New York Times
April 13,2018 "How Syria's Death Toll is Lost in the War" Megan Specia This article is about how the death toll of the Syrian War has stopped being counted. The loss of the tally can result in direct impact on policy, accountability and a sense of global urgency. The last estimated death toll was given in 2016, which relied on 2014 data. It was 400,000 then. However, many of the war's biggest events have been during the last two years. This means that the death toll has risen drastically. American-led forces have bombed east Syria, these strikes are believed to have left thousands dead. Without the tally, advocates believe that the focus on ending the conflict will lessen, leading to an ongoing war. Fadel Abdul Ghany, leader of the Syrian Network for Human Rights, says that there are multiples incidents daily, which raise the death toll at an alarming rate. Monitoring death tolls are necessary to one day hold perpetrators accountable for their actions. He works with his group to create an estimated death toll everyday. He believes these figures, though not 100 percent accurate, may one day be vital. Most international experts on the conflict use over 500,000 as a figure for the death tolls. Many believe it could be higher. An estimated 217,764 civilians have been killed since the beginning of the war. Somewhere around 2.33 percent of Syria's prewar population of 22 million has been killed. The Syrian Civil War has been ongoing since 2011. In March 2011, Syria's government faced a challenge in it's authority when pro-democracy protests erupted throughout the country. The protesters demanded an end to the authoritarian practices of the Assad regime. The Syrian government used violence to try to end the protests, using extensive police, military and paramilitary forces. Opposition militias began in October of 2011, and by 2012 the conflict had turned into a civil war. Since then, thousands of civilians have been killed. My opinion on this event is that something needs to change. My biggest problem is that if this was happening in a Western country then everyone would care. If 200,000 civilians were killed in a Western country, the world would care. Everyone would rush to help, but because it is a Middle Eastern country, almost no one does. Especially in America, I am confident in saying that if you asked citizens about the Syrian war, they wouldn't know anything. I think that a lot of Americans are willing to believe everything the government says, without doing any research of their own. 200,000 innocent civilians dying is not okay. We should care. We should care about those civilians just as much as we would care if they were British civilians or American civilians. I will comment on Gracie and Jazmin's blogs.
1 Comment
New York Times
February 21,2018 "Parents and Students Plead with Trump: 'How Many Children Have to Get Shot?'" Julie Hirschfeld Davis This article is about the after effects of the school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Specifically it is summarizing what was said during a listening meeting at the White House. This meeting was between the President and citizens who have been affected by not just the Douglas High shooting, but other school shootings as well. The listening session was held in the White House on February 21, 2018, and during the session, many interesting points were brought up. But it was mostly an opportunity for people who have experienced or have been affected by gun violence first hand to talk to the President about what needs to be done. The main topic of discussion was gun control. One parent, Andrew Pollack, called for more guns in the schools, arming teachers, rather than stricter gun laws. President Trump stated that he would push to strengthen background checks and raise the age of gun purchase. A student who was on the second floor of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High expressed his dismay at how easily teenagers are able to purchase and own weapons of war, such as the AR-15. Andrew Pollack, however, stated that this wasn't about gun control, it was about making schools safer and more secure. A teacher said that rather than being armed with a weapon she would want to be armed with the information to prevent school shooting from happening in the first place. President Trump expressed his condolences and seemed to try to be understanding towards the citizens he was talking to. However, a notecard in his hand had a list of statements and questions he should say in order to appear more compassionate. The meeting ended with the President saying that he would take everything he heard into account when he moved forward with this issue. The listening session was a way for the President to be able to hear from those affected by the horrific shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. On February 14, 2018 a gunman stepped into a building of the high school and began shooting, he killed 17 students and teachers in total, injuring many more. The gunman was Nikolas Cruz, a 19 year old man who was recently expelled from Stoneman Douglas. In the wake of this shooting, students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School stood up and made sure their voices were heard. They demanded that people in the government, at state and federal level, stand up and fight for better gun reform. In the days following the shooting, students were able to achieve the following: They organized a CNN town hall where they debated with people such as Marco Rubio, Bill Nelson and NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch; They began the #NeverAgain movement; They arranged a national 'March for Our Lives' protest and marched at Washington to speak to lawmakers face to face. These students have made more progress in 3 days on the conversation of gun control, than the President has in the year he has been in office, during which over 400 mass shootings have taken place. I have so many opinions on this event. My first is that we do need gun control in America. Right now. When lawmakers say that gun control laws won't work, it is so hypocritical. When they make abortion laws, they WILL work, when they make immigration laws, they WILL work, but when gun control laws are the topic, suddenly laws don't work? But that probably has nothing to do with the money flowing in from the NRA, right? Secondly, why in the world does the President of the United States need notes on how to be compassionate? You shouldn't need notes to remind you to say "I hear you". Why would you need that note unless you don't actually listen. Isn't the president supposed to be someone who understands the citizens, who listens to them, who works for them? I know that gun control issues didn't start when Trump took office, but what I do know is that no matter what happens money will always be more important to him than citizen's lives. I will comment on Gracie and Jazmin's blogs. The end of this book has been very interesting. Nadia and Sadiq have listened to the words about the "doors" and started to talk about actually going through them. They decided to talk to the man who was telling everyone about these "doors". It turns out they are actually gateways to emigrate from their country. After much consideration and many conversations, Nadia and Sadiq decide to go through with it. They chose to leave. The first place they end up is a Greek Island. On this Greek Island with them is many more refugees from other countries around the world. They like it so much more than their home country, but decide to continue going through these "doors". They end up going to Europe and then America, which explains the title of the book, Exit West.
Here is a short summary of a story I might write based off of this book: If I were to write a spin-off based off of this book it would be about a family who is going through this experience together. They would be living in the same war-torn country and they have to go through the struggles of having to send the children to school safely everyday and go through the process of emigrating to America together. My story would be less based on their life in the war-torn country and more in their experience of moving to America in this present day. They would have to face the effects of the new president making racism more widely accepted and they would face the same everyday issues that any other refugee would have to face. My story would explain more of the immigrant experience in America, such as facing racism and prejudices. The story would explain how the kids are treated in school and how the parents are trying their hardest to make a better life for their family. While the author of Exit West chose to focus on the war-torn country, I think it would be interesting to show how just because you made it out of the war-torn country, doesn't mean you have no problems anymore. I would highlight the new and scary struggles of immigrating to America with your family. I will comment on Danny and Gracie's blogs. Since the last post, a lot has happened but a little has happened at the same time. Tensions in their city are rising and because of this it is becoming more and more dangerous in the city. Stricter and stricter rules are being implemented, such as limited internet time. Now Nadia and Sadiq are hearing talks of a "door" to freedom from their country.
If I were to put myself into this book, it would be scary. Just imagining living in a war-torn country and having to flee without the help of your family is a scary thought. If I were in the book I think I would be friends with Nadia, she is independent and has more of an open-mind than most of the other people in the book. She is willing to look outside of her culture and see if the things they preach are actually the right thing to do. But, I do feel like at the same time as I would get along with her, I would also disagree with her at times. She is too stubborn to go back and see her family because she feels scared and a little bit egotistical. She doesn't want to have them even think that she is saying they were right in saying that she shouldn't be independent. I would clash with her on this because sometimes even if you know you are right you should put that behind you and apologize, especially in her situation where quite frankly her and her family could die at any moment. I don't think I would get along with Sadiq as well just because he is scared to speak his mind at times, especially with his family. This can frustrate me especially if there is something really bothering you, but you still don't say anything. The quality of him that I would get along with however, is that he actually thinks things through and weighs out the pros and cons before doing things. I will be commenting on Danny and Gracie's posts. Exit West by Mohsin Hamid Since the last post here are some of the main points that have happened in the book. Saeed and Nadia are getting closer to each other as they get to learn about each other. There has also been more parallel stories. In the book, in almost every chapter there is a short 1-2 page parallel story about something or someone in a different part of the world. Some of the parallels have been in La Jolla and Australia. There are no main characters in these side stories, but there are people who aren’t named. Another thing is that their country has been becoming more and more controlling of the citizens every day life. As I said in the last post, I thought that more relationships would be revealed and explained, which is what happened. Nadia has a non-existent relationship with her whole family. It ended because she wanted to move out on her own and in her culture, an unmarried woman moving out on her own is unheard of. This was just the tipping point though, she always had a tense relationship, as her family was very religious and she didn't believe in religion. A price of advice I would give her is to be the bigger person and talk to her family, even though they don’t agree with each other, she should still at least say an actual goodbye because she doesn’t know when her chance to talk to them will be over. Saeed and his family have a good relationship. Saeed lives with his parents and he avoids upsetting them at all costs. They are constantly worried about him especially if he doesn’t answer his phone or stays out past the countries curfew. Some advice I would give to Saeed is to speak his mind to his parents more often. He shouldn’t keep his thoughts in because he doesn’t want to upset them. Another relationship is between the government and its citizens. The government is gaining a lot of control of its citizens, with phone lines being disconnected and internet being limited. The citizens also have a curfew. The citizens are living in fear of death every day, they hear violence and terror every day. I don’t know what advice to give to this relationship because it’s so complex. Also I don’t know the reason of the war and I feel that I couldn’t give good advice without the context. I will comment on Gracie and Danny’s blogs. Exit West by Mohsin Hamid
So far, not too much has happened in my book. It is mainly introductions and background on the main characters, Saeed and Nadia. They are two people living in a war-torn country, which isn’t specified. I think that the country left unspecified makes the book more powerful because you can think of so many countries that can be described as war-torn, which isn’t something that we should be able to do. Anyways, Saeed and Nadia both work for an advertising company and so far I have read about both Saeed and Nadia’s families. Saeed lives with his parents and Nadia does not have any contact with her family anymore. Throughout the book, while the plot is being explained, there will be an interruption such as, ” In the distance a bond could be heard,” this adds to the strong idea of an unsafe and violent place. Another thing that has happened is foreshadowing of death among different people. For example, the narrator says something like, " They haven't spoken in months, little did they know they didn't have much more time to speak." This also adds to the uncertainty and shock of the real world, where anything can happen in an instant. I think in the next part of my book, the main characters will continue to develop a relationship with each other and with the society they are living in. I think we will learn even more about Nadia and Saeed’s pasts and because there was some foreshadowing, I think more people from the main characters pasts will die. I don't know what the main conflict of the book will be yet, but I’m assuming it’s going to be something about their country and relationship. I think that we will break through Nadia’s shell because so far she has a pretty tough exterior, while Saeed is the opposite. I think we will also see conflict between Nadia and her family as well as Saeed's parents. I will comment on Danny and Gracie’s blogs. New York Times January 22, 2018 “Mike Pence Says US Embassy will open in Jerusalem Next Year” Ben Hubbard with contributions by Irit Pazner Garshowitz This article is about Mike Pence going to the Israeli Parliament during a trip to The Holy Land. During this trip he said to the Israeli Parliament that a new United States Embassy to Israel will open in Jerusalem before the end of 2019. This follows Trump’s statement recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, a statement that contradicts decades of American policy and international status of Jerusalem. When Mike Pence went to the Israeli Parliament on January 15, 2018, he celebrated the strong relationship between Israel and Palestine. Pence stated, “We stand with Israel because we believe in right over wrong, in good over evil, and in liberty over tyranny.” His speech included biblical references and he made historical and religious statements about the connections between the Jewish religion and Jerusalem. Pence made almost no comments about Palestine, but said that the United States would support and two-state solution if both sides agree. Arab law makers stood up in the beginning of Pence’s speech with signs that said “Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine”. They were quickly escorted out while, to the applause of others. The Palestinian President will not meet with Pence, saying that the US recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital was like a slap in the face. The chief negotiator for Palestinians, Saeb Erekat, said that this was a “gift to extremists”. Erekat said, “His message to the world id clear: violate international law and resolutions and the US will reward you.” Israel and Palestine have a long and tense history. Israel is the world’s only Jewish state. Palestinians, the Arab population that comes from land that Israel now controls, call this territory Palestine and want to create their own state on all or some of that land. The conflict between the two is over who gets what land and how it is controlled. Though the history of this conflict goes back a couple thousand years, the current political conflict started in the 20th century. Jews fleeing persecution in Europe wanted to create a homeland in what was an Arab-Muslim majority territory. Arabs saw this land as rightfully theirs, Israel and the surrounding Arab countries have fought several wars over the land. The two main ones were in 1948 and 1967, but the one in 1967 is more relevant to this event. The war of 1967 left Israel in control of The West Bank and Gaza Strip, both home to large Palestinian populations. Fast forward past many wars and ongoing conflicts, non-Muslim countries recognize Israel as a legitimate country, but most are critical of their treatment of Palestine. The US has continuously backed Israel by sending them military equipment and foreign aid. The US Embassy in Israel has always been in Tel Aviv. My opinion on this event is that by doing this we are taking an important negotiating chip away from the table in bringing the two parties together for a peaceful resolution of the conflict. Though the US has been supporting Israel for years, which I don’t agree with, they didn’t recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. By doing this they have dismissed everything that Palestine has been fighting for. I will comment on Breanna's and Jazmin’s blog posts. |
10 & 11 Grade Blog
Archives
October 2018
|