Thursday, July 27, 2006

"Five Myths, Exploded"

The pen is mightier than the sword because it establishes the grounds for the damn sword.

On the radio in the greater Atlanta, Georgia area I hear talk shows full of indignant hosts and this is what they and their callers have to say:

a) 'they' want to end our (US) freedom

b) we need to nuke the Arabs off the face of the earth

c) we need to nuke the Islmaofascists off the face of the earth

d) Iran and Syria and Hamas and Hezbollah are evil with a captial E and they were born that
way

e) The death toll in Iraq is rising. Hell who cares, as long as its not US soldiers being killed.

f) Iraq in civil war is better for the US because then they can't focus on what the US did/didn't do to them

g) The US means business and "they" need to know that and we need to be free to teach them that in whatever way we choose

h) "they" want to end our freedoms-- nuke 'em


The talk show hosts seem increasingly devoid of any sense of Middle East/Israel/World history. And if a caller with a different perpsective to the one being propogated that hour calls in, they are promplty censored...I mean disconnected.
Talk shows are where many people get thier daily dose of news and views that fashion their subsequent views. This area is full of conservatives. Air America offers a liberal view in this area but at times its hosts are just liable to screech and name call as the right.


Jonathon Cook, a journalist based in Nazareth Israel was recently on the Laura Ingraham Show pitted against David Horowitz, infamous for the professor-watch scandal. Cook has come up with five myths which the US believes as the absolute truth.

1) Israel was forced to pound Lebanon because Hezballah began 'raining down' rockets on it

2) Hezbollah poses a threat to the state of Israel's very existence

3) Israel is trying to fight a clean war by targetting only terrorists while Hezballah prefers to
bring death and destruction only on innocents by firing rockets on Israeli civilians

4) Hezballah has been endagering the lives of ordinary Lebanese by hiding among
non-combatants

5)"That people like David Horowtiz only want to tell us the truth..."

This week I had the pleasure to appear on American radio, on the Laura Ingraham show, pitted against David Horowitz, a "Semite supremacist” who most recently made his name under the banner of Campus Watch, leading McCarthyite witch-hunts against American professors who have the impertinence to suggest that maybe, just maybe, Arabs have minds and feelings like the rest of us.

It was a revealing experience, at least for a British journalist rarely exposed to the depths of ignorance and prejudice in the United States on Middle East matters -- well, apart from the regular wackos who fill my email inbox. But five minutes of listening to Horowitz speak, and the sympathy with which his arguments were greeted by Laura (“The Professors -- your book’s a great read, David”), left me a lot more frightened about the world’s future.

read the rest here

"The Moral Plane-- no advantage and no special status"

Professor Oren Ben Dor asks in the Independent Online Edition: What exactly is being defended? The citizens of Israel or the nature of the Israeli state?


Professor Ze 'ez Maoz at Tel Aviv University writes in Haaretz.com:

There's practically a holy consensus right now that the war in the North is a just war and that morality is on our side. The bitter truth must be said: this holy consensus is based on short-range selective memory, an introverted worldview, and double standards...

Let's start with a few facts. We invaded a sovereign state, and occupied its capital in 1982. In the process of this occupation, we dropped several tons of bombs from the air, ground and sea, while wounding and killing thousands of civilians. Approximately 14,000 civilians were killed between June and September of 1982, according to a conservative estimate. The majority of these civilians had nothing to do with the PLO, which provided the official pretext for the war.
read the rest here





Tuesday, July 25, 2006

Sorayya Khan's novel Noor

Sorayya Khan's gem of a novel Noor is now available in the US.

Noor. Trade Paperback. 264 pages. US$ 16.99 CAN$ 19.99
The Publishing Laboratory, University of North Carolina, Wilmington
Debut novel tackles the creation of Bangladesh; new edition includes introduction and authro interview.

First published by Penguin India and Alhamra of Pakistan, Sorayya Khan's lyrical and compelling first novel Noor is available for the first time in North America through the University of North Carolina at Wilmington's Publishign Laboratory. The book fills a gap in literature from the Indian Subcontinent that has mostly avoided the aubject of the 1971 civil war between East and West Pakistan that resulted in the creation of Bangladesh and saw the loss of hundreds of throusands of lives.
This newly revised version includes a glossary, an interview with the author, and a new introduction by Dr. Cara Cilano, which makes it particularly informative and useful for classroom, book club, and college seminar settings. readers haev compared Noor to Khaled Hosseini's The Kite Runner or Azar Nafisi's reading Lolita in Tehran for the inishgt into culture and understanding of complex historical occurences that it provides. though global in scope and sweeping in history, th enovel is set against a current day domestic landscape, and readers are able to comprehend the complexities of the war and its politics through the interactions between Sajida, her adopted father Ali, her husband Hussein, and her daughter Noor, a child with special needs whose innate understanding of ther family is able to break down the barriers that separate them.
through Noor's artwork, her family memebrs are transported through their hautned memories of hte 1970 cyclone that claimed the lives of a million people and the violent atrocities of the 1971 conflict. Moving, heartbreaking, and unsettling by turns, noor is a novel about the horros of war, the power of forgiveness, and, most important, the human spirit.
In her introduction, Dr. Cilano, an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington and a recent Fulbright recipient, writes
"In shattering the pervasive silences around the subcontinent's second partition, Khan's novel attempts to reconcile history and memory, while holding fast to teh belief that silence's end allows us to see what we might have been."

Since its publication in India and Pakistan, Noor has garnered praise from around the world. Acclaimed Pakistani writer Bapsi Sidhwa calls it an 'eerily beautiful and imaginative novel," and Claire Messud, author of The Last Life, writes "Rich, resonant and lyrical, noor is a novel which tackles, unflinchingly, the legacy of war, and, like the extraordinary child for whom it is named, makes of great suffering a work of beauty." The Deccan Herald of Banglarore, India calls Noor "poignant, powerful, and tender (Khan's) writing is remarkable because it is so subtle and so honest." Novelist and UNCW Professor Robert Siegal writes that "noor is a beautiful novel of love, violence, healing and peace. Khan cuts through preconceptions and stereotypes about the Islamic world to give us characters who are breathtakingly alive in the most human and individual ways- just what we need in this time of global crisis. It should be required reading for every American."

Monday, July 24, 2006

1st Saudi feature film 'Keif Alhal' 'How Are You?'

The first Saudi feature film 'Keif Alhal' is screened in India. There are no cinemas in the Kingdom and film only reached fruition because the Prince that heads the media company that produced the film is liberal.

Sunday, July 23, 2006

Israel and the Holocaust and Peace in the Middle East

How can the survivors of one of the most vicious holocausts ever not opt for peace, peace peace in with their neighbors and peoples within their borders?
Irfan Husain another columnist at Dawn.com has an answer:

Insecurities of the local bully
By Irfan Husain. 21 July, 2006

AS Israel bombs Lebanon with calculated ferocity, we are reminded yet again of the wide gap between military force and security. One can be the bully on the block, and still feel insecure.

And yet security is what Israel has craved for since it came into existence nearly 60 years ago. The Jewish state was a haven for a traumatised community, survivors of the worst genocide in history. The founders of the state vowed that never again would they be weak and vulnerable. To this end, they set about building a fearsome war machine that has come to be the dominant force in the region. In the process, however, they developed a siege mentality that has prevented them from engaging productively with their neighbours.

In their elusive search for security, Israeli generals and politicians sought to talk to their Arab neighbours from a position of strength. For this, they needed to obtain western military and diplomatic backing. Thus, when Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal in 1956, Israel colluded enthusiastically with France and Britain in attacking Egypt. The Suez war was perceived across the Muslim world as a perfidious ganging up of western powers, and confirmed the view that Israel was, and always had been, a colonial enterprise.

In one sense, the Israeli and Arab narratives have glided past each other, with each side too intent with its own viewpoint to be receptive to the other. This was never truer than now, as Hezbollah rockets rain down on Israeli towns, and Israeli planes range over Lebanon, raining down death and destruction. As the tempo of violence quickens and the tide of hatred rises, it might be useful to step back and try and assess what each side really wants.

The Palestinian position is clearer than the Israeli one: while Palestinians would prefer a life without Israel, most of them have come to terms with their Jewish neighbour and realise they have to live with it. So the bargaining position of the mainstream is pretty straightforward: a return of Israel to its pre-1967 borders but without all the qualifications Tel Aviv has attempted to impose. Israel, on the other hand, is deliberately ambiguous in spelling out what it wants, although its actions have clarified any doubts people might have harboured. Apart from all of Jerusalem, it wants to retain the major settlements it has built since 1967, and continues to expand today.

In addition, it wants to retain a security zone on the Jordanian border. And it wants to ensure that the Palestinian state that ultimately emerges would never be viable by fragmenting it with roads connecting various settlements with each other and with Israel.

Clearly, such a one-sided solution would be unacceptable to any Palestinian leadership. Of course, Hamas has made Israel’s task of dragging its feet easier by refusing to recognise its right to exist. For years now, Israel has used the mantra of ‘no partner to negotiate with’ in order to avoid meaningful negotiations. The point is that you negotiate differences with adversaries, not with friends. And you do not choose your foes. So clearly, every act of violent resistance to the Israeli occupation has been used by Tel Aviv to fend off western pressure to sit down with the Palestinians to negotiate a final border.

Apart from this gross mismatch in expectations from an agreement, there is a view that somehow, Israeli security takes precedence over its neighbours. Thus, the smallest provocation has to be answered with disproportionate use of force. There is a widespread feeling in the West, and even in some Arab countries, that the current escalation is due to Hezbollah’s capture of two Israeli soldiers. In reality, when the Israelis retreated from occupied Southern Lebanon in 2000, an agreement had been worked out according to which Israel and Hezbollah would not attack civilians along the border.

Military targets were not covered by the accord, and over the last six years, civilians were not deliberately targeted. But when Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers and killed several others in a daring cross-border raid, Israel retaliated against civilian targets, including the destruction of entire villages, bridges and a power plant. This in turn drew return fire at Israeli civilians in the form of Hezbollah rockets.

This has been the form of past spirals of violence in the Middle East: one act triggers another, and so on. On each occasion, Israel has quickly raised the stakes, as it has done this time. But far too often, Israeli military actions have produced the opposite effect from the one their authors sought. Ahmad Khalidi, senior associate of St Antony’s College, Oxford, writes in the Guardian of July 18:

“Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982 did away with the PLO and produced Hezbollah instead, the incarceration and elimination of Arafat only served to strengthen Hamas, and the wars in Afghanistan, the Gulf and Iraq gave birth to Bin Ladenist terrorism and extended its reach and appeal. And we should not be surprised if the summer of 2006 produces more of the same.”

The one thing Israeli leaders forget in their hubris is that security is not a one-way street: their country cannot enjoy peace unless its neighbours also feel secure. Israel has sought to build a wall to keep Palestinians out of sight, and therefore out of mind. But by tunnelling under it, Hamas showed that even a 20-foot high wall is not impregnable. Will the Israelis now build a wall on their Lebanese border?

Clearly, no long-term peace is possible without a political settlement. And a settlement will not be reached at gunpoint. Both in strategic and moral terms, Israelis have to come to terms with the fact that as long as they continue to occupy Palestinian land, they will have no peace. More and more, the argument that they have to hold on to land for their security rings hollow: no objective observer will buy the thesis that a viable Palestinian state could ever pose a threat to the Jewish state.

To find true peace, Israelis have to move past the dark memories of the Holocaust, and accept the fact that they can hang on to illegally occupied land, or they can have security. They cannot simultaneously have both.

In the Words of My Favorite Columnist

My favorite columnist is Ayaz Amir of Dawn.com and here is what he says:

Hezbollah and the ummah: sublime and the pathetic
By Ayaz Amir. July 21, 2006

“You are fighting a people who have faith such as no one else on the face of the earth possesses... who take pride in their history, their civilisation and culture, who also possess material power, expertise, knowledge, calm, imagination, determination and courage. In the coming days it will be between us and you, God willing.” — Sheikh Hasan Nasrallah, Secretary General Hezbollah

WORDS such as these haven’t been heard across the Middle East for a long time. They signify the birth of a new resolve — not to suffer wrong passively, as the Arabs and Muslims have been accustomed to do for a long time, but to stand up against the oppressor and defeat him.

American and Israeli frustration is easy to understand. They have been used to dealing with puppets and tinpot figures — sonorous phrases on their lips, fear and timidity in their hearts. Now in Gaza and Lebanon they are encountering a new breed of fighters, fearless and resolute.

And so they are doing what comes most readily to them: pinning blame on Syria and Iran, plying the airwaves with the most outrageous falsehoods (helped in this most loyally by CNN and even more by BBC) and refusing to see that the attacks on Gaza and Beirut far from destroying Hamas and Hezbollah are adding more fuel to the fires of resistance.

After so much death and destruction in Gaza, support for Hamas should have crumbled. It has had just the opposite effect, Palestinians rallying round Hamas’s flag. After days and nights of relentless bombing of Lebanese cities, the people of Lebanon should have turned against Hezbollah. They haven’t. Hasan Nasrallah is a hero because Hezbollah — in Robert Fisk’s words “one of the toughest guerrilla armies in the world” — has the courage and strength to stand up to Israel.

But the contrast couldn’t be more striking: on one side Hamas and Hezbollah, and their fierce determination, the willingness to take on the most fearsome odds; and on the other, the pathetic spectacle of Arab and Muslim impotence.

Far from wanting to do anything for the Palestinian and Lebanese resistance, the kings and autocrats of the Muslim world are angry at Hezbollah for exposing their (the autocrats’) helplessness. Kings of Jordan, presidents of Egypt made their peace with Israel long ago. They are champions now of the American cause with no stomach for confronting Israel or annoying the US. How can they be comfortable with the idea of resistance? According to Ori Nir in The Forward, a Jewish newspaper appearing from New York, “In a particularly unusual move, one top Jewish communal leader, Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman, visited the Saudi ambassador in Washington, Prince Turki al-Faisal, to thank him for his country’s condemnation of Hezbollah for igniting the crisis by launching a cross-border raid against Israel and abducting two of its soldiers.”

From the same write-up: “Jewish groups said that they were quite happy with the response of several Arab countries, namely Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan.”

To this picture of collective impotence here’s Hasan Nasrullah’s answer: “As to the Arab rulers, I don’t want to ask you about your history. I just want to say a few words. We are adventurers... But we have been adventurers since 1982. And we have brought to our country only victory, freedom, liberation, dignity, honour, and pride... In the year 1982 you said... we were crazy. But we proved that we were the rational ones, so who then was crazy? ...So I tell them simply: go bet on your reason and we will bet on our adventure, with God as our Supporter and Benefactor. We have never for one day counted on you. We have trusted in God, our people, our hearts, our hands, and our children. Today we do the same, and God willing, victory will follow.”

How can the cardboard figures presiding over the destinies of the world of Islam warm to such uncomfortable words?

Spare a thought also for the powerful republic of Pakistan with its 600,000 man army, nuclear arsenal and long-flying missiles. The hearts of the Pakistani people may beat with that of their brethren-in-faith in Gaza and Lebanon but from their government hardly a squeak has come out, its muted commentaries on the Lebanese situation couched in the softest possible terms.

But then what is to be expected from a dispensation whose foreign minister was happy to cavort with his Israeli counterpart in Istanbul last year and whose president applauded Israel’s ‘withdrawal’ from Gaza? (A picture in the papers the other day showed the US ambassador sitting amidst Pakistan army and police officers at a ceremony to ‘honour’ anti-narcotics personnel. The US ambassador showing all the condescension that one shows to a well-trained poodle, this while Israeli bombs, actually American bombs, were raining down on Lebanon. It won’t be any time soon before we come to realise what looks right and what doesn’t.)

Hezbollah is the only force in the Muslim world which can claim victory over Israel, forcing Israel to retreat from southern Lebanon in 2000. Even now while Israel commands the skies of Lebanon and blockades its waters (although even there Hezbollah has scored a triumph by hitting and crippling a sophisticated Israeli helicopter-carrying warship), on the ground Hezbollah is proving more than a match for the Israeli army.

Israel has everything in the US armoury, making its military one of the most effective in the world. It certainly has an edge over all Arab armies combined. But it is not finding it easy to fight Hezbollah in south Lebanon.

What is Israel hoping to achieve? It can kill as many innocent civilians as it wants — and already more than 200 have been killed as a result of indiscriminate bombing — but defeating Hezbollah, a phantom army which has the ability to strike but is not easy to find (classic guerrilla tactics), is another matter. If war is a continuation of politics by other means, it is hard to figure out what the politics are in this case.

Just as the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has, unwittingly, served Iranian interests — by removing from the scene Iran’s sworn enemy, Saddam, and allowing Iranian influence to grow in Iraq — the Israeli assault on Lebanon far from doing Israel any good is undermining the position of Lebanon’s anti-Syrian government and immeasurably adding to the stature of Hasan Nasrullah, not only in Lebanon but across the Muslim world.

As an Associated Press report puts it: “After fierce fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, posters of the bespectacled Nasrallah in his black turban have sprung up throughout the Gaza Strip. Demonstrators carry Hezbollah flags and chant slogans in his support. In the West Bank, Palestinians tune into Hezbollah’s Al Manar television station to hear Nasrallah speeches and follow the group’s progress in its war against Israel.”

Hamas is mainly Sunni, Hezbollah largely Shia. Support for Hezbollah transcends this sectarian divide.

There is no shortage of despised figures in the world of Islam for whom the Muslim masses (not the elites) have nothing but contempt. But something new is emerging, a galaxy of heroes of whom the masses can be proud: in Iraq the resistance which has humbled and made a mockery of American might, in Lebanon Hasan Nasrallah and glorious Hezbollah, in the Gaza Strip equally valiant Hamas, in Afghanistan a resurgent resistance and, whether anyone likes it or not, Sheikh Osama bin Laden.

The US had a splendid opportunity after Sept 11 to capture the moral heights had it conducted itself, for all its justified anger, with dignity and restraint. This would only have been possible if men of vision had been at the helm of affairs. To America’s misfortune a small-minded cabal was in charge which sought small-change advantage from that huge tragedy, thus turning monumental grief and anger into a shallow-minded policy of vindictiveness and retribution.

We have seen what has come of this course: Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, the folly of Iraq, and, as a direct consequence, an arc of defiance and resistance spreading all the way from the Gaza Strip and Lebanon to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Opportunity turned into a nightmare with the end nowhere in sight. As Byron said, “The thorns that I have reaped are of the tree I planted.”

Saturday, July 22, 2006

Robert Fisk's elegy to Beirut

Paradise Lost - Robert Fisk's Elegy for Beirut

Published on July 19 in the Independent

In the year 551, the magnificent, wealthy city of Berytus - headquarters of the imperial East Mediterranean Roman fleet - was struck by a massive earthquake. In its aftermath, the sea withdrew several miles and the survivors - ancestors of the present-day Lebanese - walked out on the sands to loot the long-sunken merchant ships revealed in front of them.

That was when a tidal wall higher than a tsunami returned to swamp the city and kill them all. So savagely was the old Beirut damaged that the Emperor Justinian sent gold from Constantinople as compensation to every family left alive.

Some cities seem forever doomed. When the Crusaders arrived at Beirut on their way to Jerusalem in the 11th century, they slaughtered every man, woman and child in the city. In the First World War, Ottoman Beirut suffered a terrible famine; the Turkish army had commandeered all the grain and the Allied powers blockaded the coast. I still have some ancient postcards I bought here 30 years ago of stick-like children standing in an orphanage, naked and abandoned.

An American woman living in Beirut in 1916 described how she "passed women and children lying by the roadside with closed eyes and ghastly, pale faces. It was a common thing to find people searching the garbage heaps for orange peel, old bones or other refuse, and eating them greedily when found. Everywhere women could be seen seeking eatable weeds among the grass along the roads..."

How does this happen to Beirut? For 30 years, I've watched this place die and then rise from the grave and then die again, its apartment blocks pitted with so many bullets they looked like Irish lace, its people massacring each other.

I lived here through 15 years of civil war that took 150,000 lives, and two Israeli invasions and years of Israeli bombardments that cost the lives of a further 20,000 of its people. I have seen them armless, legless, headless, knifed, bombed and splashed across the walls of houses. Yet they are a fine, educated, moral people whose generosity amazes every foreigner, whose gentleness puts any Westerner to shame, and whose suffering we almost always ignore.

They look like us, the people of Beirut. They have light-coloured skin and speak beautiful English and French. They travel the world. Their women are gorgeous and their food exquisite. But what are we saying of their fate today as the Israelis - in some of their cruellest attacks on this city and the surrounding countryside - tear them from their homes, bomb them on river bridges, cut them off from food and water and electricity? We say that they started this latest war, and we compare their appalling casualties - 240 in all of Lebanon by last night - with Israel's 24 dead, as if the figures are the same.

And then, most disgraceful of all, we leave the Lebanese to their fate like a diseased people and spend our time evacuating our precious foreigners while tut-tutting about Israel's "disproportionate" response to the capture of its soldiers by Hizbollah.

I walked through the deserted city centre of Beirut yesterday and it reminded more than ever of a film lot, a place of dreams too beautiful to last, a phoenix from the ashes of civil war whose plumage was so brightly coloured that it blinded its own people. This part of the city - once a Dresden of ruins - was rebuilt by Rafiq Hariri, the prime minister who was murdered scarcely a mile away on 14 February last year.

The wreckage of that bomb blast, an awful precursor to the present war in which his inheritance is being vandalised by the Israelis, still stands beside the Mediterranean, waiting for the last UN investigator to look for clues to the assassination - an investigator who has long ago abandoned this besieged city for the safety of Cyprus.

At the empty Etoile restaurant - best snails and cappuccino in Beirut, where Hariri once dined Jacques Chirac - I sat on the pavement and watched the parliamentary guard still patrolling the façade of the French-built emporium that houses what is left of Lebanon's democracy. So many of these streets were built by Parisians under the French mandate and they have been exquisitely restored, their mock Arabian doorways bejewelled with marble Roman columns dug from the ancient Via Maxima a few metres away.

Hariri loved this place and, taking Chirac for a beer one day, he caught sight of me sitting at a table. "Ah Robert, come over here," he roared and then turned to Chirac like a cat that was about to eat a canary. "I want to introduce you, Jacques, to the reporter who said I couldn't rebuild Beirut!"

And now it is being un-built. The Martyr Rafiq Hariri International Airport has been attacked three times by the Israelis, its glistening halls and shopping malls vibrating to the missiles that thunder into the runways and fuel depots. Hariri's wonderful transnational highway viaduct has been broken by Israeli bombers. Most of his motorway bridges have been destroyed. The Roman-style lighthouse has been smashed by a missile from an Apache helicopter. Only this small jewel of a restaurant in the centre of Beirut has been spared. So far.

It is the slums of Haret Hreik and Ghobeiri and Shiyah that have been levelled and "rubble-ised" and pounded to dust, sending a quarter of a million Shia Muslims to seek sanctuary in schools and abandoned parks across the city. Here, indeed, was the headquarters of Hizbollah, another of those "centres of world terror" which the West keeps discovering in Muslim lands. Here lived Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, the Party of God's leader, a ruthless, caustic, calculating man; and Sayad Mohamed Fadlallah, among the wisest and most eloquent of clerics; and many of Hizbollah's top military planners - including, no doubt, the men who planned over many months the capture of the two Israeli soldiers last Wednesday.

But did the tens of thousands of poor who live here deserve this act of mass punishment? For a country that boasts of its pin-point accuracy - a doubtful notion in any case, but that's not the issue - what does this act of destruction tell us about Israel? Or about ourselves?

In a modern building in an undamaged part of Beirut, I come, quite by chance, across a well known and prominent Hizbollah figure, open-neck white shirt, dark suit, clean shoes. "We will go on if we have to for days or weeks or months or..." And he counts these awful statistics off on the fingers of his left hand. "Believe me, we have bigger surprises still to come for the Israelis - much bigger, you will see. Then we will get our prisoners and it will take just a few small concessions."

I walk outside, feeling as if I have been beaten over the head. Over the wall opposite there is purple bougainvillaea and white jasmine and a swamp of gardenias. The Lebanese love flowers, their colour and scent, and Beirut is draped in trees and bushes that smell like paradise.

As for the huddled masses from the powder of the bombed-out southern slums of Haret Hreik, I found hundreds of them yesterday, sitting under trees and lying on the parched grass beside an ancient fountain donated to the city of Beirut by the Ottoman Sultan Abdul-Hamid. How empires fall.

Far away, across the Mediterranean, two American helicopters from the USS Iwo Jima could be seen, heading through the mist and smoke towards the US embassy bunker complex at Awkar to evacuate more citizens of the American Empire. There was not a word from that same empire to help the people lying in the park, to offer them food or medical aid.

And across them all has spread a dark grey smoke that works its way through the entire city, the fires of oil terminals and burning buildings turning into a cocktail of sulphurous air that moves below our doors and through our windows. I smell it when I wake in the morning. Half the people of Beirut are coughing in this filth, breathing their own destruction as they contemplate their dead.

The anger that any human soul should feel at such suffering and loss was expressed so well by Lebanon's greatest poet, the mystic Khalil Gibran, when he wrote of the half million Lebanese who died in the 1916 famine, most of them residents of Beirut:

My people died of hunger, and he who

Did not perish from starvation was

Butchered with the sword;

They perished from hunger

In a land rich with milk and honey.

They died because the vipers and

Sons of vipers spat out poison into

The space where the Holy Cedars and

The roses and the jasmine breathe

Their fragrance.

And the sword continues to cut its way through Beirut. When part of an aircraft - perhaps the wing-tip of an F-16 hit by a missile, although the Israelis deny this - came streaking out of the sky over the eastern suburbs at the weekend, I raced to the scene to find a partly decapitated driver in his car and three Lebanese soldiers from the army's logistics unit. These are the tough, brave non-combat soldiers of Kfar Chim, who have been mending power and water lines these past six days to keep Beirut alive.

I knew one of them. "Hello Robert, be quick because I think the Israelis will bomb again but we'll show you everything we can." And they took me through the fires to show me what they could of the wreckage, standing around me to protect me.

And a few hours later, the Israelis did come back, as the men of the small logistics unit were going to bed, and they bombed the barracks and killed 10 soldiers, including those three kind men who looked after me amid the fires of Kfar Chim.

And why? Be sure - the Israelis know what they are hitting. That's why they killed nine soldiers near Tripoli when they bombed the military radio antennas. But a logistics unit? Men whose sole job was to mend electricity lines? And then it dawns on me. Beirut is to die. It is to be starved of electricity now that the power station in Jiyeh is on fire. No one is to be allowed to keep Beirut alive. So those poor men had to be liquidated.

Beirutis are tough people and are not easily moved. But at the end of last week, many of them were overcome by a photograph in their daily papers of a small girl, discarded like a broken flower in a field near Ter Harfa, her feet curled up, her hand resting on her torn blue pyjamas, her eyes - beneath long, soft hair - closed, turned away from the camera. She had been another "terrorist" target of Israel and several people, myself among them, saw a frightening similarity between this picture and the photograph of a Polish girl lying dead in a field beside her weeping sister in 1939.

I go home and flick through my files, old pictures of the Israeli invasion of 1982. There are more photographs of dead children, of broken bridges. "Israelis Threaten to Storm Beirut", says one headline. "Israelis Retaliate". "Lebanon At War". "Beirut Under Siege". "Massacre at Sabra and Chatila".

Yes, how easily we forget these earlier slaughters. Up to 1,700 Palestinians were butchered at Sabra and Chatila by Israel's proxy Christian militia allies in September of 1982 while Israeli troops - as they later testified to Israel's own court of inquiry - watched the killings. I was there. I stopped counting the corpses when I reached 100. Many of the women had been raped before being knifed or shot.

Yet when I was fleeing the bombing of Ghobeiri with my driver Abed last week, we swept right past the entrance of the camp, the very spot where I saw the first murdered Palestinians. And we did not think of them. We did not remember them. They were dead in Beirut and we were trying to stay alive in Beirut, as I have been trying to stay alive here for 30 years.

I am back on the sea coast when my mobile phone rings. It is an Israeli woman calling me from the United States, the author of a fine novel about the Palestinians. "Robert, please take care," she says. "I am so, so sorry about what is being done to the Lebanese. It is unforgivable. I pray for the Lebanese people, and the Palestinians, and the Israelis." I thank her for her thoughtfulness and the graceful, generous way she condemned this slaughter.

Then, on my balcony - a glance to check the location of the Israeli gunboat far out in the sea-smog - I find older clippings. This is from an English paper in 1840, when Beirut was a great Ottoman city. "Beyrouth" was the dateline. "Anarchy is now the order of the day, our properties and personal safety are endangered, no satisfaction can be obtained, and crimes are committed with impunity. Several Europeans have quitted their houses and suspended their affairs, in order to find protection in more peaceable countries."

On my dining-room wall, I remember, there is a hand-painted lithograph of French troops arriving in Beirut in 1842 to protect the Christian Maronites from the Druze. They are camping in the Jardin des Pins, which will later become the site of the French embassy where, only a few hours ago, I saw French men and women registering for their evacuation. And outside the window, I hear again the whisper of Israeli jets, hidden behind the smoke that now drifts 20 miles out to sea.

Fairouz, the most popular of Lebanese singers, was to have performed at this year's Baalbek festival, cancelled now like all Lebanon's festivals of music, dance, theatre and painting. One of her most popular songs is dedicated to her native city:

To Beirut - peace to Beirut with all my heart

And kisses - to the sea and clouds,

To the rock of a city that looks like an old sailor's face.

From the soul of her people she makes wine,

From their sweat, she makes bread and jasmine.

So how did it come to taste of smoke and fire?

Friday, July 21, 2006

Israeli/Lebanese Conflict Coverage Across the World: How does it compare?

Are Americans being given a very different view of the Israel-Hezbollah conflict than their counterparts in Europe and elsewhere?

Yes, according to commentators in Muslim and European media.

The editors of the Jordan Times are especially critical of the U.S. television coverage. "Not only the Lebanese and Arabs but any educated, broad-minded person equipped with the necessary tools that do not allow him to succumb to the mighty propaganda machine have, over the past few days, all the reasons to be furious at the coverage by major US networks of the tragedy unfolding in Lebanon."


read the rest of The World Opinion Roundup by Jefferson Morley at the WashingtonPost.com


Charlie Rose
does a fabulous job though in his coverage. This particular show has an interview with Nicholas Burns US under secretary of state for political affairs and with Rami Khouri, editor of the Daily Star in Beirut. Khouri is absolutely wonderful in his unbias as well as putting the current Israeli/Lebanese conflict and the roots of Hizbollah and Hamas in a historical context.

E-mail from Lebanon

The following e-mail was one sent from a Lebanese woman to her friends on day two of the current bombings that have cost over 250 civilian lives and already demolished infrastructure it took years to re/construct.


"Dear All,

I am writing now from a cafe, in West Beirut's Hamra district. It is filled with people who are trying to escape the pull of 24 hour news reporting. Like me. The electricity has been cut off for a while now, and the city has been surviving on generators. The old system that was so familiar at the time of the war, where generators were allowed a lull to rest is back. The cafe is dark, hot and humid. Espresso machines and blenders are silenced. Conversations, rumors, frustrations waft through the room.

I am better off here than at home, following the news, live, on the spot documentation of our plight in sound bites.The sound of Israeli warplanes overwhelms the air on occasion. They drop leaflets to conduct a "psychological" war. Yesterday, their sensitivity training urged them to advise inhabitants of the southern suburbs to flee because the night promised to be "hot". Today, the leaflets warn that they plan to bomb all other bridges and tunnels in Beirut. People are flocking to supermarkets to stock up on food.This morning, I wrote in my emails to people inquiring about my well-being that I was safe, and that the targets seem to be strictly Hezbollah sites and their constituencies, now, I regret typing that. They will escalate. Until a few hours ago, they had only bombed the runways of the airport, as if to "limit" the damage. A few hours ago, four shells were dropped on the buildings of our brand new shining airport.

The night was harrowing. The southern suburbs and the airport were bombed, from air and sea. The apartment where I am living has a magnificient view of the bay of Beirut. I could see the Israeli warships firing at their leisure. It is astounding how comfortable they are in our skies, in our waters, they just travel around, and deliver their violence and congratulate themselves.

The cute French-speaking and English-speaking bourgeoisie has fled to the Christian mountains. A long-standing conviction that the Israelis will not target Lebanon's Christian "populated" mountains. Maybe this time they will be proven wrong? The Gulfies, Saudis, Kuwaities and other expatriates have all fled out of the country, in Pullman buses via Damascus, before the road was bombed. They were supposed to be the economic lifeblood of this country. The contrast in their sense of panic as opposed to the defiance of the inhabitants of the southern suburbs was almost comical. This time, however, I have to admit, I am tired of defying whatever for whatever cause. There is no cause really. There are only sinister post-Kissingerian type negotiations. I can almost hear his hateful voice rationalizing laconically as he does the destruction of a country, the deaths of families, people with dreams and ambitions for the Israelis to win something more, always more.

Although I am unable to see it, I am told left, right and center that there is a rhyme and reason, grand design, and strategy. The short-term military strategy seems to be to cripple transport and communications. And power stations. The southern region has now been reconfigured into small enclaves that cannot communicate between one another. Most have enough fuel, food and supplies to last them until tomorrow, but after that the isolation of each enclave will lead to tragedy. Mayors and governors have been screaming for help on the TV.

This is all bringing back echoes of 1982, the Israeli siege of Beirut. My living nightmare, well one of my living nightmares. It was summer then as well. The Israeli army marched through the south and besieged Beirut. For 3 months, the US administration kept dispatching urges for the Israeli military to act with restraint. And the Israelis assured them they were acting appropriately. We had the PLO command in West Beirut then. I felt safe with the handsome fighters. How I miss them. Between Hezbollah and the Lebanese army I don't feel safe. We are exposed, defenseless, pathetic. And I am older, more aware of danger. I am 37 years old and actually scared. The sound of the warplanes scares me. I am not defiant, there is no more fight left in me. And there is no solidarity, no real cause.

I am furthermore pissed off because no one knows how hard the postwar reconstruction was to all of us. Hariri did not make miracles. People work hard and sacrifice a lot and things get done. No one knows except us how expensive, how arduous that reconstruction was. Every single bridge and tunnel and highway, the runways of that airport, all of these things were built from our sweat and brow, at 3 times the real cost of their construction because every member of government, because every character in the ruling Syrian junta, because the big players in the Hariri administration and beyond, were all thieves. We accepted the thievery and banditry just to get things done and get it over with. Everyone one of us had two jobs (I am not referring to the ruling elite, obviously), paid backbreaking taxes and wages to feed the "social covenant". We faught and faught that neoliberal onslaught, the arrogance of economic consultants and the greed of creditors just to have a nice country that functioned at a minimum, where things got done, that stood on its feet, more or less. A thirving Arab civil society. Public schools were sacrificed for roads to service neglected rural areas and a couple Syrian officers to get richer, and we accepted, that road was desperately needed, and there was the "precarious national consensus" to protect. Social safety nets were given up, healthcare for all, unions were broken and coopted, public spaces taken over, and we bowed our heads and agreed.

Palestinian refugees were pushed deeper and deeper into forgetting, hidden from sight and consciousness, "for the preservation of their identity" we were told, and we accepted. In exchange we had a secular country where the Hezbollah and the Lebanese Forces could co-exist and fight their fights in parliament not with bullets. We bit hard on our tongues and stiffened our upper lip, we protested and were defeated, we took the streets, defied army-imposed curfews, time after time, to protect that modicum of civil rights, that modicum of a semblance of democracy, and it takes one air raid for all our sacrifices and tolls to be blown to smithereens. It's not about the airport, it's what we built during that postwar.

As per the usual of Lebanon, it's not only about Lebanon, the country has paradigmatically been the terrain for regional conflicts to lash out violently. Off course speculations abound. There is rhetoric, and a lot of it, but there are also Theories.

1) Theory Number One.
This is about Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah negotiating an upper hand in the negotiations with Israel. Hezbollah have indicated from the moment they captured the Israeli soldiers that they were willing to negotiate in conjunction with Hamas for the release of all Arab prisoners in Israeli jails. Iran is merely providing a back support for Syria + Hamas.

2) Theory Number Two.
This is not about solidarity with Gaza or strengthening the hand of the Palestinians in negotiating the release of the prisoners in Israeli jails. This is about Iran's nuclear bomb and negotiations with the Europeans/US. The Iranian negotiator left Brussels after the end of negotiations and instead of returning to Tehran, he landed in Damascus. Two days later, Hezbollah kidnapped the Israeli soldiers. The G8 Meeting is on Saturday, Iran is supposed to have some sort of an answer for the G8 by then. In the meantime, they are showing to the world that they have a wide sphere of control in the region: Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon. In Lebanon they pose a real threat to Israel. The "new" longer-reaching missiles that Hezbollah fired on Haifa are the message. The kings of Jordan and Saudi Arabia issued statements holding Hezbollah solely responsible for bringing on this escalation, and that is understood as a message to Iran. Iran on the other hand promised to pay for the reconstruction of destroyed homes and infrastructures in the south. And threatened Israel with "hell" if they hit Syria.

3) Theory Number Three.
This is about Lebanon, Hezbollah and 1559 (the UN resolution demanding the disarmement of Hezbollah and deployment of the Lebanese army in the southern territory). It stipulates that this is no more than a secret conspiracy between Syria, Iran and the US to close the Hezbollah file for good, and resolve the pending Lebanese crisis since the assassination of Hariri. Evidence for this conspiracy is Israel leaving Syria so far unharmed. Holders of this theory claim that Israel will deliver a harsh blow to Hezbollah and cripple the Lebanese economy to the brink of creating an internal political crisis. The resolution would then result in Hezbollah giving up arms, and a buffer zone between Israel and Lebanon under the control of the Lebanese army in Lebanon and the Israeli army in the north of Galilee. More evidence for this Theory are the Saudi Arabia and Jordan statements condemning Hezbollah and holding them responsible for all the horrors inflicted on the Lebanese people.

There are more theories... There is also the Israeli government reaching an impasse and feeling a little wossied out by Hezbollah and Hamas, and the Israeli military taking the upper hand with Olmert. The land of conspiracies... Fun? I can't make heads or tails. But I am tired of spending days and nights waiting not to die from a shell, on target or astray. Watching poor people bludgeoned, homeless and preparing to mourn.

I am so weary... "
link from the blog thebuddhasmiled
Here are some bloggers from the belly of Beirut.

The e-mail brings to mind Tamim Ansary's infamous letter about Afghanistan also written to friends . A letter which subsequently spread from 'mouth to mouth' like wild fire over the net and even got the author a book deal.

Dear Friends,

Yesterday I heard a lot of talk about "bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age. " Ronn Owens, on KGO Talk Radio allowed that this would mean killing innocent people, people who had nothing to do with this atrocity, but "we're at war, we have to accept collateral damage," and he asked, "What else can we do? What is your suggestion?" Minutes later I heard a TV pundit discussing whether we "have the belly to do what must be done. " And I thought about these issues especially hard because I am from Afghanistan, and even though I've lived here for 35 years I've never lost track of what's been going on over there. So I want to share a few thoughts with anyone who will listen.

I speak as one who hates the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. There is no doubt in my mind that these people were responsible for the atrocity in New York. I fervently wish to see those monsters punished. But the Taliban and Ben Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not even the government of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant psychotics who captured Afghanistan in 1997 and have been holding the country in bondage ever since. Bin Laden is a political criminal with a master plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think Bin Laden, think Hitler. And when you think "the people of Afghanistan" think "the Jews in the concentration camps.

It's not only that the Afghan people had nothing to do with this atrocity. They were the first victims of the perpetrators. They would love for someone to eliminate the Taliban and clear out the rats nest of international thugs holed up in their country. I guarantee it.

Some say, if that's the case, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow the Taliban themselves? The answer is, they're starved, exhausted, damaged, and incapacitated. A few years ago, the United Nations estimated that there are 500,000 disabled orphans in Afghanistan -- a country with no economy, no food. Millions of Afghans are widows of the approximately two million men killed during the war with the Soviets. And the Taliban has been executing these women for being women and have buried some of their opponents alive in mass graves. The soil of Afghanistan is littered with land mines and almost all the farms have been destroyed . The Afghan people have tried to overthrow the Taliban. They haven't been able to.

We come now to the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age. Trouble with that scheme is, it's already been done. The Soviets took care of it . Make the Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level their houses? Done. Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate their hospitals? Done. Destroy their infrastructure? There is no infrastructure. Cut them off from medicine and health care? Too late. Someone already did all that.

New bombs would only land in the rubble of earlier bombs. Would they at least get the Taliban? Not likely. In today's Afghanistan, only the Taliban eat, only they have the means to move around. They'd slip away and hide. (They have already, I hear. ) Maybe the bombs would get some of those disabled orphans, they don't move too fast, they don't even have wheelchairs. But flying over Kabul and dropping bombs wouldn't really be a strike against the criminals who did this horrific thing. Actually it would be making common cause with the Taliban -- by raping once again the people they've been raping all this time.

So what else can be done, then? Let me now speak with true fear and trembling. The only way to get Bin Laden is to go in there with ground troops. I think that when people speak of "having the belly to do what needs to be done" many of them are thinking in terms of having the belly to kill as many as needed. They are thinking about overcoming moral qualms about killing innocent people. But it's the belly to die not kill that's actually on the table. Americans will die in a land war to get Bin Laden. And not just because some Americans would die fighting their way through Afghanistan to Bin Laden's hideout. It's much bigger than that, folks. To get any troops to Afghanistan, we'd have to go through Pakistan. Would they let us? Not likely. The conquest of Pakistan would have to be first. Will other Muslim nations just stand by? You see where I'm going. The invasion approach is a flirtation with global war between Islam and the West.

And that is Bin Laden's program. That's exactly what he wants and why he did this thing. Read his speeches and statements. It's all right there. AT the moment, of course, "Islam" as such does not exist. There are Muslims and there are Muslim countries, but no such political entity as Islam. Bin Laden believes that if he can get a war started, he can constitute this entity and he'd be running it. He really believes Islam would beat the west. It might seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can polarize the world into Islam and the West, he's got a billion soldiers. If the West wreaks a holocaust in Muslim lands, that's a billion people with nothing left to lose, even better from Bin Laden's point of view. He's probably wrong about winning, in the end the west would probably overcome -- whatever that would mean in such a war; but the war would last for years and millions would die, not just theirs but ours. Who has the belly for that? Bin Laden yes, but anyone else?

I don't have a solution. But I do believe that suffering and poverty are the soil in which terrorism grows. Bin Laden and his cohorts want to bait us into creating more such soil, so they and their kind can flourish. We can't let him do that. That's my humble opinion.

Tamim Ansary

Hip Hop from Palestine

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

'What Does Hezbollah Want'

What does Hezbollah want Larry King asks Ibrahim Mousawi the chief editor of Al-Manar TV. You can watch the video here (a segment not featured on the program last night)-- Why are the clips of men in training and not the of civilians injured and dying? Why is the call the prayer background music? The transcript with more from Mousawi, as well as Christiane Amanpour, Imad Moustapha the Syrian ambassador to the US, and many others.

Christiane Amanpour:
But you see how it mirrors, how both sides are mirroring the other? You heard from Nic's package the Hezbollah press man saying "We shall never surrender." From this side you hear the military commander saying "We will attack and we will attack. We cannot fail."

Both sides are using that language and yet both sides know that this is not going to be ended by a military solution. We've talked to Israeli commanders and political leaders here who say that this eventually is going to have to be a political solution that resolves this crisis.

And yesterday you talked to the Hezbollah spokesperson, effectively the editor of the Al Manar Television who said that "We were looking for indirect negotiations." They know that.

Imad Moustapha:
There is something profoundly flawed in this argument. The moment these hostilities started, Syria immediately called the international community to work towards a ceasefire. The world has heard President Bush criticizing the secretary general of the United Nations because he was working towards a ceasefire.

If President Bush is worried that Syria might benefit from this conflict to go back into Lebanon as he has just said, then why -- why is he doing everything possible to prevent an immediate ceasefire?

Please do remember that Syria is very worried about the ongoing massacre in Lebanon, the killing of civilians, and the destruction of the infrastructure of Lebanon.

KING: So, Mr. Ambassador, are you saying unequivocally you do not have a desire to go back into Lebanon?

MOUSTAPHA: I think this is a very opportune moment to say the following. No, Syria is not going to back to Lebanon
read the full transcript here

Saturday, July 15, 2006

Freedoms and Journalists: Tayseer Alony

There is a perverse, Kafakaesque element to Alony's plight. In the summer of 2003 he returned to Spain of his own free will to clear his name after Baltazar Garzon, Spain's leading anti-terrorist magisterate, had placed him under investigation for alleged links to Al-Qaida."
The Financial Times weekend section (July 15-16) has a wonderful write up by Leslie Crawford, FT's Madrid bureau chief, on Tayseer Alony Kate. Tayseer Alony is an Al-Jazeera reporter now serving seven years in a Spanish prison for alleged ties with Al-Qaida--he was the first journalist to interview Osama bin Laden following 9/11. He was convicted by a jury less court.

Alony, who is 51, has been confined to an isolation module-- an unusually harsh punishment that appears to bear no relation to the danger he poses. He underwent heart surgery last year, and says his health is now deteriorating. he also says he offered his services as a teacher to the prison education system (he holds degrees in economics and international relations) but his offer was turned down.
"I spend 20 hours in solitary confinement, and four hours on a patio whre I have almost nothing in common with the other inmates," he says. "As a result, I feel isolated 24 hours a day. All my correspondence and phone calls are monitored. i can call my family and lawyer five times a week for five minutes at a time, but I cannot leave the module to visit the library, the prison school or the gym. I miss seeing different faces than the five or six other inmates in the yard. I miss the sight of a green tree, of a flower. Everything here is made of cement, steel or plastic. The heat inside my cell is unbearable. I wake up every morning at 6am, drenched in sweat."

From foreign correspondent to terrorist collaborator: Alony says he is still trying to understand how such an unlikely turn of events could come to pass.

The charges against Alony are as follows:

"In the 600 page indictment of the 35 defendants in the al-Qaida trial only two arguements are offered as evidence of Alony's guilt.
First,
Alony was accused of 'financing a terrorist network' and 'transporting funds for terrorists' by agreeing in March 2000 to take $ 4000 to Mohammed Bahaia, a Syrian who worked for a charitable organization in Kabul. Bahaia has once lived in Granada, alony's hometown in southern Spain. The prosecution claimed that Bahaia was a 'known terrorist' although it offered no evidence of this.
Second, Alony was accused of helping Mustafa Setmarian, another 'known terrorist' who had briefly lived in Granada in the early 1990's. According to the prosecution, Setmarian had been a guest at Alony's home...The prosecution claimed Setmarian and Bahaia were members of Al-Qaida and that Alony called in his favors to obtain the bin Laden exclusive.

During the trial, Alony said he had not grounds to suspect Setmarian or Bahaia of terrorism. He admitted to acting as a money courier but said this was normal practise among foreignors in Afghanistan-- a country with no banks, no money transfer services and no automatic teller machines. As for sheltering Setmarian, Alony said it was his duty as a fellow Syrian and a Muslim to offer hospitality to newcomers. Alony pointed out that neither Setmarian nor Bahaia had been instrumental in arranging the interview with bin Laden.
My visiting time with Alony is running out. I ask him whether he thinks the bin Laden interview led to his conviction.
"I don't think a Spanish court would have dared prosecute an American or British journalist for interviewing bin Laden," Alony says. "I think racial prejudice played a big part. They looked at me, un moro (a Moor), and asked: 'how could this moro have wangled an interview with the most wanted man in the world? It couldn't just have been because he was a journalist. He must have been working for bin Laden in the first place."

"He was also," write Crawford, "the only foreign correspondent to remain in Afghanistan after the retaliatory air strikes began. His reporting for Al-Jazeera and CNN on the civilian deaths caused by the US raids irritated and embarrassed the Pentagon. The trial of Alony and 34 other defendenats was the first that sought to establish a direct link between an Al-Qaida cell in Spain and the planning and execution of 9/11...

In a world increasingly going mad how are writers to report what is going on in regions most of us will only see on TV if reporting could risk their freedom to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

In a letter to Jose Luis Rodriguez Zaparato, Spain's Socialist Prime Minister, more than 100 human rights activits and organizations from the Arab world wrote: 'Tayseer Alony's case is extremely grave and sensitive. It reminds us of the Dreyfuss affair in France 100 years ago....
Senior figures in the Spanish socialist party admit the parallelts between Alony and Alfred Dreyfus are not unfounded. Alony many have been a victim of racial prejudice just as Captain Dreyfus was as a Jewish officer in the French army. Both men were accused of treason-- Drefuss, of spying for the Germans, and Alony, of collaborating with Al-Qaida.
Alfred Dreyfuss was put on trial in 1894, found guilty and sentenced to life in prison on Devil's island. He was offered a presidential pardon in 1899, which he declined. It was not until1906 that Drefus was exonerated of all charges.
One hundred years later, it looks increasingly unlikely that Alony will be pardoned or exonerated. The danger, instead, is that more journalists might fall foul of new anti-terrorist lawys, particularly those banning the 'glorification of terrorism' adopted by many countries after the 9/11 attacks, including most recently the UK.
Should journalists be required to run security checks on their sources? Should they be obliged to "know" their contacts in the same way that banks are leagally required to "know' their clients? Does the inclusion of a journalist's phone number in the notebook of a terrorist automatically make ihm a ssuspect of collarboration with terrorists?
In Spain, the trial of Alony has set a precedent of this to be the case.
"We are very worried about the spread of anti terrorism legislation and the way this is being used ot supporess freedoms," says Jean-Francois Julliard of Reporters Without Borders, a Paris based advocay group. Authoritarian regimes, he says, have always used anti-terror laws to suppress dissent; what is new is their use to suppress freedom of speech in the west.
According to the New York based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), 24 countries imprisoned journalists in 2005, up from 20 nations the year before. Of the 125 journalists in prison at the end of 2005, 78 of them had been jailed for 'anti-state' activities, including subversion. The US, which has detained an Al-Jazeera cameraman, sami Muhyideen al-Haj, in Guantanamo, was the sixth worst offender, alonside Burma. Following a series of leaks of classified information in teh US, the Justice Department has warned reporters they could be prosecuted under espionage laws.
"Journalists covering conflict, unrest, corruption and human rights abuses face a growing risk of incarceration in many countries, where governments seek to disguise their repressive acts as legitimate legal processes," says Ann Cooper, executive director at CPJ.
In Spain, Alony's supporters are convinced the judicial system has been responsible for miscarriage of justice.

Crawford visits Alony in prison and talks to him there. Unfortunately the article is unavailable on line but read more here.
Alony has a wife and four young children-- I can't stomach even imagining what they and other families like them go through. The most emotionally brutal part of all the emotionally brutal parts in the movie The War Within is the FBI taking away the wrong man while his wife and young son and daughter watch and cry helplessly. Later the son sees his happy-go-lucky father on the news where he is called a terrorist and the viewer wonders helplessly what must be going through this adolescent's heart and head.

all excerpts are taken from 'A dangerous subject in a divided world' by Leslie Crawford, FT weekend July 15-16 edition.

Thursday, July 13, 2006

Zidane's Headbutt; he said, he said

Sunday afternoon- coffee in bed with the world cup soccer final on. A groan when France and Italy kick into overtime. Hope this doesn't go into penalty kicks. Reach for a cookie and nearly spill the coffee pot when Zidane headbutts Materazzi. Slaps and kicks and pinches being the vocablury of violence I'm used to the headbutt, and such a bullheaded viscious one at that, is cause for me to turn to Husband and ask: did I just see what I saw?
'Yup.'
We begin argueing about sticks and stones and breaking bones and words not hurting etc...etc... for clearly there have been words exchanged between Zidane and Materazzi. What could possibly have been said to make Zidane lose his head only ten minutes before the end of the game?

Italian lip readers say: We all know you are the son of a terrorist whore

Materazzi's spokesperson says: He insulted Zidane's wife

Zidane's camp: The Italian lip readers are closer to the truth


Zidane, whose mother had been taken ill to hospital hours before the World Cup final – adding to the highly-charged moment – is expected to reveal in a few days exactly what Materazzi said.

But last night Materazzi's agent Phil Smith revealed the Italian's version of what happened.

He said it began when Materazzi grabbed the Frenchman's shirt, pinching his nipple. "If you want my shirt so much, then you can f...... have it after the game," Zidane supposedly said.

"I'd rather have the shirt off your woman," Materazzi responded, a reference to Zidane's wife Veronique. Ka-boom.

The opposite version, according to lipreaders, goes that moments after he had grabbed Zidane's shirt Materazzi said: "Hold on, wait, that one's not for c.... like you."

Zidane's response could not be seen, before Materazzi replied: "We all know you are the son of a terrorist whore."

Then, just before the butt, he said: "So just f... off."

Italian newspapers claim that Zidane started the tit-for-tat insults by insulting Materazzi's mother, who died when he was young.

read the rest here

Excellent. A verbal dog fight and apparently no recrimination for violent behaviour or insults. Am sooo glad my kids have no interest in sports yet.

Update on reprimands.

Fifa has banned former French football captain Zinédine Zidane for three games for head-butting Italian defender Marco Materazzi during the World Cup final on July 9.

The disciplinary committee of soccer's governing body also suspended Materazzi for two national games after its hearing on Thursday at Fifa headquarters in Zurich.

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Body Matters

Imagine a place where fat women are beautiful. Where thighs heavy with frills and upper arms lush and cushiony and cauldron bellys are the way to go. A place where skinny girls with collar bones pop pills to make themselves fat. Well apparently this is the case in Mauritania where men like their women meaty, and love them very very fat. Tradionally women are force fed a diet of milk and millet every two hours even if they vomit the whole way through or, upon becoming attractively obese enough, can't get out of bed. Always rebellious, the younger generation prefers popping MakeMeFat pills. There are however some older women worried about their health and have begun exercise regimens even if this will make them less attractive to the men folk, a worry in itself.
I wonder if there are no matters of attraction involved what figures the women might naturally graviate towards: plump and happy eating the cake and munching carrot occasionally too? An obese woman here and there and here and there a collar bone that juts out?

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

This is Not the Way!!!!

100 killed in Mumbai, India's bomb blasts on Tuesday and 300 hundred hurt. Not to mentioned the emotional trauma family and friends and even concerned strangers go through waiting for news. And then killing tourists in Kashmir. In Srinagar. In the Dal Lake areas. Tourists. My mother is visiting relatives in Srinagar and she was at the Dal yesterday...
What the fuck is murdering innocent people going to achieve in the long run except more and more and more shit! Stop it. Already. Please.
If you do have grievances, real or imagined, find another way to address them. Something that will make a difference for the better rather than this horridness.

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

230th Birthday- We Hold These Truths To Be

On July 4th 1776 thirteen colonies of Britain situated in North America woke to Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence: they were no longer colonies, they were free states, free to decide their aws and their government; henceforth they would be known as The United States of America. 'We hold these truths to be self-evident:' begins the Declaration of Independence, 'that all men are created equal'.

And so on this 230th birthday of that declaration how would does that truth stand?


John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt on Palestine, Israel and the US in the London Review of Book
Beginning in the 1990s, and even more after 9/11, US support has been justified by the claim that both states are threatened by terrorist groups originating in the Arab and Muslim world, and by ‘rogue states’ that back these groups and seek weapons of mass destruction. This is taken to mean not only that Washington should give Israel a free hand in dealing with the Palestinians and not press it to make concessions until all Palestinian terrorists are imprisoned or dead, but that the US should go after countries like Iran and Syria. Israel is thus seen as a crucial ally in the war on terror, because its enemies are America’s enemies. In fact, Israel is a liability in the war on terror and the broader effort to deal with rogue states.
read the rest here

Jane Mayer on Bush/Cheney in the New Yorker
Lincoln infamously suspended habeas-corpus rights during the Civil War, locking up thousands of Confederate sympathizers without due process, and Franklin D. Roosevelt interned more than a hundred thousand innocent Japanese-Americans. “Someone said that this Administration is monarchical,” Wilentz added. “That’s just rhetoric. We’re not a dictatorship. At the same time, this White House has assumed powers for itself that no previous Administration has done.” Bush’s defenders frequently cite the example of Lincoln as a justification for placing national security above the rule of law. But Schlesinger, in his book “War and the American Presidency” (2004), points out that Lincoln never “claimed an inherent and routine right to do what [he] did.” The Bush White House, he told me, has seized on these historical aberrations and turned them into a doctrine of Presidential prerogative.
read the rest here


The Life and Death of Rachel Corrie I was irreversibly moved by those few moments ... s
Rachel saved many lives and many houses in the month and a half she got to spend alive in Rafah. Still she has died and the precedent a lukewarm response by the United States government would set could have enormous repercussions for all future US peacekeepers as well as the future of Palestine and Israel.
read the rest here

Monday, July 03, 2006

"The Childhood Origins of Terrorism"

From the Institute of Psychohistory Director Lloyd deMause opines:

In order to understand this new battle, it would be useful to know what makes a terrorist—what developmental life histories they share that can help us see why they want to kill "American infidels" and themselves—so we can apply our efforts to removing the sources of their violence and preventing terrorism in the future. The roots of current terrorist attacks lie, I believe, not in this or that American foreign policy error but in the extremely abusive families of the terrorists.
read the rest here


Perhaps terrible abuse is the reason some terrorists go out to kill people but I think deMause does the victims a terrible injustice by writing off terrible foreign policies-- often to blame for rampant innocent deaths- so blithely. Are we to conclude that the Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh or the American Taliban John Walker Lindh had mothers who withheld love and therefore drove them towards a lust for the taking of lives?