Michel Massabni
Prof. Dania Adra
English 203
22 October 2015

                                                  Is death penalty a good solution?

                    In my opinion, killing a man, for any reason, is not acceptable. First of all, no matter what the criminal actions were, don’t give the right to another man of deciding his death. Moreover, usually, death penalty is used against murderers. What did they do? Kill people. What is then the government trying to teach? Not to kill. How? By killing. This sort of thinking has, in my opinion, no form of logic. Furthermore, why does the state do this only for killers? If this sort of punishment is good in any way, why don’t we rob the thieves? Why don’t we rape the rapists? That doesn’t make any sense, does it? Then why is it okay when it comes to death? Finally, killing someone for a crime shouldn’t be allowed for a completely different reason too: the judges can’t be absolutely sure that the man is guilty. Death isn’t a reversible thing. What if, 20, 30 years later, we find out the man was innocent? This happened already a couples of times in history, how could they fix anything afterwards? What will the family of the now victim think? What will the people in general think of the whole system if a completely innocent man has been killed?

                    On the other hand, I can understand the author point of view.  He believes that “we can only achieve justice by killing a vicious killer” (Robert Blecker). In a way, we could say that some people deserve to die because of everything they have done and the little hope there is in turning those people into the “right side”.  He thinks that the punishment should fit the crime. If someone killed my son, I don’t think I would be happy or feel any kind of justice if the criminal just goes to jail. I would want to take revenge, to make things “fair”. “A basic retributive measure -- like for like or giving a person a taste of his own medicine -- satisfies our deepest instincts for justice.” (Robert Blecker). It’s also clear that, by instinct, anyone would want such a thing: “justice”.

Work cited:

                     Blecker, Robert. “With death penalty, let punishment truly fit the crime”. CNN. Cnn.com. August 22, 2013. Web. October 22, 2015.

Ahmad Turiaki's Doubting/Believing blog

Ahmad Turiaki

Professor Dania Adra

English 203

22 October 2015

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Israel’s Perspective

Throughout her text, Valerie Coleman states that the land of Israel, which is located in the

heart of Palestine, is the birthplace of the Jewish people and therefore it’s their right of claiming.

 What she doesn’t mention though is the fact that the whole idea of the Israeli occupation in

Palestine has forced the native people out of their homes and basically invaded their freedoms. In

addition to that, the whole idea of creating a country for a single group of people based on religion,

let alone in an already existing country, doesn’t make sense in today’s world, since no matter what

one’s faith is, all people should have equal freedom and rights in their lands. This Israeli movement

has forced many Arabs out of their homes which were rightfully theirs, and divided their lands so

that they would get a big portion of it to claim as their own. She even mentions the fact that Israel

attacks its neighboring country and seizes land that is almost double Israel’s size, a horrific act that

Israel justifies with the fact that its Arab neighbors were themselves building their armies on the

Israeli border.

Although the occupation has been terrible for the Palestinians, many Israeli residents just

want to live peaceful lives, and all the Instability in the region is having a toll on their daily lives, even though the Palestinians are having a harder time. The Israeli government is trying to keep its

territory and citizens safe from potential threats and attacks that may happen at any moment.

The many conflicts and interventions in the area has made it extremely hard for both groups to

figure out a solution and the communication to achieve harmony and peace in the area.

Work cited:

Coleman, Valerie, May 30, 2008. Israel's Perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Retrieved from http://www.trunity.net/ValerieColeman/view/article/133151

The Armenian genocide: The Turkish side of the story.

Garabed Bardakjian

Prof. Dania Adra

English 203

22 October 2015

The Armenian genocide: The Turkish side of the story.

As we proceed to read the text, that has been "adequately" conjured up by ethnic Turkish scholars at Stanford University, it is a blunt descriptive piece that approaches the topic of The Armenian Genocide. As though to add insult to injury from the beginning, the recorded killings of the Armenian race is referred to as "events of 1915" (SUTSA). Neglecting to identify the death of 1.5 million (Robert Fisk) men, women and children as something other than an event. However; later restating themselves, they speak of the events as to being "atrocities" carried out by the Ottoman Empire, atrocities which Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's newly founded Turkey condemned and thereby expressed its grief to the Armenian people. In the text, it is written that The Armenian independence movement started somewhat later than other nations, around the 1880s. However; it does not state the fact that during that period between 1880 and 1915 (1894-1896) (Sara Cohan), Sultan Abdul-Hamid II had already slaughtered thousands of Armenians, an event that will be later known as The Hamidian Massacres. Moreover; admitting to an order given by the Ottoman empire for "relocation" (SUTSA), sadly adding that during the said relocation, the Armenians were  killed by attacks of local Muslims, gangs, hunger and epidemic. And today, to be able to counter-argue, we have pictures of Ottoman empire soldiers posing next to the corpses of hanged Armenian men (Mark Tran, The Guardian). Even-though, in the text it is written, and I quote "The Ottoman state certainly deserves the blame for letting this happen. However, the evidence tells that it is the inability of the state to control its provinces, rather than its intended plan, that lead to the atrocities." (SUTSA) and so I guess that generals at the time were incompetent of not hanging these men neither did they order it to happen. And after seeing this picture, the Turks say the following "evidence tells that the events were not the plan of a group of sick-minded officials that wanted to exterminate a race, apparently in the need of a scapegoat. This was the result of inter-communal warfare that was like a fire engulfing the whole region." there was a fiery warfare, ignited by the Young Turks, aka "The Three Pashas" (Robert Fisk) (Minister of the Interior; Mehmed Talaat Pasha, the Minister of War; Ismail Enver Pasha, the Minister of the Navy; Ahmed Djemal Pasha). The Turk scholars try to hard to cover up the truth of their bloody past, and I am against it. They even to this day praise the leaders who have killed thousands upon thousands of Armenians , calling them Heroes who vanquished the "traitors". 

Knowing the story as it was told from generation to generation, it is partial that the benefit of the doubt is given to the Turk scholars, whom believe that Armenians are generally emotional (SUTSA) when it comes to this part of their history, and given that the Republic of Armenia has declined any diplomatic or economic ties with Turkey before the recognition of the massacres as Genocide by the latter country. It is also true that during WWI, Armenian militias called guerrillas helped the Russian advance into Anatolia. causing uprisings in different parts of Anatolia such as Van, thus creating panic in the rear of the Turkish army (SUTSA). However; at that time, Historical Armenia had been divided into two sides: The Russian side and the Turkish side. So, as much as there were Armenian fighters in Russian troops, there were in Turkish troops. But it was a live or die situation, on the front-line during Turkish-Russian clashes, Armenians would unknowingly kill one another for the sake of their families well-being back home. We've had men like Tovmas Nazarbekian, who was a general in the Russian Caucasus army. And on the other hand, men like Sarkis Torossian, who was a decorated Ottoman captain, who fought in the Gallipoli campaign, and was the first person to sink a British battleship, only to return home and find his family massacred by the rule of the same Empire for which he risked his life. Saying that "This reluctance to give up politics in favor of historical research prevents the true story from being unearthed and the lessons to be learned from them" (SUTSA) is a very true statement, however through the years the Turkish government has failed to give up politics time and time again. Lobbying governments of major countries into not recognizing the "events" as Genocide, and one of the major benefectors? Non other than the major Ottoman Empire activist and extremist, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the president of modern day Turkey. the same person who greeted the Palestinian president at his controversial 1150 room, 490m € palace, with 16 warriors dressed in historical Ottoman Empire Armour and weapons (Agence France, The Guardian).

Works Cited

Stanford University Turkish Student Association. "The Armenian genocide: The Turkish side of the story.". Stanford University: Stanford University Turkish Student Association . Web.

Fisk, Robert. "Robert Fisk: The forgotten holocaust". Independent, 2007. Web.

Cohan, Sara. "A Brief History of The Armenian Genocide". Genocide Education Org.: Sara Cohan, 2005. Web.

Tran, Mark. "Background: the US Turkey-Armenia 'Genocide' ruling". The Guardian: Mark Tran, 2010. Web.

Press in Ankara, Agence France. "Abbas welcomed at Turkish presidential palace by Erdoğan - and 16 warriors". The Guardian: 2015. Web.

• 
  

In the text entitled "Why an arranged marriage 'is more likely to develop into lasting love'", the author, Paul Bentley presents his argument that arranged marriages are actually more likely to be successful marriages than marriages based on love (Bentley). One if his main points is that couples who are in an arranged marriage tend to work harder to keep the marriage from falling apart, to keep it going (Bentley).

Bentley assumes, based on vague references to unknown research and studies, that this is because they have begun to fall in love, but the real reason behind this is that they are forced to remain in the marriage, and are not allowed to even consider divorce by those who forced them into it in the first place. They may develop a decent relationship with each other, but they will not necessarily fall in love. They tolerate each other, and the author confounds love and tolerance in the text. Tolerance is merely being able to stand someone's presence, love is enjoying someone's presence; there is a difference.

However, I can understand the author's side of the argument because arranged marriages sometimes do work if they are based off of real consideration of how well two people work together (Bentley). If the parents/guardians thoroughly think through the potential for two people to be compatible, then there is a possibility that this arranged marriage will end up becoming a marriage based on love, as the author says (Bentley).   

All in all, the author seems to wrongly assumes that arranged marriage is generally more likely to work. However, the author does have a logical argument, because going through tough situations does strengthen a relationship. However, it does not necessarily create love, as he claims, and the majority of people in arranged marriages remain unsatisfied and unfulfilled.

Works Cited

Bentley, Paul. Mail Online. 4 March 2011. 21 October 2015 <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363176/Why-arranged-marriage-likely-develop-lasting-love.html>.

Doubting and Believing : CNN op ed "Why Afghanistan needs US" by Peter Bergen

David Daou                                                                                                                                   Daou 1
Professor Adra
English 203
21 October 2012
       In this text, the author , Peter Bergen , praises Obama's decision to prolong military occupation in Afghanistan. What he fails to mention , is the fact that Afghanistan wouldn't have needed any kind of military help if during Ronald Reagan's presidency , the Mujahideen group (now the Taliban) hadn't been armed by the US to fight against the soviets who invaded the country to keep a dictator in power.The soviets' motive weren't innocent , of course , but arming extremists to such an extent that 30 years later, repercussions of these acts can still be felt, spreading around the region, like an epidemic. Peter Bergen also denies the fact that by extending occupation the US' imperialism spreads further, making Afghanistan a puppet state like Batista's Cuba or Pinochet's Chile (Bergen, par 3). Bergen relies on statistics to prove that the afghan people is favorable to occupation:
                           Third,  an overwhelming 92% of Afghans prefer the current government to the Taliban,                        according to a    poll taken   earlier this year. In other words, not only is the United                              States on the right side of history in supporting the Afghan government against the                              Taliban, the Afghan people also overwhelmingly support this.(Bergen , par 7).
Is one poll enough of a reason to extend occupation? Didn't we see something similar when Bush declared that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction , and then , war happened, weakening Iraq and making it more vulnerable and destitute.
       However , Bergen has a point, about occupation, and the Talibans' history of violence , occupation shouldn't work exclusively with the US army . Instead , occupation should be done by the UN , or by an international organisation who won't be tempted by the lucrative opportunities in Afghanistan and whose only job is furthering the afghan people's interests and not the US'. Bergen is also right about the danger ISIS is becoming to the whole region and which is a good enough reason to keep an experimented military force out there to keep an eye out for the instabilities the Middle East is going through.

                                                                                                                                                       Daou 2

Works Cited.

Bergen, Peter . "Sanity prevails on U.S. troops in Afghanistan" CNN ,October 15, 2015.

Video Games

Nadim Arasoghli

Mrs. Dania Adra

English 203



Video games: harmless fun or danger ahead?

The mother in that post thinks that video games can be really dangerous to children. I do not think so. If parents teach their children from the beginning what is good and what is not, then children won’t be inspired to do bad things from video games. It all depends on how they have been raised. Additionally, parents should have authority over their children: they should know how much time per day/week should be spent on video games. This way children do not get addicted to video games. As well, to be on the safe side, specific types of games should be bought by the parents; for instance games that do not involve extreme violence. Finally, I think video games do not kill creativity, unlike what is mentioned in this article. Actually, when kids have to complete missions, they are forced to think of different ways to solve the mission, and therefore are being creative; and also, when being exposed to a variety of video games, kids can start imagining more things inspired from these games.

I understand that in some cases, video games can be dangerous, for instance when kids spend too much time playing them and start slowly killing their brain cells, even though this happens only when parents don’t have authority over their children and let them play as much as they want. As well, when kids start using bad words such as “I will stab you” as mentioned in the article, it gets scary for their parents as using such phrases implies that these children have been exposed to violence and might get violent in real life. One more time, this happens when the games bought are not wisely chosen by the parents or when parents did not raise their kids austerely enough.

               Al Hameli, Asmaa. "Video Games: Harmless Fun or Danger Ahead?" The National. Asmaa Al Hameli, 29 Jan. 2015. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.

Fifth Harmony Are Not Really Feminist

Fifth Harmony Is Devoted To Promoting Feminism '100 Percent'



          At a glance, Fifth Harmony seem to be exactly what the article claims that they are: a smart group of girls who endorse gender equality. They are not what they appear to be. They are taking advantage of feminism to boost their image and sell their music. The article literally states "band member Lauren Jauregui explained that the group considers feminism to be 'definitely important just as a concept...'" (Emily Tess Katz). Feminism is most definitely not important 'just as a concept' or idea; it is important as an application in reality. Concepts are essentially useless if they do not have any implication in the real world. Lauren clearly does not know what she is talking about, because if she did she would word it much differently. Moreover, they assume that women empowerment, in the sense where men are inferior, and feminism are related. Feminism aims at equalizing males and females, not oppressing men. The article says "Fifth Harmony cites feminism as strongly influencing their work, with their music video for 'Bo$$' depicting several scenarios of female empowerment" (Emily Tess Katz). This creates the impression that feminism seeks to give women power over men, especially since their music video shows them as the dominant ones with the men as their drivers or any other position where men are degraded. Also, in the video posted on the article, the reporter starts off the interview with the following question: "who came up with the idea behind you being these powerful women?" (Emily Tess Katz). As a response, Fifth Harmony shouts out, with excitement may I add, "Sean Bankhead!" (Emily Tess Katz). Nobody should come up with that idea for them. Feminists are people who stand up for gender equality because they believe in the cause, not because their choreographer came up with the idea. 



          Despite the lack of accuracy about feminism, the article does indeed have some strong points. To begin with, they are indeed promoting feminism. Even though it is an inaccurate depiction, the fact that they are putting it out there and getting conversations started on gender equality is good for the cause. It is important to do so since raising awareness brings the world closer to finding a solution for this global issue. As mentioned in the video posted on the blog, the band members incorporated some of their fan's thoughts on feminism and positive self-empowering quotes from twitter into their music video. This is a smart way to get people, mainly their fans, engaged in the cause and will likely spark the curiosity to learn more about the subject, leading to an increase in the number of people who support gender equality. Even if they are using feminism incorrectly to boost their image, getting it out there and exposing a large portion of the globe, including the developing minds of kids who need to grow up with such mentalities, to feminism will put a positive spin on gender rights and equality worldwide. In other words, Fifth Harmony is feminist in its own way.





Work Cited:

Katz, Emily Tess. "Fifth Harmony Is Devoted To Promoting Feminism '100 Percent'" The Huffington           Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 14 Apr. 2015. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.

Russian intervention in Syria

Fuad Itayim

Dania Adra

English 203

20 October 2015


In Michael Young’s piece in the Daily Star, “Don’t overrate Russian moves in Syria”, he gives his analysis of the Russian military strikes in Syria. He says that Putin has “made Russia the West’s principal interlocutor over Syria, when for a long time the assumption was that Iran called the shots in Damascus” (The Daily Star – Young). He also goes on to say that “the Assad regime prefers that Russia be its primary sponsor” (The Daily Star – Young). This analysis doesn’t apply to the reality of the situation because it’s not a matter of Russia replacing Iran as the Syrian government’s sponsor. Syria continues to have a very close relationship with both Russia and Iran, who, themselves, are allies coordinating together and with the Syrian government. Young says that the purpose of the Russian strikes is to “shift the balance of power on the ground in Assad’s favor” (The Daily Star – Young), which is true, however, he then goes on to say that “Russia’s primary targets will not be ISIS, but the armed groups that pose more of an immediate threat to the regime” (The Daily Star – Young). In fact, the Russians have been bombing ISIS on a daily basis. According to their ministry of defense, in just the last 24 hours, 49 ISIS targets have been bombed. “In working to weaken opposition groups militarily, the Russians may effectively help ISIS” (The Daily Star – Young), he says. This argument doesn’t hold because even though some rebel groups are fighting ISIS, their primary objective is to the defeat the Syrian Army, which is, in fact, the main ground force in the fight against ISIS. Most importantly, Young doesn’t seem to give any importance to how much of a threat ISIS can pose to Russia. According to Putin, there are over 5,000 Chechen militants fighting with ISIS and Jabhat al Nusra in Syria. In the event that the Syrian regime collapses, the return of these fighters to Russia will be a major destabilizing factor for the country, and this is the most important motive driving Russia’s military intervention in Syria.

On the other hand, Young makes several valid points. He says that the deployment of the Russian air force in Syria has “neutralized any prospective Turkish and American effort to establish a no-fly zone over northern Syria” (The Daily Star – Young). This is true. Had a no fly-zone been established, the Syrian air force would no longer have been able to conduct its own airstrikes on that part of the country. While the Russians have not replaced the Iranians in Syria as Young suggested, it is true that they have “an open line to the Americans and Europeans” (The Daily Star – Young). He also says that they have a working relationship with the Arab States, who are “more comfortable dealing with Putin than they are with the Iranian Regime” (The Daily Star – Young). This is a valid point because both Iran and the Gulf states are major players in the Syrian civil war, yet cooperation between them is difficult due to political rivalry and regional tension. Young talks about the United States’ and the Europeans’ lack of a coherent strategy in Syria. He makes a good point when he says that this is not necessarily to the Russians’ advantage, adding that Putin “ultimately needs some Western coherence in order to arrive at any comprehensive deal over Syria” (The Daily Star – Young). Finally, Young brings up the possibility of things going wrong for the Russians in Syria. For Putin to achieve his objective, he may need to deploy up to 5000 personnel. Young says this would be “a serious investment in a war that has become a quagmire for everyone” (The Daily Star – Young) adding that “many Russians recall what happened in Afghanistan, so Putin’s backing at home may slowly erode if the Syrian operation begins to sour” (The Daily Star – Young). He is right in that the Russians do not want to get mixed up in a long war that may negatively affect public opinion in Russia. 

Work Cited:

Young, Michael. "Don't Overrate Russian Moves in Syria." The Daily Star Newspaper. N.p., 1 Oct. 2015. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.

Doubting and Believing: The Paranoid, Supremacist Roots of the Stabbing Intifada by Jeffrey Goldberg

Salem, 1

Dina Salem

Prof. Dania Adra

English 203

October 20, 2015

Doubting and Believing: The Paranoid, Supremacist Roots of the Stabbing Intifada by Jeffrey Goldberg

Norman Finkelstein, an American-Jew who happens to be a strong advocate for the Palestinian cause once said, “If I came in with a bible in one hand and a rifle in the other, knocked on your door and said: according to the bible, my family lived here two thousand years ago, would you pack up your bags and leave?” Jerusalem was a city where Muslims, Christians and Jews lived in peaceful coexistence, yet Goldberg focuses his attention on the Muslim population and makes it seem as if they were the only ones who lived there, cancelling out the prominent Christians that made up almost half the population, and the fact that Jews were part of that peaceful society is proof that Israel is fully motivated by the Zionist ideology, not the indigenousness of the Jewish community. the writer claims that “the unwillingness of many Muslim Palestinians to accept the notion that Jews are a people who are indigenous to the land Palestinians believe to be exclusively their own” (Goldberg); here the writer essentializes Islam as the religion of all Palestinians, furthermore, throughout that passage, he refers to the rioters as “Arabs” (Goldberg), and yet again attributes Islam as a characteristic of every Arab in Palestine. His biased one-sided approach is prevalent when he describes the religious tolerance of the government of Israel, when he said:

Moshe Dayan, ordered it taken down, and soon after promised leaders of the Muslim Waqf, 

the trust that controlled the mosque and the shrine, that Israel would not interfere in its 

activities. Since then, successive Israeli governments have maintained the status quo established by Dayan. (Goldberg)

But currently in Jerusalem, Muslim citizens are subject to strict stops and searches at several checkpoints before they enter the mosque and are often forbidden from entering at all in times of unrest, for ‘security measures’. Churches are also often destroyed as in the case of Tabgha, a Catholic church which was burned by Israeli settlers and is located on the banks of the Galile sea. His failure to mention these clearly intolerant actions is biased.

His biased perspective is also evident when he describes the violent acts that occurred in Israel and the West Bank region, as he fails to mention the acts that were committed by the Israeli settlers during the same period, thereby ignoring all the innocent people who were butchered by extremist Zionists, whether Palestinian or Israeli:

 When violence against Jews occurs inside Israel, or on the West Bank, a consensus tends  

to be reached quickly by outside analysts and political leaders, one that holds that such  

violence represents the inevitable consequence of Israel’s occupation and settlement of 

Palestinian territory. (Goldberg)

On the other hand, with the concept of believing in perspective, the writer does have a logical opinion about the two-state solution, with complete religious tolerance and respect on both sides, “There will not be peace between Israelis and Palestinians so long as parties on both sides of the conflict continue to deny the national and religious rights of the other.” (Goldberg). Violence, whether from Palestinians or Zionist settlers must be condemned no matter what (in my argument I do not wish to exonerate those who have committed violent acts against Israeli soldiers and settlers). Goldberg’s dissatisfaction with the US policies is also reasonable, for example, when he quotes the Haaretz journalist.

Salem, 2

Works Cited:

Goldberg, Jeffrey. "The Paranoid, Supremacist Roots of the Stabbing Intifada." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 16 Oct. 2015. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.