Zylberberg--> Silverberg--> Silver

In class, we talked a lot about what people do, or feel they must do, in order to become an American. We discussed how part of becoming an American is giving up a lot of one's culture. Immigrants are often forced to give up certain things about them in order to assimilate into society. One interesting thing to study is how immigrants often changed their names in order to assimilate easier.

My dad's father and his brother were Jewish immigrants who came to America after World War II. Their names were Fivel and Harry Zylberberg. When they arrived in America, both decided it was best to translate their name to a more English version- Silverberg. It is interesting, however, the different choice these two made next.

My grandpa kept his name Fivel Silverberg; he realized that although he lost the European culture in his name, he would maintain the Jewish part of it.
My great uncle Harry, however, decided to drop the Jewish culture in his name. His name became Harry Silver instead of Silverberg. He did not do this because he wished to abandon his religious background, but only did it because he believed it would help him become more successful in America.

This is just one example of people who felt the need to give up parts of their culture in hopes of achieving greater success in America.

Is Iran REALLY in the same boat?

As we study the situation in Iran closely, I, like most of the world, are mistrustful of Iran. Iran will not allow the I.A.E.A. to inspect its nuclear program, and Ahmadinejad has stated openly that he wishes to destroy the country of Israel. In all of the research I did about Iran, the country seems to have only one argument as to why it should be able to construct a nuclear program. Iran argues that it has this right, as the U.S., Russia, France, China, Great Britain, and Israel all have their own nuclear weapons program. This idea makes these countries, especially the U.S., seem very hypocritical. This seems like a valid argument to make initially, but in the end, it is erroneous. Iran is trying to strengthen its argument by putting itself in the same category as all of those world powers, but is Iran REALLY in the same boat as them?

In an article from The Washington Post that was written this month, the author discusses how America has protected and even helped supply Israel's nuclear program for over 40 years. Now, a lot of debate is going around regarding whether or not it is time to take away support of Israel's nuke program in order to shut down Iran's. This effort has been made many times, but Israel constantly refutes the idea. Two years ago, the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert justified this by stating, "Israel is a democracy, Israel doesn't threaten any country with anything, never did. The most that we tried to get for ourselves is to try to live without terror, but we never threaten another nation with annihilation. Iran openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they [Iran] are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel, Russia?"

I think this is a valid point, and really checks Iran about the idea presented above regarding the category that the country is in. There is a lot of truth in the Prime Minister's statement when he says that Israel is a country that does not aim to attack or destroy other countries. Israel is, and always has been, forced to fight off aggressors. It, therefore, feels that it needs nukes only for defensive purposes. What other alternative does Israel have if Iran, which may already have nuclear weaponry, has threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the earth? Israel simply is not a country that intends to use its weaponry or bring war and destruction upon any nation; it, therefore, has the right to put itself in the same category as the U.S. Iran has openly stated, however, its intent to destroy Israel and is constructing its nuclear program without complying with the I.A.E.A. Hmmm...Something just tells me that I don't think Iran would fit in too well with the foreign nuclear powers. I believe it is only fair and intelligent to convince Iran to stop its nuclear program, and THEN ask Israel to stop theirs.

Article: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/06/america-has-protected-israeli-nuke-program-for-40-/

Solving the Issue

As we prepare for our simulation next Friday dealing with how to react and respond to the conflict in Iran, I discovered there is quite a lot of information to talk about. I decided to do some additional research online about Iran and came across some very interesting political cartoons that represent two key points that I had read in the various packets we received. One cartoon criticizes Iran for lying about its nuclear program and the other cartoon criticizes the U.S. and other foreign powers for exercising hypocritical behavior towards Iran. This is what will make the simulation so interesting; there is always two sides to every argument, especially in war.

Cartoon #1 shown above is judgmental towards Iran in regards to the idea that the country is secretly operating a nuclear program to construct nuclear bombs, and covers it up by saying that their nuclear program is simply for domestic energy purposes. This political cartoon captures the usual point of argument in this conflict, which is that Iran cannot be trusted in any way shape or form and are a threat because of it. This is the more dominant opinion of Iran today and is definitely a valid point.

Cartoon #2 takes the opposing side of the dominant criticism and shows that part of the problem is the hypocritical behavior of the world powers. The cartoon depicts the U.S., France, Russia, China, and Great Britain as the possessors of nuclear bombs. The words, "Do as we say! Not as we do" are very significant because they effectively bring up a point that is important to consider while dealing with the conflict of Iran. The U.S. and these other world powers have all created nuclear programs in which they produced a large amount of nuclear bombs. Now, as Iran is suspected of doing the same thing, these countries say that Iran cannot do it. This introduces, therefore, an argument that opposes the idea that Iran cannot be trusted, for how can Iran trust these world powers in the first place if they all did what Iran is doing now.

Aside from all the facts, interviews, and cartoons that I have used in my research, I have and probably always will have one bias opinion towards this matter; I do not think Iran can be trusted in the first place, and cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons. Although my stance has not changed, I now have much more information regarding all aspects of the conflict of Iran. Getting all the information can indeed cause someone to change positions in an argument, but it is most important for figuring out the best way to solve the issue. I guess that is what this whole simulation is about; understanding both sides, therefore, is a key part of learning how to react and respond to all of the problems we face in this world.