Please write a 250 word minimum blog post sharing some of your thoughts about the movie.  This is a fairly open response, since I feel there are so many things this movie forces you to think about.  If you would like some direction, you may choose to either
1) answer one of the two questions posted below or
2) respond to one or several of the quotes from the movie copied below.  

I’m anxious to read your ideas!  

·         Some people see Paradise Now as an apologia for terrorism. Those who do, however, aren't paying attention. Abu-Assad's goal is not to condone terrorist actions (in fact, he goes to great pains to condemn them), but to explain why two seemingly "ordinary" men would be willing to sacrifice their lives in an act of mass carnage.  Do you feel this is true? Do you feel the director shows both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict?
 

·         This film candidly looks at the debate of whether or not suicide bombings, terrorism or violence is justified. Did the film reinforce your views on these topics or change them in any way?

Said: I was born in a refugee camp. I was allowed to leave the west Bank only once. I was 6 at the time and needed surgery. Life here is like life imprisonment. The crimes of the occupation are countless. The worst crime of all is to exploit the people's weaknesses and turn them into collaborators. By doing that, they not only kill the resistance, they also ruin families, ruin their dignity, and ruin an entire people. When my father was executed, I was 10 years old. He was a good person. But he grew weak. For that, I hold the occupation responsible. They must understand that if they recruit collaborators, they must pay the price for it. A life without dignity is worthless. Especially when it reminds you day after day, of humiliation and weakness. And the world watches cowardly, indifferently. If you're all alone, faced with this oppression... you have to find a way to stop the injustice. They must understand that if there's no security for us there'll be none for them either. It's not about power. Their power doesn't help them. I tried to deliver this message to them but I couldn't find another way. Even worse, they've convinced the world and themselves that they are the victims. How can that be? How can the occupier be the victim? If they take on the role of oppressor and victim then I have no other choice but to also be a victim and a murderer as well. I don't know how you'll decide, but I will not return to the refugee camp.

Suha: Why are you doing this?
Khaled: If we can't live as equals, at least we'll die as equals.
Suha: If you can kill and die for equality you should be able to find a way to be equal in life.
Khaled: How? Through your human rights group?
Suha: For example! Then at least the Israelis don't have an excuse to keep on killing.
Khaled: Don't be so naive. There can be no freedom without struggle. As long as there is injustice, someone must make a sacrifice.
Suha: That's no sacrifice. That's revenge. If you kill, there's no difference between victim and occupier.

Jamal: What can you do when there is no justice or freedom? Then there's the individual that is forced to fight for it. If we give in to the law that says, the strong devour the weak, then we become the animals. That's intolerable. Death is better than inferiority. That means whoever fights for freedom, can also die for it.

Do you think they are right?  Please chime in!!!

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/international-relations-101-what-scholars-say-about-the-world-today/258190/ 



Turn on the TV news, and you'll be bombarded by pundits offering their 30-second take on global affairs. But how do professional scholars of international relations see things? 

The College of William and Mary recently completed its Teaching, Research, and International Policysurvey of almost 3,500 international relations (IR) faculty around the world.

Some of the results are probably of greater interest to specialists in the field (for example, if you want to know what percentage of professors use dialectical research or hermeneutics, turn to page 36) than to most people.

But the section on policy issues gives a good sense of how professors see the world. Here are some key findings about the views of IR scholars based in the United States.

• Go East, Young Man! The area of greatest strategic importance to the United States today is East Asia, they say, rather than the Middle East and North Africa.

• Beijing Consensus: Over the next decade, the dominant issue will be the rise of China -- together with global climate change.

• Clubs for the Rich: Trade organizations such as NAFTA and the World Trade Organization have been good for the United States but not necessarily for developing countries.

• Beyond Afghanistan: The three great issues facing the United States are the Arab Spring, a rising China, and the global debt crisis (the war in Afghanistan is far down the list).

• Ivory Tower Hawks and Doves: Most scholars supported the U.S. war against Libya in 2011. But large majorities oppose using force if there is war between North and South Sudan, if Iran produces a nuclear bomb, if extremists are about to take over Pakistan, or to support democratic change in Syria or Yemen.

• The Cup is Half Full: IR scholars seem pretty optimistic. The world, they say, has become less dangerous for the U.S. since the end of the Cold War. The Arab Spring is good for the Middle East and for the United States. And war between the United States and China is very unlikely over the next 30 years.

Some of these views align with the outlook of the Obama administration, especially the desire to wind down the Afghanistan war and retool for challenges in East Asia. But the focus on climate change is not matched by presidential or congressional action.

Bill Buckley famously said that he would rather hand power to the first 2,000 people in the Boston phone book than the 2,000 faculty of Harvard. And it's true that the rarefied air atop the Ivory Tower can cloud one's judgment. But professional scholars can also provide a useful perspective on global issues.