Qadaffi's Female Bodyguards

How could I forget this? I was talking to my love the other day about Qadaffi's female body guards. Apparently it's a popular topic because when you type his name into google several variations of the phrase "Qadaffi female bodyguards" pop up. Here are a couple really good stories on the bodyguards, one on his first trip to Italy this summer and this more general write-up on the guards.

Soccer Riots in Egypt

From the NYT: "After Egypt lost the second match, the government withdrew its ambassador from Algiers and accused Algerians of menacing Egyptian fans after the game. President Hosni Mubarak’s eldest son, Alaa, a wealthy businessman, sounded as if he were calling his nation to war.

“We were being humiliated and we can’t be silent about what happened there,” he said in a telephone call to Egypt’s most popular television talk show. “We have to take a stand. This is enough. That’s it, this is enough. Egypt should be respected. We are Egyptian and we hold our head high, and whoever insults us should be smacked on his head.”"

Ok Egypt, how about rioting against your stupid dictator? This kind of low-brow nationalism is getting really old, especially considering there were racist overtones to the demonstrations. If Egyptians feel the need to protest a soccer match they LOST, they either have too much time on their hands or need a serious reassessment of their priorities.

Egypt Warns Israel on Settlements

"The tough words came in the wake of last week's Israeli announcement that it plans to build 900 new apartments in a Jewish neighborhood of east Jerusalem."

"Tough words"? Last I checked, tough words haven't been doing much for the Palestinians. Sanctions, end of diplomatic relations, and either a complete stop of or conditions attached to aid to Israel- that's how you put pressure on them, not some hollow pandering statement that works to your dying fantasy of being the leader of the Arab world.

Exciting Times

I haven't been writing on here lately for a few reasons, mostly personal and just a matter of being too busy with school and research. But these are very exciting times for Palestinian politics, with Abbas claiming he won't run again, the polls being delayed, Fayyad pushing for the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, an apparent Fayyad-Dahlan political alliance with the possible exit of Abbas, and Israel going nuts over all of this. Firstly, it's clear that the Israelis are freaking out over the possible loss of their collaborationist Fatah allies, but it's their own fault for pushing the Palestinians too far by not pursuing a peace agreement, continuing settlements, not budging on Jerusalem, etc. They may be able to appease the corrupt leadership, but the people won't accept their current situation, period. I am still curious to see what's going to happen with Abu Mazen. I initially thought the PA might collapse but it appears they have a plan, if he actually vacates the office, which if recent history is any indicator, he won't. Whether or not it was political theater, I am not sure. But this unilateral declaration of statehood seems a good idea to me. Fayyad has it pretty well laid out in his plans and the US and world community opposing it would just be confirmation that they have no interest in peace. The historical narrative has been changing, Israel's crimes are being exposed, and I think the time is almost ripe for the declaration. It's long-overdue, in fact. Israel has warned of "unilateral action" if the state is declared. I say, fuck it, declare the state, let Israel demonstrate they actually look to have all of Palestine for themselves, and have the world community react to Israel reacting violently and oppressively to a peaceful declaration of statehood. No one else has been willing to give the Palestinians credence for the last 100 years, so I guess it's time to take it.

Mos Def & Slick Rick, "Auditorium"

Slick Rick's verse from the new song with Mos Def hasn't left my head since I first heard it:

Sit and come relax, riddle of the mac
It's a patch and I'm a soldier in the middle of Iraq
We'll say about noonish, coming out the whip and
Lookin' at me curious
A young Iraqi kid
Carryin' laundry
What's up g, what's wrong kid, hungry?
"No, give me back my oil and get the fuck out my country."
-Slick Rick

"Don't Wanna' Be an American Idiot"

I suppose I could post about Sarah Palin. But that would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Peace!

A Lesson in Humility and Political Moderation

Last year during the war on Gaza I became overly critical and bitter, and began to incorrectly see Israel as a monolithic state and I largely ignored its leftist community. My professor/advisor saw this in my papers and sent me a really amazing poem about Israeli-Arab coexistence by a member of the Israeli peace camp. That night I had a dream that I was talking with some Iraqi college students and desperately trying to distance myself from US policies towards the Middle East and Arab world, and trying to explain that it was simply out of my hands-- that I had protested and tried to stop the war. I woke up and realized that in my dream I was essentially playing the part of Israeli leftists. The poem and my subsequent dream brought me to a major realization. It was an important lesson I'll never forget. I also quickly realized that I should have known better and my professor had put me in check. I promptly wrote him an email and thanked him.

Islamophobia......... is the New Anti-Semitism?

Or is Arab the new black? For a while I thought gay was the new black. Or is is it woman? It's so hard to keep track with the myriad bigotries.

Anyway, last year I attended a lecture by Professor Matti Bunzl on the rise of Islamophobia in Europe. Bunzl explained how the same European politicians who were vehement anti-Semites just a number of years ago are now the ones ranting and raving about the dangers of Islam and the Islamization of Europe and now claiming to be friends of Israel. There's been a bit of coverage about this, but it still shocks me- the Islamophobia just seems to be even more open and blatant that it is in the states, though the stuff Fox News has been saying after the Fort Hood shootings is pretty disgusting in its own right.
Here's my write up in Bunzl's talk last fall:
In his lecture “Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia in Europe Today”, Professor Matti Bunzl explores the roots of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia and the ways each is used in post-9/11 European politics. The European Union agency that monitors racism and xenophobia within its member countries believes that both Islamophobia and anti-Semitism are analogous and that they both originate in a right-wing Christian ideology. Bunzl argues instead that the EU is mistaken because the right-wing politics in Europe are in fact not anti-Semitic whatsoever, but purely Islamophobic. If Bunzl is correct, it appears then that the EU agency looking to effectively deal with xenophobia and racism may be quite misdirected in their efforts.
Bunzl began his lecture by introducing where anti-Semitism originated from in Europe, stating that it was originally based on religious discrimination but eventually became a secular and racial issue as it entered into European politics in the late-19th and early-20th centuries, primarily in the form of German nationalism. The evidence that anti-Semitism became racial is seen in the fact that while German Jews were allowed to convert to Christianity in the 1800’s, they became permanently ostracized and discriminated by the 1900’s, again based on them being a separate “race” in the German view of such.
What Prof. Bunzl argues as the main point of his lecture is that anti-Semitism is not present in any way within the right-wing Christian political parties of Europe, and has been largely replaced by Islamophobia and anti-Arab sentiments. For evidence we can look to the three major parties of Austria that were vehemently anti-Semitic in the inter-war period and are still in power there today. Anti-Semitism is currently not included anywhere in their party platforms or policies, and some of these parties have even nominated Jewish candidates for election to the Austrian government. And while these same parties made this transition to tolerating and including Jews as the idea of a more tangible European Union emerged in the early 1990’s, they are now overwhelmingly anti-Muslim in their stated policies.
Islamophobia has now become the center ideology of all right-wing Christian political parties, largely based in the growing Muslim presence in Europe and the unsubstantiated fear that European culture and government will become “Islamicized”, as well as the question of Turkey’s proposed membership in the European Union. It appears that apart from more substantial and relevant issues concerning Turkey’s application, many of the arguments against it lie in the fear of including a nation that has a Muslim-majority population (apparently ignoring the fact that Turkey is one of, if not the most secularized nation of the Islamic world). In some of his arguments against Turkey being included in the EU, French President Sarkozy has even said that in Turkey “they have a different way of life, a different culture” that would not integrate well in the union. The rhetoric is even harsher in other EU nations- one prominent Austrian political party has said that they find Turkey “wholly incompatible” with the European way of life; politicians in the Netherlands have publicly expressed concerns that “Europe is being over-run by Muslims”; members of the Belgian Flemish party, which comprises 30% of the political membership in the nation, have stated that Muslims don’t know the value of women and the separation of church and state.
In his closing Prof. Bunzl characterized the current wave of Islamophobia propagated by the European right-wing as a “post-modern phenomenon” and “hemispheric” in nature in that it came about after the idea of a more integrated and united Europe rose to prominence. Furthermore, he links this rise in Islamophobia to the European politicians’ ideas of protecting the EU member nations from the erosion of secularization and, hypocritically, the protection of the Judeo-Christian tradition of Europe. Bunzl also noted the hypocrisy of the Europeans Islamophobes claiming they hold the high ground of pluralism and tolerance while they simultaneously refuse to tolerate Muslims within their borders based on what I feel are unsubstantiated fears. The most interesting statement made in the lecture by Prof. Bunzl was made in reference to why we do not have this problem in the US, that because Americans have no hostility with open religiosity Islamophobia remains relatively low here.
I was left with a few questions after this lecture, mainly where the majority of anti-Semitism comes from today. Bunzl did mention that some violence against Jews was committed by Muslims living in Europe, but I highly doubt this can account for all incidences. It also seems highly unlikely that the Christian right in Europe could have eliminated their anti-Semitic sentiments so easily and in such a short period of time, especially amongst the voting population of these nations. Surely the remnants of anti-Semitism remain to some extent in the segments of the right-wing population that have kept these parties in power, despite their stated platforms not including anti-Semitic positions. I also would have liked some more in-depth explanation as to exactly how anti-Semitism was replaced with Islamophobia so easily and in such a short amount of time in European politics. It is interesting that the two movements seem so interchangeable, so I wonder if this does not speak to some trend of political hate groups simply needing an enemy and having malleable platforms instead of being committed to their original principles.

On (interracial, inter-religious) Love in the "Holy Land"

(I want to start by saying I almost always refrain form using the term "Holy Land" but for some reason I use it when talking about this personal topic.)

It goes without saying that my time living in Palestine was a highly formative experience for me. This extends to both the personal, professional, and academic. In hindsight, I've realized there were a few different phases and significant changes to my mindset while there. When I arrived I was ready to be just as politically engaged with the Palestinian issue as I am in the US. But within my second or third day I, and a number of other students form the US, realized when were discussing Palestine and the conflict we were basically preaching to the choir. Plus, if it we were going to spend all our time talking about political issues, and ones we agreed on almost without exception, it was going to be a long summer. From then on I dabbled in political discussion with westerners here and there, but basically decided I would only talk politics with Palestinians and spend the rest of my time experiencing Palestine for what it is. At the risk of sounding cliche, I resigned myself to experiencing the culture and food, taking in my surroundings, shutting my mouth and learning all I possibly could.

After getting over the inevitable culture shock and unbelievable 11-day stomach illness I got from the water, I would say I integrated fairly well in the WB. I became comfortable quite fast, found my way around, and got into a daily routine within a week or two. I was still a random white dude running around Palestine and obviously stood out, but I really did feel at home rather quickly. And throughout the majority of my time in the WB, while it was a personal trip for me, it was personal primarily on the academic level, in that my interest and passion for the study of Israel-Palestine stems from my deep-seated commitment to social justice, advocacy for Islam, and of course from the fact that I had invested my professional and academic life to the topic.

But my mindset while in Palestine drastically changed in the last month I was there. One night in July I was introduced, through a mutual friend, to a girl named Arwa. I have to admit: the first time I saw this Egyptian-Omoro girl sitting there wearing a hijab the first thing I though was, "She's pretty........I hope she speaks English." From the moment I met Arwa and shook her hand it was over for me. Beginning that night we were basically joined at the hip. Every minute I wasn't in class at Birzeit University studying Arabic or interning at the research institute, I was with her. We primarily spent our time running around downtown Ramallah, shopping for kuffiyehs, eating fattoush and Arabic sweets, and sitting with the shebabas on Manara Circle. Not that there weren't some exciting and outstanding times-- like the night we were out walking around together at a time that was way too late than was socially acceptable for two unmarried people to be together, interrogated by a somewhat secret Palestinian police force and threatened with arrest. (There's a lot more to the story than this-- it turned into a three or four day fiasco, but that's a story for another day.) But from the point I met Arwa on, my associations and memories of Palestine take on a much different quality. That was when my summer became deeply personal and why my memories remain so affective.

We basically made it a point from that day to run around together, breaking social and religious conventions by holding hands and being (moderately and modestly) affectionate. Now, it's one thing to be an American guy, who everyone assumes is non-Muslim, with a Muslim girl in Palestine. It's quite another thing to be a white American dude with tattoos walking around with a beautiful Muslim Arab woman who wears hijab. I was starting to get used to the constant judgmental "tsks" Palestinians threw my way, which were mostly done when they saw my tattoos. But with Arwa the daily "tsks" must have doubled. And while I have been forced to deal with ignorant and negative reactions to interracial relationships in America before, it was mostly dealing with reactions from other white people directed at who I was with. While infuriating, it was something I always prepared myself to encounter and I mostly reacted appropriately. But to be in the position of the other person--that is, of "the other" or the minority-- the one judged and deemed not worthy to be with who you were with, was quite different for me. This social judgment also takes place in a very different context in a much more conservative society like Palestine. Arwa was soon subjected to questions like "But isn't Mostafa a Christian?" (I have actually been in the careful and deliberate process of converting to Islam for some time, long before I met Arwa). It appeared to me that the inter-religious aspect of our relationship took precedence over the inter-racial for the Palestinians who reacted negatively to our being together, which is both good and sad. It is perhaps also an insight into the racial attitudes amongst Palestinian Arabs who have been subject to discrimination and occupation under an arguably racist usurping entity. At the same time, inter-religious marriage just doesn't happen in the Middle East thse days (though it did historically). I have been told a number of times that after the breakout of tensions in Israel-Palestine most religious authorities stopped performing inter-sectarian and inter-religious ceremonies. Soon this became universal in the region. But the discrimination and occupation the Palestinians have been subject to is also religiously based. Because of this, I am disappointed in their lack of a more accepting and enlightened attitude (forgive my use of the word "enlightened." It is not meant to be Orientalist, but it seem appropriate here).

And so my memories of the last number of weeks in Palestine are indelibly marked by Arwa and our time together. Whereas my previous associations of Jerusalem related to historical coexistence, religious conflict, occupation, and significance to the religious mind, I now also have visions of us walking together outside the walls of the Old City holding hands and going to book stores. When I think of Ramallah my thoughts are no longer limited to the PA, Arafat's grave, and cosmopolitanism. mention Ramallah and I instantly see Arwa and I at Azura or Cafe de la Paix sharing fattoush and laughing at the other people staring at us. My memories of the WB are forever changed and transcend the academic and historical. And I wouldn't have it any other way.

Luckily, this woman I met halfway around the world lives just 5 or 6 hours from me-- a manageable distance, I would say. So it's going well. Remarkably well, actually. But falling in love in the Holy Land is a crazy thing and has all kinds of pitfalls and repercussions. It's also an amazing thing and well worth it. We're going to be dealing with all different kinds of reactions throughout our travels together, I am sure.....This is probably one entry amongst many others to come.

The Daily Vidette

I have repeatedly seen my school's student paper screw up story after story, use quotes by speakers completely out of context, and emphasize quotes from lectures that were completely irrelevant to the main idea. UW-Whitewater, where I did my undergraduate work, is literally 1/4 the size of ISU yet the student paper was about twice as good. I don't understand this. But the title and clunky opening line of the Daily Vidette's writeup on Pappe's lecture is just stupid. "Palestinian Shift Calls Upon U.S. for for Action"? What? What shift? How does a shift call upon anyone to do anything? Am I taking crazy pills?

Another Brief Thought on Pappe

Something I meant to include in last post about the lecture below:
(I have to first admit this afterthought was inspired by comments from my professor/mentor in class this morning. While I have been a teacher to many, classes and lectures like the one this morning just reaffirm my understanding that there are some people to whom I will always be a student, no matter what degree or title I attain. It may have taken me a while to learn this, but I will certainly never forget it.)
While it is important to create a drastic paradigm shift on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and an elimination of the "paradigm of parity" of blame within the conflict, I do think this has to be measured. The Palestinians are not without blame. Obviously some of their methods of resistance have been more than unsavory and 'illegitimate,' they've had their own periods of intransigence, and the Palestinian Arab leadership has let down its people time and after time. Some of the responsibilities are most certainly shared. A statement like this reflects the absence of the Palestinians in some of Pappe's work. Not that he denies them historical agency; I don't think he would do such a thing. But that's not necessarily the emphasis of his work. But I did mention this problem in his work in my paper "The Ongoing Debate in the Israeli Historiography of 1948 and the Palestinian Expulsion":
"Almost entirely absent from The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, including the six-page timeline summary in the book, is any substantial details or recognition concerning Arab aggression or the Arab revolt in Palestine. The book’s only apparent goal is to detail Zionist aggression against the Arab population. The very lack of any indication of Arab aggression is an omission that paints a starkly different picture than what the general historiography provides us and is central to the alternative narrative by Pappe."

Palestinian......Unilateralism?

I'm anxious to see what happens when (or more appropriately, if) the PA unilaterally declares a state within the next two years. All political problems with Dahlan and Fayyad aside, I can't argue with this plan. But let's be realistic for a second. What will the Israeli reaction be, across the board? What happens to the relationship of the Israeli government with the PA? Is this not against Fayyad's and Dahlan's own self-interest? And will the security wall and checkpoints just disappear when you declare this state? Have fun in your non-contiguous states where transportation and travel is chopped up and blocked by settler-only roads. I'm sure the settlers will be wholly cooperative with your plan. And what's this about ignoring the classifications of the A, B, and C areas in the West Bank? Surely the IDF will be cooperative on that idea too. I'm sure they'll call up the PA and say, "You know, we're not that concerned about the Jordanian border anyway. It's all yours! Oh, and be sure to take care of the Dead Sea and the River Jordan, because we've been draining that thing for decades!" Oh, and I'm sure the US won't veto the plan if they go to the UN. Don't get me wrong- in theory, I really like the idea. But there are so many way the occupation has been normalized and set up in a way as to be permanent, this plan just calls too many issues into question. Not that I think Fayyad is an idiot. On the contrary, I have to assume he's got answers to all these things, or at least working on them. But come on dude, let's be real, mainly about US voting behavior in the UN. Dahlan said "An American veto in the Security Council would prove that the White House is uninterested in the two-state solution...". The US might be interested, but if you think you actually need to get the resolution to the UN to see how the US is going to vote, then apparently you haven;t been paying attention.

Update: Pat Robertson is Still a Complete Idiot

According to Pat Robertson: "If we don't stop covering up what Islam is ... Islam is a violent -- I was going to say religion, but it's not a religion, it's a political system, it's a violent political system bent on the overthrow of the governments of the world and world domination," Robertson said. "You're dealing with not a religion, you're dealing with a political system, and I think we should treat it as such, and treat its adherents as such as we would members of the communist party, members of some fascist group."

Pat Robertson will most likely be remembered as an exclusionary, hateful, simple-minded fool. In my view, and in contrast to Christopher Hitchens, religion can and should be used as a conduit of inclusiveness, acceptance, and peace. People like Robertson (of any religion) who hold this holier-than-thou attitude leave us rational people in their crossfire. But he's obviously so self-righteous that he will never come to realize his views and rhetoric essentially make him the western version of bin Laden. (I think I just feel the need to write about this because a lot of my research lately has been about evangelical Christians. I would hope that Pat Robertson is mostly irrelevant by now and only good for ignorant soundbites like this one.)

Breaking Islamic Doctrine

"The Islamic religion commands believers to obey the laws of the land they live in, even if it be one ruled by nonbelievers."

-From the excellent article "Muslim Americans Must Obey U.S. Laws; Nidal Hasan Disobeyed Islamic Doctrine"

Ilan Pappe Lecture

The same day we had the small-group discussion with Dr. Pappe he gave a more formal lecture here at ISU. For most people not totally familiar with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict it was surely a valuable talk. I was personally pleased he focused on 1905-1948 instead of the usual emphasis on the post-1967 period in explaining the roots of the conflict. As someone who is familiar with and admires Pappe's work, I was also familiar with the framing and approach to the topic. But his closing points what were really struck me, which are as follows:

1) Zionism was and is, at its very core, a colonialist project. There can be no peace without the full decolonization of Palestine and the history of this colonization must be addressed. (I don't agree with this. There are plenty of advocates for coexistence in the form of something much less than "decolonization")

2) It is time everyone acknowledges that the Palestinian issue did not start in 1967. Far too many people are concerned with the Six-Day War and approach the conflict as if nothing relevant happened before 1967. According to Pappe, "All violent acts within the conflict relate to 1948." (An overly simplistic quote, but I agree with the gist of this point)

3) The paradigm of parity and placing mutual blame on both the Israelis and Palestinians that is so prominent amongst the political elites must be eliminated, as it has absolutely nothing to do with the reality of the situation. That is, the responsibilities are not as shared as the (predominantly) western discourse portrays. The very real paradigm is simply that of the colonized and the colonizers.
Interestingly, Pappe argues that the responsibility for changing that paradigm lies with the Unites States. This assertion, in my view, is especially relevant considering Thomas Friedman's ridiculously stupid op-ed from the NYT this week in which he alludes to the US essentially abandoning the peace process because we seem to be the only ones actually interested in peace and changing the status quo. Friedman's sentiments represents this disconnect between the political elites and reality. Surely both Netanyahu and his government, along with Abbas, Dalan, and the rest of the collaborationist regime have no problem with the status quo of the occupation. But I challenge Friedman and anyone else who agrees with him to talk to any Palestinian and ask them if they have in interest in attaining peace. To think that a single Palestinian (excluding those within the collaborationist regime) would say they like things the way they are now or have no interest in peace is beyond absurd and exemplifies this disconnect from reality. To have people like Pappe countering this idea is extremely important, lest people actually believe Palestinians are even remotely complacent under occupation or largely share the interests of the PA leadership. So Thomas Friedman: please quit pretending you know anything about the Middle East, especially the Palestinian situation. Your oversimplifications are hurting more than they're helping.

A Discussion with Ilan Pappe

I got to participate in a small-group Q&A session with Ilan Pappe this morning at my university. He was nothing short of gracious and approachable, and shared some great insights into Israeli historiography and national identity. He also delved into his reading of the Israeli archives of 1967 and how his interpretation of them will differ from Tom Segev's book on 1967 (I personally love Tom Segev's writing style, though I take issue with some of his historical assertions, especially his omission of Zionist terrorism during the British Mandate). Pappe will also be giving a 2-hour talk tonight, which I will post notes about as well.

A brief summary and points from our discussion:

I asked him why he believed it took so long for both the New Historians and Palestinian historians to address and confront 1948. According to Pappe, for Israeli historians 1948 is a Pandora's box that brings into question not only the actual events, but the legitimacy and morality of the Zionist project and the state of Israel itself. For many, dealing with these historical issues is simply not worth it (as he can probably attest to). On the Palestinian side, it wasn't addressed because of the lack of an academic community in a fractured post-Nakba society, and the fact that it was a publicly shared trauma, the effects of which were, and are, experienced every day. Many Palestinians simply didn't wish to revisit it. It may have been addressed on an activist or political level, but not historical until sometime later than it should have been. Also, access to Israeli archives obviously presents a particular problem for Palestinian historians, and many refuse to rely on oral history, in that it may bring into question the legitimacy of their work. (Pappe disagrees with this sentiment on oral history, but I think it does make sense for an issue as polarized as al-Nakba where the rhetoric and discourse has been so heavily embedded).

Concerning approaches to the Israeli archives dealing with 1967, Pappe says they have until now only been approached form a purely Zionist framework. In his view, the archives reveal 2 main points: 1) Most Israeli leaders viewed 1948 as a major mistake, only because they did not completely push out every single Palestinian Arab from Israel-Palestine. They concluded they could have very well avoided the burden of the occupation and the odd borders of the state had they completed the ethnic cleansing. 1967 was their chance to say "no more mistakes" in terms of Zionist goals. Additionally, the "two-state" solution emerges as a useful facade for peace negotiations. 2) Significantly, they actually internally debated clearing the entire West Bank of all Palestinians (which I find amazing). But after this, the debate on such matters was closed until Oslo. The Israeli conclusion was that the Palestinians can stay in the WB but they will never be incorporated into the state, cannot have independence or sovereignty, and are not refugees but inhabitants. (In would relate this to the post-1967 'separation of the Palestinian people from the land of Palestine') That is, "they were allowed to have an open prison. And if they rebelled they would find themselves in a maximum security prison." He also added that is you pay attention, the language of the Israeli authorities began to mirror that of a prison warden.

(I have a lot of grading to do tonight, but I will add the rest of my notes from our talk later on tonight.)

"Jerusalem, We Are Coming"

From alJazeera:
"Palestinians and foreign activists have torn down segments of Israel's separation wall in a demonstration marking the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall."

That's nice and all, but I would suggest commemorating June 6th by tearing the whole fucking thing down.

On Attaching Conditions to US Aid to Israel

In Time this week Joe Klein suggested "putting a hold on all economic and military aid to Israel... until the Netanyahu government comes to understand that Jerusalem must be the capital of both Israel and Palestine, and that if you actually want peace, you don't build illegal settlement colonies in the Palestinian capital." Thomas Friedman alluded to a similar thing in the NY Times as well, though out of sheer frustration with the peace process. And this sentiment is too far off the mark, though I would say that some, if not most, of the culpability lies with the US for essentially encouraging Israeli intransigence with its unconditional support for Israel, war crimes included. What's the biggest evidence US policy towards Israel is to blame? As Glenn Greenwald states, "the notion of using our vast leverage to make them change behavior is decreed to be one of the most impenetrable taboos." While it is a good sign this "taboo" is being, at the very least, addressed, I wouldn't count on any substantial changes considering that the J Street lobby is against any conditions being attached. After Obama was elected and took a tougher stance toward then, there were rumblings that Israel would turn to Russia for military aid if the US ever did such a thing, which makes me even more cynical. No way would the US let such a thing happen. But I digress; my point is that we shouldn't let our frustration result in a denial of rights for the Palestinian people (not its ridiculous leadership). What Friedman failed to address is that while the Fatah and Dahlanist leadership has no problems with the way things are in the OT now, the Palestinian PEOPLE are not happy with the status quo. Best case scenario: Abbas is true to his word and doesn't run, a new PA is elected that is fully committed to ending the occupation, and the Fath "Revolutionary Council" is deemed wholly irrelevant. Staunch Israeli support for Fayyad and Abbas, in its many forms, should be reason enough for the Palestinians to vote against them. (Ah, this post rambled a bit, didn't it?)

It's quite simple: Nidal Malik Hasan is as representative of Islam as David Koresh, Timothy McVeigh, and white supremacists are of Christianity. The media needs to quit the tired inflammatory discourse.

Upcoming

My paper on depictions of Nablus in British travel journals and books during the 1800's should be done soon. I'll post excerpts soon since I'm really excited about how it's turning out. It may also end up being one of the funniest papers I've written as well, since I can't wait to write the section covering this British dude who got robbed in Nablus around 1890 and proceeded to whine about it for 10+ pages in his book in the most Orientalist manner possible.
I also want to try and post some of the old maps of Syria and Palestine from the 19th century I keep pulling out of these books. I would like to scan them and make them pdf files, but I think they're just too big. I'll get them in here somehow though.

Muslims and the British Empire

"Never before in the world was born a nation so well versed in the art of diplomacy and deceit than that which lived in the island separated by the English Channel from the main European continent…But, the great British Empire was not won on the battlefields, but through intrigues and frauds…Britain has proved to be an inveterate enemy of the Muslim world during the last seven or eight centuries. In almost all conspiracies which were started to harm the Muslim countries during the last 250 years or more, Britain’s hand is visible.”

-Khwaja Jamil Ahmad in Britain and Muslims, 1971

I always thought these guard towers looked more fitting on the Death Star than.....well, where they are. I really got to thinking about these in a discussion in class today about Foucault's writings on the power of prison architecture in eliciting desired behaviors from a population and using his framework in framing the Israeli occupation. And the settlements, in being constructed on the highest points on the possible, create a similar sense of constant surveillance and being watched. It got quite creepy when we would be sitting out late and night on our deck and watch a convoy of about 15 vehicles rolls out of an outpost around 2 or 3 am.

Fayyad and Dahlan on Twitter..........kind of.

Someone who apparently has my exact sense of humor has these fake Mohammad Dahlan and Salam Fayyad twitter pages. I definitely suggest following them both. If you know anything about Palestinian politics, this shit will crack you up. Whoever does these is very creative and damn hilarious.

Kahane Returns

"With the anniversary of his death approaching, signs reading,"We all know now - Meir Kahane was right" were posted on message boards on Shatz Boulevard, a main thoroughfare where many local and inter-city buses pass. Signs were also posted in religious Jerusalem neighbourhoods....
Ben-Ari declared staunchly that Kahane "was not a racist... he loved Israel and if that means he was a racist, he was a racist... People who call him racist are the racists."

The lack of logic involved in the defense of a racism and the reliance on accusations of anti-semitism here is astounding. So if we are against racist Zionism we are racists? Right.

Settlements

The sad part is that a simple map cannot possibly show the devastating effects of the settlements in terms of resources, freedom of movement, social consequences, the loss of land, the destruction of archaeological and historical sites, settler-perpetrated violence against Palestinians, the list goes on and on.

Sources

Soon I'll start using many more sources than just al-jazeera, but I've been pressed for time as I'm currently working on two different research projects due in the near future.

The Mubaraks

I tend to agree with many analysts that Egypt is a powder keg waiting to blow. Hosni Mubarak, since he took power 28 years ago, has maintained a declared "state of emergency" in the country since radical Islamists assassinated Anwar Sadat in 1980. It's essentially an ongoing struggle between some more extreme Islamists and the Egyptian government, which has been going on since the mid-1950's when the Muslim Brotherhood began to feel betrayed by Nasser's secularism after they helped him overthrow King Farouk. With the state of emergency Mubarak suppresses the more conservative and Islamist elements who are also vying for a share in the Egyptian parliament, dominated by the ruling National Democratic Party.
According to rumor and outright appearances (don't let the jet-black dye job fool you), the 81 year old Mubarak may be on his way out and most are assuming his son Gamal will seize power soon after (since he's reportedly being groomed by the US for such). I predict one of three outcomes here after Hosni's death or exit from the presidency: 1) Gamal takes power with little incident and makes marginal attempts at reform, though mainly economic since he is a former investment banker and probably doesn't want to agitate social conservatives 2) Gamal takes power, massive protests break out. They are then brutally suppressed by security forces, thereby creating more Islamist and Brotherhood resentment, which will rise to surface again at a later date. 3) Massive protests, and Cairo especially, absolutely freaks out and then I don't know what happens.
Either way, I would love to see a movement like hizb al-wasat (the Center Party) re-emerge and take over. I think they were outlawed or forced out of elections by Mubarak, but I like how they account for the Islamic nature they want to see in the state but with an emphasis on democracy and women's rights. For now, the younger Mubarak is skirting the question.

Water in Palestine

To anyone who has been in Palestine this isn't really news. Israeli settlers use about 80% of the total water supply in the West Bank despite only comprising a fraction of the population, and the water situation in Gaza is atrocious because of the blockade against equipment needed for purification. After the occupation following the Six-Day Way in 1967 one of the first things the military administrative government did was make it illegal for Palestinians to set up water pumps without approval and simply set up their own, seizing the majority of Palestine's water supply from the mountain aquifer. In Jalazone refugee camp, which borders a settlement with nice swimming pools and well-watered lawns, they now have water two days a week. Even in Birzeit we would often run out of water just a few days after getting it again. From what I understand though, Ramallah has very few problems with water supply.

The US Backs Down on Settlements

While I am liberal in my domestic political leanings, this is why my views on US-Mideast policy are strictly bipartisan (and always critical). Like I told my brother, I was cautiously optimistic about Obama on the Palestinian issue. Then his policy ends up being no different that Bush, if not weaker. But like this guy says, it really shouldn't be a surprise:
Rabbani said a "pattern is consistent with American policy since the beginning of Israel-Palestine diplomacy in the early 1990s - always leaning on the Palestinians to make concessions in order to solve the problems they're having with the Israelis. No surprise here; nothing new."

Cairo, 2008

I wondered

I wondered why Israeli authorities actually charged this settler with murder, since they usually enjoy impunity from killing and attacking Palestinians. Then I read the article and saw that he was killing leftist Israelis.