Heart Huckabee's" the whole reason for the movie is for Albert to find himself. This is most evident when he states, "How am I not myself." What Albert is doing with this quote is ask himself if the person he is now is the same person he use to be. Finally, Bob Dylan has had a mixed identity his whole career. The person he is representing seems to be changing every ten years, from folk, to rock, country, and evangelicalism. I believe that a person always changes and grows. You can never know who you are at any time because it is an always changing thing. These sources exemplify the fact that when people age, they end up changing and will always be changing.

                I do not think that we will have the answer to some questions ever. That is life. Even though they are all published at different times, "I Heart Huckabee's", "Like a Rolling Stone" and the quote from Meditations all touch on the same issue. The idea of having a world that is all interconnected, wanting to be remembered after death, and personal identity are all present in each source. Having these issues still present over a large period of time tells me that they are universal to man. There is no simple answer to things, everything is permitted. I wonder if in the future, there still will be a problem with understanding one's connection with others, being remembered and changing personality. My guess is that these will always be questions because they are unanswerable.

Bob Dylan Like A Rolling Stone

Am I a Stone?

                After reading and listening to "Like a Rolling Stone" I am surprised by the universal message Dylan is giving. This song is a timeless story about growing up and living life.  This song seems to be sung as if he is asking the listeners, what are they going to do about what is going on?  The way the story is depicted by Dylan, this song can be listened to by any generation and applied to their lives.

                Each verse of the song depicts different parts of the struggles a person is going through.  First, it seems to be describing teen years while living with parents and having no worries about life. Growing up they hear that they need to do something or you will end up failing. When you are on your own, things will be different and it will not be easy. Then it goes on to describe how the school system has done nothing to prepare for life, and you end up settling for less than you dreamt for.  According to Dylan, you eventually are no longer entertained by life, and will be taken advantage of. As this happens to you, the government is having a good time, pretending everything is ok. When the government calls for you, you will answer because you have nothing. In this case it seems to be to go fight in Vietnam. This message at first was used to explain life in the fifties which lead to the vast changed in the sixties.

                Bob Dylan is able to convey a message about growing up and the struggles of life that are universal for all time periods. Personally, this song makes me wonder, what my government is doing to make my life better.  Look at the sixties compared to now, people are having problems getting educated and getting jobs, the government is sending a message that they know the answer to the problem. I find it very interesting that over all this time, things have not changed. Dylan's message still has a timeless meaning to it and will be as true in the future as much as it is now and in the sixties.  

America, Israel, and the Middle East: Can't We All Just Get Along?

America, Israel, and the Middle East: Can't We All Just Get Along?

                In 1967, the Israeli Military with backing of the United States was able to defeat an alliance of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq in just six days (Lennon 21). The Six Day War marked the American support of Israel in its struggle against neighboring Arab nations in the conflict over Palestine. Since then, America has been the strongest western supporter of the State of Israel and this has not come without its consequences.

                The issue that I have decided to take on is "why has Western support of Israel led to tension between the West and the Middle East?" The American backing of the State of Israel has led to a clash between Western Civilization and Islam. The problem all started with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War One. After the Ottoman fall, there was no unified power in the Middle East and the land was carved up by the British and French into the Mandate System (Lennon 20). With the British in control of Palestine, Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour came up with the idea of a Jewish state in the Middle East (Lennon 20). From this, the idea of Zionism was adapted by many Jewish groups scattered across Europe. As a result of the Holocaust, the western Allies supported large scale Jewish immigration to Palestine. The State of Israel was formed after bloody conflicts between the native Palestinians and new Jewish population has caused the British Government to partition and abandon their mandate in 1948. As a result, multiple wars occurred between the newly formed State of Israel and Arab nations. During the Cold War, the world got divided up between Nato allied countries and USSR back countries, America sough allies in the east.  Following the war of 1967, the United States became the main western supporter of Israel (Lennon 21). The American support of Israel has lead to the terrorist's attacks of 9/11 and the current War on Terror (Madden 206). Since then, there has been a surge of Islamism groups forming, whose agenda is to kick out Western Influence in the Middle East. The Western backing of Israel has lead to the current conflict between Muslims and Western Civilization.

We need to look at all sides of the issue, first we look at the Muslim point of view. Looking at what is going on from the position of Muslims whose history has been covered with conflicts against the west. The U.S. support of Israel's occupation of Palestine is seen as a continuation of western crusades, and imperialism against the east. Conservative movements formed to focus on early Islam teachings, without foreign influence has become popularized as a result of Western Globalization. Some examples of these groups are; Wahhabi in Saudi Arabia, Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Taliban in Afghanistan, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine and Al Qaeda (Madden 206).  Since the Gulf War, there have been an increased number of American troops stationed in bases around the Middle East. Islamists view this as the West trying to destroy their culture, control state politics and westernize the people of the Middle East (Pfaff 9). The United States and Western Countries support Israel's state sponsored terrorism against the Palestinian people. A single terrorist attack against Israel causes the Israeli Defense Forces to wage a mini war with those responsible and cause the deaths of thousands of innocent people (Grinberg 1).

Since the creation of Israel, followers of Islam have urged for a struggle against the western "Franks" that infest their native land (Madden 207). New waves of Mujahidin or Strugglers operate to fight the expansion of the west, and for the survival of traditional Islamic culture. They believe that the West has no right to place a foreign people in native Arab lands, as well as supporting these people as they wage a bloody war to eliminate the Palestinian people. The American response in the Middle East as a result of the War on Terror has been blown of proportion. It is just an excuse for America to further the spread of westernization, and secularization of the Middle East (Pfaff 9). Western Civilization is trying to push their culture on another without respecting the culture that is already in place.  For example, "There is constant Western pressure on Islamic governments to conform to Western conceptions of human rights and to promote free and critical religious and political thought" (Pfaff 9). The idea of westernization, and continued support of Israel have been the issues that have polarized the Muslim world with the West. No conflict is one side so we need to take a look at the Israeli and Western sides of the story.

From Israel's point of view, everything is drastically different. The idea of Zionism, which had been secretly adopted by the British after WWI, was in full effect after the Holocaust. Thousands of Jewish immigrants made their way to Palestine for their new promised homeland. They however, were met with hatred and violence by the native Palestinian population. Thus the conflict between Western backed Israel, and the Muslim Middle East was conceived. From the beginning, Israelis felt like they were outnumbered, and surrounded. They believe it is necessary to fight for their lives against Arab nations who do not want them to exist (Grinberg 1). That is not a very friendly situation to be placed in, but the Jewish people were able to band together and have survived. Now with the constant attacks on Israeli soil by radical Muslim groups, the IDF conducts operations and occupations to ensure the safety of the State of Israel (Grinberg 1).

As a result of the terrorist attacks on civilian targets in Israel, the Israeli Government feels justified it has the right to defend itself, and protect its people. Supported politically and militarily by the United States, Israel is able to make aggressive operations against these extremists groups. Take a look the statements made by Iranian President Ahmadinejad, he states that he wishes to wipe Israel off the map all together (Hashemi 1). When this kind of statement is made about your country by the leader of another, I would feel the need to defend myself just as the Israelis do. The country of Israel feels like it is just trying to provide security to its people but, is faced with overwhelming opposition from the Muslim World who do not even recognize Israel as a country. The State of Israel believes its right to defend its existence with any means is a result of their support from the West, and continued hatred put forth by Muslim groups.  The other faction that is a major player in this conflict is the West, in particular the United States.

To look at this issue full circle, we dive into the Western perspective of Israeli and Muslim relations. In the aftermath of World War Two, Western powers developed sympathy for the plight of the Jewish people. This eventually led to the creation of Israel and the Western arming of this new state to provide it with means to defend itself. The United States has formed a strong bond with Israel because it is a Western friendly country, and is strong military ally in the east. Not only do we support Israel, we have also worked to try to modernize, and westernize the Muslim world (Pfaff 9). Our intention is not to steal their culture but to provide modern technology, and thinking to an isolated part of the world. This caused anger amongst extremist groups who do not like outside influence and lead to the evens of 9/11. America increased their presence in the Middle East more than this because they felt it is their duty to help provide assistance and stability to regions where extremists groups reign.

Most European powers have taken a stance as peace brokers between Israel and the Palestinians but the United States has taken a more controversial approach. We conduct operations in the War on Terror; we identify Israel as an important ally in the Middle East to fight against Islamic extremists. Support for Israel has been increase by America in both, arms sales, and politically (Grinberg 1). We feel like as a super power it is our right to have a presence in the Middle East regardless of how negative it is coming across. Furthermore, America's stance on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has been to support peace but also putting full support behind Israel's right to security.  The West has taken a policy of globalization because we believe in the end we will provide stability, and modernize the world. We also have taken a stand that Israel can, and should exist as a Jewish country in a Muslim land. I believe that America has taken the steps to continue to support Israel in their struggle, regardless of the backlash we are receiving from the Muslim world. 

There is no doubt this conflict has deep roots amongst its three main factions. There has been so many events that further complicate the issue at hand. I do not deny that I hold a bias position in favor to the Western viewpoint, but the blame cannot be placed on only one group of people. The underlying issue here is a clash of two very different civilizations; One being the globalized Western Civilization, and the other being the isolated culture of Islam. The fact that Israel is a Jewish country is not the reasoning behind the violence; I believe the same result would occur if it were a Christian country. It is a fact that Israel is a modernized, and Western supported country. That is what the real issue is boiling down to. Muslims reject the Idea of having a foreign presence within native Arab land; they have held this belief since the founding of Islam. I have to place some blame on what I believe to be Muslims not being able to accept change and intolerance of others but it is not a one way street. Their responses to Westernization has resulted in the formation of extremists groups carrying out brutal acts of violence to prove a point. Their acts of aggression against the West for having a presence in the Middle East has lead to even more American presence. As a result of being attacked, American presence in the Middle East has skyrocketed to deal with this threat. The problem is that it is a vicious cycle that will keep spinning with more attacks on the West, and an even larger Western response.  The same goes with the conflict in Palestine. Israel responds to terrorists attacks with military force, which in turn cause more terrorists attacks. This has been going on since the formation of Israel and neither side has taken steps to avoid its continuation.

The issue is not whether one side is correct and one is not. It is what has each side done to fix the problem; the answer to that is nothing. There has been no attempt on either side to look past the issue at hand, and come with a solution that can work in the future. There needs to be some accountability taken for ones actions by the West, Israel, and Muslims. Before there can ever be a resolution, there needs to be a change in the way of thinking that got us to the conflict we are in. Sadly, this conflict has been going on since before I was born and the way things are going it does not looks like a resolution will ever arise in my lifetime. It makes me think, can there ever be a resolution to the conflict between Western Civilization and Islam?