Importance of 1968 PFLP Hijacking of El Al Flight

On July 22, 1968, an El Al Israel Airlines plan departing from Rome and headed for Tel Aviv, Israel, was hijacked by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). They successfully diverted the plane, carrying 32 passengers and 10 crew members, to Algiers. Most of the passengers were released relatively quickly, but for seven crew members and five Israeli male passengers, who were held hostage for five weeks. After 40 days of negotiation, the Israelis agreed to the exchange. Why?: The PFLP, a Palestinian nationalist organization with different ideological outlooks at different times (from Arab nationalist, to Maoist, to Leninist) sought to use spectacular tactics to bring world wide attention to Palestinian dispossession. They also sought an exchange of Palestinian militants held prisoner in Israeli prisons for the Israeli men they hostage. What Made the Hijacking Notable?: The 1968 bombing was the first time that the PFLP, or any Palestinian group, hijacked a plane. This spectacular form of terrorism, designed to get global attention, would become a regular occurrence over the next several years.The 1968 bombing was the first time that an El Al flight was hijacked. El Al is Israels major commercial carrier. Following the hijacking, El Al became extremely security-conscious and instituted the first baggage check program.This bombing is sometimes considered to be  the inaugural event for international terrorism. Also of Interest: History of TerrorismCarlos the Jackal, PFLP hired gun

Analysis Of The Story Shiloh By Bobbie Ann Mason

â€Å"Shiloh† is a short story written by Bobbie Ann Mason in 1982. The story is very detailed and includes many arguments of the era’s expectations that relate to the story. Many of us may question â€Å"Was Leroy and Norma Jean’s marriage actually secure love and did it seem like love in the 1980’s anymore and why did it all change? Did Norma Jean just reject Leroy’s creativity and love? The character’s marriage is what ties everything together but is also destroyed within time. In the story Norma Jean, wife of Leroy, starts to grow but leaves Leroy behind. Due to Norma Jean’s pregnancy they were married at a young age and stayed married with fading love. It was miraculous to Leroy that there marriage was still united since the death of their first and only child 15 years ago, since most marriages had a higher risk of getting divorce upon the death of a son or daughter. However, Leroy and Norma Jean didn’t divorce because the y ignored and hid reality in the deepest parts of their hearts. Norma Jean’s leaving in the marriage, was predictable but surprising. Norma Jean expressed fatigue and annoyment in her marriage with Leroy however she then felt empowerment to fulfill her life as an independent woman by basically erasing Leroy out of the picture. If Norma Jean was able to leave everything she ever had their must of have been factors to influence her decision and certainly a reason because Norma Jean knew she was the only thing Leroy had left to count on. The couple must of haveShow MoreRelatedAnalysis Of The Story Shiloh By Bobbie Ann Mason1070 Words   |  5 Pages Symbolism in Shiloh In the short story â€Å"Shiloh†, written by Bobbie Ann Mason, symbolism is widely used. The story has several different messages behind the symbols used throughout the story. The log cabin, the Civil War battle of Shiloh, the dust ruffle and a flock of birds are all similes used to foreshadow and help readers further understand. Although the symbols have different messages, they all tie together to produce the conclusion of the whole story. First, let’s discuss the biggest

As I Lay Dying characters Essay Example For Students

As I Lay Dying characters Essay In William Faulkner s As I Lay Dying, references to the right by numerous characters serve to propel the reader on a quest for truth. Cora and Tull make allusions to what is right as defined by religion, while Cash evokes a more innate sense of right and wrong. Anse has a sense of right that is deceptive to both himself and others, yet it also conveys his view of the world which Faulkner shows to be just as accurate as anyone else s. Faulkner s blending of these versions of right make a unified idea of what is right, even if that idea is at once a confusing and complicated one. Cora and Vernon Tull believe completely in the absolute power of God and that His will is ultimately what will be done. Cora is Vernon s source of strength and faith, and even when he waivers in what he believes to be right, he ultimately sides with his wife. Cora is constantly exclaiming both in speech and in song that I trust in my God and my reward. (70) This belief is a great comfort to Cora. Even when she makes cakes for a wealthy woman in town and the woman changes her mind, Cora only thinks Riches is nothing in the face of the Lord, for He can see into the heart. 7) Cora also believed it right for people to suffer; seeing it as their mortal lot (159). However, this deep faith is also blinding to Cora. Cora is blind to the fact that Addie has an understanding of sin and salvation and right beyond the mere words that she uses. Cora mistakes Addie s lack of faith for vanity and pride, and gets down on her knees in hopes of rescuing her from the clutches of damnation (160). Addie s response to this is that people to whom sin is just a matter of words, to them salvation is just words too. 168) Vernon Tull at times questions whether his wife is altogether right, but then catches himself and pulls himself back. Cora may have seen it as people s mortal lot to suffer, but Vernon questioned this, especially in the case of Vardaman s pain. Vernon says, It aint right. I be durn if it is. Because He said Suffer little children to come onto Me dont make it right, neither. (70) However, Vernon soon catches himself, echoing his earlier references of too much thinking being detrimental to people. He reasons that For the Lord aimed for him to do and not to spend too much time thinking†¦ (68) Vernon Tull generally prefers to remain unconcious and insists that the best is not to tax one s brain as Darl does†¦ (Rossky 181) Ultimately, Vernon doesn t want to think too much of what is right or not right, and simply embraces Cora s beliefs. While the Tulls beliefs are grounded in religion, Cash s idea of the right is based more on innate reason. Cash believes right to be taking pride in human creations and always doing the best possible job (Bedient 206). Cash reflected on his making of his mother s coffin on the bevel to summarize his belief of right. He believed in making things always like it was for your own use and comfort†¦ (224) Beldient writes, Why is this teaching right? Because a man defines himself, not by what he builds, but by the way he builds it†¦ (107) Cash questions his ideas of right when he is forced to weigh the righness of Darl s burning of the barn.

Social Studies New France Part 1 Question #5 Defend Or Refute The St

Social Studies: New France Part 1 Question #5: Defend or refute the statement: "Trapping should be illegal-then and now" Trapping is a very important issue, which is connected to many other larger issues. For instance, trapping lies at the heart of the First Nation's distinct society issue. Before I talk about the present, however, I would like to discuss whether trapping should have been illegal when Canada was first being settled in the 17th and 18th centuries. When the first explorers came to the new world, it was regarded as a huge slab of worthless rock standing between Europe and the riches of the Orient. The only reason these explorers even explored this continent was the hope of finding the North-West passage, a route to the Orient. Fortunately, while searching for this North-West passage, some of these explorers stumbled onto a virtual magnet for settlement: The Fur Trade. When people heard how pelts of all kinds could be obtained so easily and sold for so much, the idea of not settling in the new world was ridiculous. Suddenly settlers came to this "slab of worthless rock" and tried to set up permanent living there. Even after a few failed attempts the draw of the fur trade was responsible for the settlement we call New France. After the first steps toward a permanent colony in the new world were made, the next steps came in leaps and bounds. The French government was sending everyone they could to settle in New France. Courieurs de Bois, began coming to the colony to trap furs and sell them back in France. France granted land to poor people that were willing to risk the great voyage. The colony flourished, and grew. It was the fur trade that was mostly responsible for this colony. However, some think that by this point the colony was large enough to illegalize fur trapping and still remain a profitable colony for France. However, there is one major reason that fur trading should have been allowed: Relations with the Indians. Relations with the India ns were shaky, at best. Some Indians befriended the French, and some befriended the English. Some just gave their furs to the highest bidder. The relationship with the Indians was more than just a trade agreement. The wars of the Indians were the wars of the French. Now, imagine what would happen if one day, an Indian came to a Frenchman and offered him a pelt. The Frenchman tells the Indian that not only will he not buy it, but no Frenchman in New France will. Not only that, trapping furs in the forests belonging to the French was not allowed. The relationships with the Indians which had taken so long to establish would be shattered in days. The Indians would probably recognize the French as their enemies. Now not only the enemies of the Indian "friends" of the French would attack them, but also their "friends". Settlers would again become afraid to come to New France because of the fierce Indian attacks. The French colony in New France would cease to exist. Therefore, I think trap ping should have been legal then. Now that I have talked about fur trapping then, I'll talk about it now. Unfortunately, it is much more complicated now. Animal rights activists have told us that it is wrong to kill an animal for its fur. I strongly agree with this opinion, especially since man-made fur is so accessible. Unfortunately, there are people who feel they deserve real fur if they can pay for it. Although I disagree with them, you cannot just deny them the fur, because one way or another they will arrange to get it. Even so, trapping (for fur) should be illegal. If you want real fur, you should not kill wild animals. You should go to a farm where animals are raised for their fur. The problem of people wanting real fur is small compared to other problems for and against the fur trade. For instance, if we illegalize trapping, the First Nation's way of life would be totally disrupted. Not letting the First Nation trap is like taking away a large profession from us, for instan ce law. What would