This week in class we watched a lecture from Charles Smith, author of Palestinian Israeli conflict. I found if very interesting because I truly believe he takes a non-bias stance on the subject. Of no Middle eastern decent at all, he proposed both sides to the story in a orderly fashion. I did not find him sympathetic or favoritive towards one side or the other. Watching the lecture rather than speaking about the topic was a nice change from the typical lecture. I think Charles Smith is really knowledgeable in the area and I have learned alot from listening to him.

I think that this issue is very similar to the Armenian Genocide in terms of wanting some recognition of what has happened to them. The Bastard of Istanbul is a fictional but efficient historical account that focuses on existence and inexistence in terms of the Armenian genocide. People have memory of what they want to have memory of. Elif Shafak points out that it is crucial to examine the past and not just burry it. It is understandable that the past way be gloomy because of disturbing events that took place however denying that something did not happen and putting out of memory is not the answer. In terms of history and what is learned about it has everything to do with peoples’ recollections of the past and their interpretations. It is impossible to go back in history and to know exactly what happened. We can only go on what peoples’ interpretations were about certain things and what was actually done. Those are the things that travel through history and that is why it is important to have a sense of continuity and memory of the past.