Wednesday, January 31, 2007




THE NARRATIVE
by Malik Isasis










Imagine if you will, a playground.

There are lots of children.

George W. Bush is like that kid who would do anything if you dared him because he believes his actions would substitute as bravery and cover for his intellectual and emotional short-comings; the corporate media is like that kid on the playground who eggs-on others by cheering on the foolish acts. Once a foolish act is committed, it is rewarded by praise.

For months now, I’ve stated in several columns that Bush will not listen to Congress or the American people. He doesn’t have to, the media eggs him on, and he ups the ante by doing more foolish acts. It’s a sick cycle that is perpetuated by the corporate media. The symbiotic relationship works because the media helps Bush to create 'monsters' around the world such as President Hugo Chavez of Venezula and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, and then challenges him, “What are you going to do about it?”

As the United States’ Occupation of Iraq falls apart, the corporate media continues to use the narrative, ‘Support the troops.’ What in the hell does ‘Support the troops’, mean? Well, absolutely nothing. Nothing, because ‘Support the troops’ is a well-researched slogan designed by the neocons to stop debate, and to stop the opposition from uncovering one of the largest war-profiteering-money-laundering schemes the world has ever seen.

The media uses ‘Support the troops’, language to box in the battered-wife syndrome Democratic Party. It works too; because the Democrats don’t frame their own debates or create their own narrative, they like the media, use the Republicans’ and neocons’ narratives.

Back to the playground.

Like those bullies who are able to see others weaknesses and eggs-on self-destructive behaviors; the corporate media are able to be kingmakers, take Barack Obama for instance. Since revealing that he would run for president, the corporate media have built him up good, boy—just so they can pick a fight with Hillary Clinton. Most of cable news is keeping political score between Barack and Hillary with weekly, sometimes daily polls. Hillary and Barack are purposely being overexposed so that they can be easily marginalized.

This is all distraction, as the current president is picking a fight with Iran and using the same tired reasoning that was used to invade Iraq.

PUNDITRY

There is a very special place in hell for pundits like Glenn Beck, Chris Matthews, Tucker Carlson, all of Fox News’ on-air talent, Dick Morris, and all of radio conservative talk show hosts.

When George W. Bush takes a shit, they are what fall into the toilet.

The punditry-class is responsible for the destructive right-wing echo chamber. Source Watch defines echo chamber, as a colloquial term used to describe a group of media outlets that tend to parrot each other's uncritical reports on the views of a single source, or that otherwise relies on unquestioning repetition of official sources.

The right-wing pundits just make shit up, for instance blaming the Clinton Campaign for an Obama smear. Right-wing pundits feeds misinformation into the mainstream media, and the corporate pundits then vomits this bile out as news. A good insight into the anatomy of the right wing echo chamber is documented by a Media Matters’ investigation. Look at the timeline.

The mighty turd Rush Limbaugh, has referred to Barack Obama as ‘Halfrican’, ‘Odumbo’ , and ‘Obama-Osama’.

People like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Dick Morris and Sean Hannity are petulant, and spread ideological simplemindedness in the form of bigoted-racist propaganda against people of color, the new black: Mexicans and Muslims.

Day after day, they plague the airwaves with ideological sickness, which shapes the narrative of the mainstream punditry such as Tim Russert and George Stephanopulous who give credence to misinformation by the Bush Public Relations Administration. Russert and Stephanopulous often recite neocons’ talking points when discussing Iraq with Democratic politicians. The Democratic politicians then shamelessly, frame the debate with these pundits using the same narrative that was created by the Republican Party. As argued in my earlier column When the Rainbow Isn’t Enough, There is no Iraq war. There is an Iraq Occupation. A military occupation is defined as a condition in which territory is under the effective control of a foreign-armed force. This is a fact on the ground, and a fact the Democrats have to use to accurately define policy in Iraq.

The pundits are nothing more than a sewing circle, creating whispering campaigns, and misinformation that is picked up by the mainstream corporate media.

Republican? Then it must be true.

Since the Iraq invasion and now the Iraq Occupation, progressives, and liberals have spoken out about how the Bush Public Relations Administration has failed in Iraq due to ineptitude. For years, this has been the stance. Now that Chuck Hagel has challenged Bush’s blood lust, the corporate media’s ass-kissery is shameless:

Second, as his stock goes down among Republicans, it goes up among independents. Even liberals might conclude that it will take a certified war hero - Hagel won two Purple Hearts in Vietnam - to make a credible exit from Iraq.

Even the battered-wife syndrome Democratic Party sight Hagel and other Republicans to bolster and legitimized their position against the escalation of the Iraq Occupation. Another example of Democrats using Republican talking points to advance policy.

The New Danger

The corporate media is one of the most destructive forces in American culture. Remember the Roman gladiatorial combats? Man versus man—man versus beast? Thousands would pack the coliseum just to watch the bloody carnage; what about some of the theocratic governments in the Middle East where there are government sponsored stonings or beheadings in a soccer stadium? Or how about in the early 20th century America, where people would get dressed in their Sunday’s best to see a lynching?

This is what the corporate media tries to tap into, humanity’s morbid fascination with violence, destruction and death. The corporate media has a way of transforming this carnage into heroism. The Bush Public Relations Administration has tapped into this distorted heroism.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney sit at their thrones in the Iraqi Coliseum, high atop their ivory towers, poised to attack Iran, using the same Iraq strategy. Bush and Cheney are engorged with power; they are self-indulgent; they are mad. Bush and Cheney feast on the flesh of the weak Congress. They have deficated on the Constitution, while the American people are awakening to Bush's petulance, the Congress are still trying to find their backbone. If we were witnessing this strange dynamic in another country we would question why the people aren't rising up; the people aren't rising up because in the words of media critic Ben Bagdikian, "At issue is the possession of power to surround almost every man, woman and child in the country with controlled images and words, to socialize each new generation of Americans, to alter the political agenda of the country."

Since most Americans get their news from the television, it's time to turn off the television.

Monday, January 29, 2007



BUSH BAMBOOZLES DEMOCRATS AGAIN
by Robert Parry
Consortium News









As Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates joins in baiting Iraq War critics for supposedly aiding the enemy, the Democrats have been taught once more the value of handing a bipartisan olive branch to George W. Bush.

In December 2006, ignoring warnings from former CIA officers who had worked with Gates, Senate Democrats embraced his nomination to replace Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. They fawned over Gates at a one-day hearing, spared the former CIA director any tough questions, and then unanimously endorsed him.

Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York and others hailed Gates’s “candor” when he acknowledged the obvious, that the United States wasn’t winning the war in Iraq, a position that even Bush subsequently embraced.

In December, the “conventional wisdom” was that Bush would bend to the troop-drawdown recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and that Gates – as a former member of the ISG – would guide the President toward disengagement from Iraq.

But in rushing Gates’s nomination through with only pro forma hearings, the Democrats sacrificed a rare opportunity to demand answers from the Bush administration about its war policy at a time when the White House wanted something from the Democrats, i.e. the quick confirmation of Gates.

At minimum, the Democrats could have used an extended confirmation hearing to explore, in detail, Gates’s views about the military challenges in the Middle East and ascertain what he knew about Bush’s future plans.

They also could have taken time to examine exactly who Gates is, whether he is the right man to oversee the complex conflicts in the Middle East, and what his real record was in handling regional issues in the past.

Gates allegedly played important but still-secret roles in controversial U.S. policies toward Iran and Iraq in the 1980s. In addition, former CIA officers have criticized Gates for “politicizing” the CIA’s intelligence analysis as a top CIA official in the 1980s.

Some of the CIA institutional and personnel changes that Gates implemented led to the CIA’s malleability in the face of White House pressure over Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction in 2002-03, former CIA officials said. [See Consortiumnews.com's "The Secret World of Robert Gates."

So, was Gates a closet neoconservative ideologue hiding behind Boy Scout looks and mild manners? Or was he more a yes man who would bend to the will of his superiors? His record could be interpreted either way. See Consortiumnews.com's "Robert Gates: Realist or Neo-con?"

But the Democrats politely evaded these thorny questions.

Rumsfeld’s Lament

The Senate Armed Services Committee also could have called Rumsfeld to explain his Nov. 6 memo which contained recommendations for U.S. troop redeployments similar to those suggested by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania. Two days after that memo was sent to Bush, the President fired Rumsfeld and replaced him with Gates.

The Democrats could have demanded that Rumsfeld explain what had led to his change in thinking and whether his “going wobbly” was the precipitating fact in his firing. See Consortiumnews.com's "Gates Hearing Has New Urgency."

By extending the hearings a few days, they also could have asked Rumsfeld and Gates about the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations.

Under White House pressure, Senate Armed Services Committee chairman John Warner, R-Virginia, scheduled Gates’s one-day hearing the day before former Secretary of State James Baker and former Rep. Lee Hamilton released the ISG’s report listing 79 recommendations to address the "grave and deteriorating" situation in Iraq.

Though then still in the Senate minority, committee Democrats had the power to demand fuller hearings. But they were desperate to demonstrate their bipartisanship and their generosity in victory, extending Bush an olive branch and hoping that Bush would respond in kind.

Immediately after the perfunctory hearing, Gates got unanimous approval from the Armed Services Committee and the next day won confirmation from the full Senate. He was opposed by only two right-wing Republican senators.

In the seven weeks since then, it’s become clear that Bush bamboozled the Democrats again. The “conventional wisdom” of early December turned out to be all wrong.

Bush dashed the Democrats’ hopes for a bipartisan strategy on Iraq by unceremoniously junking the Baker-Hamilton recommendations.

Instead of moving to drawdown U.S. forces, he chose to escalate by adding more than 20,000 new troops. Instead of negotiating with Iran and Syria as the ISG wanted, Bush sent aircraft carrier strike groups to the region and authorized the killing of Iranian agents inside Iraq.

Instead of building on the bipartisan approach of the Iraq Study Group, Bush pronounced himself the “decision-maker” and signaled his surrogates to step up accusations that the Democrats were aiding and abetting the terrorists.

Gates’s Thanks

For his part, Gates has shown his thanks to the Democrats for his cakewalk confirmation by speeding up deployment of the new troops even as Democrats struggle to fashion a non-binding resolution opposing the escalation.

Gates also picked up Bush’s favorite cudgel to pound the Democrats for supposedly helping the enemy.

“Any indication of flagging will in the United States gives encouragement to those folks,” Gates told reporters at the Pentagon on Jan. 26. “I’m sure that that’s not the intent behind the resolutions, but I think it may be the effect.”

Now, as Bush rushes more troops to Iraq, the Democrats are left to debate whether the non-binding resolution on the “surge” should refer to it as an “escalation” or, as some Republicans would prefer, an “augmentation.”

Though vowing stronger action in the future, many Democrats already have ruled out blocking new funds for the war because that would open them to more accusations of disloyalty. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has taken impeachment “off the table,” too.

So, the Democrats are again learning a hard lesson they should have mastered years ago, that this breed of Republicans views Democrats as suckers who can be easily seduced with a few sweet but empty words like “bipartisanship” and “comity.”

In December, the Democrats voluntarily sacrificed a golden opportunity to use the Gates nomination to force an examination of Bush’s war strategy. At that moment, they held real leverage over the administration to get documents and other needed information.

Instead, they engaged in wishful thinking, opted to be nice and are now finding what their gestures of bipartisanship got them.

To see Consortiumnews.com's new archive on Gates-related articles, click here.


Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book is Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq.

Friday, January 26, 2007







SEX & TABOOS IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD

by Amira El Ahl and Daniel Steinvorth
Spiegel International


Sex is a taboo in conservative Islamic countries. Young, unmarried couples are forced to seek out secret erotic oases. Books and plays that are devoted to the all too human topic of sex incur the wrath of conservative religious officials and are promptly banned.

Rabat, Morocco. Every evening Amal the octopus vendor looks on as sin returns to his beach. It arrives in the form of handholding couples who hide behind the tall, castle-like quay walls in the city's harbor district to steal a few clandestine kisses. Some perform balancing acts on slippery rocks and seaweed to secure a spot close to the Atlantic Ocean and cuddle in the dim evening light. The air tastes of salt and hashish. On some mornings, when Amal finds used condoms on the beach, he wishes that these depraved, shameless sinners -- who aren't even married, he says -- would roast in hell.
Cairo, Egypt. A hidden little dead-end street in Samalik, a posh residential neighborhood, with a view of the Nile. Those who live here can stand on their balconies at night and see things that no one is meant to see. The cars begin arriving well before sunset, some evenings bringing as many as a hundred amorous couples. Almost all the girls wear headscarves, but that doesn't prevent them from wearing skin-tight, long-sleeved tops. The boys are like boys everywhere, nonchalantly placing their arms around their girlfriends' shoulders and even more nonchalantly sliding their hands into their blouses.

The locals call this place "Shari al-Hubb," or "Street of Love." The gossips say that children have been conceived here and couples have been spotted engaging in oral sex.

Beirut, Lebanon. As techno music blares from the loudspeakers in the dim light, patrons shout their drink orders across the bar. Boys in tight jeans and unbuttoned, white shirts, their hair perfectly styled, jostle their way onto the dance floor. The men shake their hips, clap their hands and embrace -- but without touching all too obviously. After all, those who go too far could end up being thrown out of "Acid," Beirut's most popular gay disco. Officially, "Acid" is nothing more than a nightclub in an out-of-the-way industrial neighborhood.

As liberal as Lebanon is, flaunting one's homosexuality is verboten. Gays are tolerated, but only as long as they remain under the radar and conceal their activities from public scrutiny.

For many in the Arab world, discretion is the only option when it comes to experiencing lust and passion. There are secret spots everywhere, and they are often the only place to go for those forced to live with the contradictions of the modern Islamic world. In countries whose governments are increasingly touting strict morals and chastity, prohibitions have been unsuccessful at suppressing everyday sexuality. Religious censors are desperately trying to put a stop to what they view as declining morals in their countries, but there is little they can do to stop satellite TV, the Internet and text messaging.

A counterforce to Western excesses?

Do the stealthy violations of taboos and moral precepts foreshadow a sexual revolution in the Arab world? Or is the pressure being applied by the moralists creating a new prudishness, a counterforce to the perceived excesses of the West?

For now, everything seems possible, including the idea that a man can end up spending a night in jail for being caught with a condom in his shirt pocket. Ali al-Gundi, an Egyptian journalist, was driving his girlfriend home when he was stopped at a police checkpoint. He didn't have his driver's license with him, but it was 4 a.m. and he was in the company of an attractive woman. For the police, this was reason enough to handcuff Gundi and his girlfriend and take them to the police station. "On the way there, they threatened to beat us," says the 30-year-old. At the station, they took away his mobile phone and wallet and found an unused condom in his shirt pocket.
"They were already convinced that my girlfriend was a whore," says Gundi. The couple ended up behind bars, even after telling the police that they planned to get married in a few months. Only after the woman notified her father the next day were the two released from jail. For Gundi, one thing is certain: "If the officer who stopped us hadn't been so sexually frustrated, he would have let us go."

The sexual frustration of many young Arabs has countless causes, most of them economic. Jobs are scarce and low-paying, and most young men are unable to afford and furnish their own apartments -- a prerequisite to being able to marry in most Arab countries. At the same time, premarital sex is an absolute taboo in Islam. As a result, cities across the Arab world -- Algiers, Alexandria, Sana'a and Damascus -- are filled with "boy-men" between 18 and 35 who are forced to live with their parents for the foreseeable future.

There is one exception, and it's even sanctioned by the Islamic faith: the "temporary marriage" or "pleasure marriage" -- not a bond for life but one designed for intimate sins. Such agreements, presided over by imams, are not regulated by the state. They can be concluded for only a few hours or they can be open-ended. But particularly romantic they are not.

Separating the sexes

Another frustrating development for young Islamic men is the growing separation of the sexes. More and more women are wearing modest clothing. Some choose to wear headscarves or cover their entire bodies, and some even wear black gloves to cover the last remaining bit of exposed skin on their bodies.

Nowadays a woman walking along a Cairo street without a veil stands a good chance of being stared at as if she were from another planet. Journalist Gundi is convinced that "oppression brings out perversion in people." The men want their women to be covered and veiled because they are afraid of women -- "afraid of the feelings women provoke."
Most Egyptian women now wear a headscarf, but for varying reasons. Ula Shahba, 27, sees the trend toward covering one's head as an expression of a new female self-confidence, not as a symbol of oppression. For the past two years, Shahba has worn the headscarf voluntarily -- out of conviction, as she emphasizes, insisting that no one forces her to do so. But, she adds, the decision wasn't easy. "I love my hair," she says, "but it shouldn't be visible to everyone." Shahba doesn't believe that the headscarf is a sign of religious devoutness. "It's more of a trend," she says.

A Moroccan study published in early 2006 in L'Economiste, a Moroccan business publication, shows how paradoxical young Arabs' attitudes toward religion and sexuality can be. According to the study, young Muslims in the Maghreb region are increasingly ignoring the clearly defined rules of their religion. Premarital sex is not unusual, and 56 percent of young men admit to watching porn on a regular basis. But the respondents also said that it was just as important to them to pray, observe the one-month Ramadan fast and marry a fellow Muslim. When seen in this light, young Muslims' approach to Islam seems as hedonistic as it is variable, almost arbitrary.

Betraying the message of Muhammad

Muslim novelist "Nedjma" ("Star"), the author of "The Almond," a successful erotic novel, describes Moroccan society as divided and bigoted. Despite progressive family and marriage laws, she says, the country is still controlled by patriarchal traditions in which men continue to sleep around and treat women as subordinates. It is a society in which prudishness and sexual obsession, ignorance and desire, "sperm and prayer" coexist. "The more repressive a society is, the more desperately it seeks an outlet," says Nedjma, who conceals her real name because she has already been vilified on the Internet as a "whore" and an "insult to Islam."

Men like Samir, 36, a bald waiter who wears a formal, black and white uniform to work, could be straight out of Nedjma's novel. Samir grins at the prospect of catching a glimpse of unveiled girls in his café in Rabat. But in the same breath, he admits that he would never spend a significant amount of time in the same room with a woman he doesn't know. "No man and no woman can be together without being accompanied by the devil," he believes, adding that he is quoting the Prophet Muhammad.

But most sources paint a completely different picture of the religious leader, describing him as a hedonist and womanizer who loved and worshipped women. Indeed, he married 12 women, including a businesswoman 15 years his senior, to whom he remained faithful until her death. Author Nedjma says that Muslim men today are "betraying the message of Muhammad," whom she describes as a delicate, gallant man. She doubts that the prophet was afraid of female sexuality, as many of the men in her social circle are today.

Even conservative theologians emphasize the compatibility of pleasure and faith -- but only after marriage. They can even evoke the Prophet Mohammed, who said: "In this world, I loved women, pleasant scents and prayer."

This presents an odd contradiction to the puritanical present, which represents a fundamental departure from Islam's more open-minded past and has instead made way for a humorless and rigorous Islamism.

Journalist Ali al-Gundi believes that Muslim men have a troubled relationship with their own sexuality. "Most men only want to marry a virgin," he says. "What for? Isn't it much nicer to be with a partner who has experience?" Gundi talks about his girlfriends who have done everything but actually have sex, so as not to damage their hymens. That would mean social death.

Egyptian filmmaker Ahmed Khalid devoted his first short film, "The Fifth Pound," to the topic of taboo. The film tells the story of a young couple who use a bus ride to be together and exchange more than just a few innocent, tender words. Every Friday morning, when everyone else is at the mosque for prayers, they meet on the third-to-the-last bench on the bus, a spot where none of the other passengers can see what they are doing. As they sit there, shoulder-to-shoulder, staring straight ahead, they stroke each other's bodies. Their only fear is that the bus driver will see what they are doing through the rear view mirror. He watches the couple, fully aware of what they are doing, all the while indulging in his own fantasies.

In his imagination, the driver sits down next to the girl, carefully removes her headscarf and unbuttons her blouse. She closes her eyes and presses her fingers into the armrest. The headscarf slowly slides off the seat. Both reach climax, the girl in the bus driver's fantasy and the boy through his girlfriend's hand. In the end, the couple pays the driver four pounds for the tickets and a fifth for his silence.

Of course, Khalid was unable to find a distributor for his scandalous, 14-minute short film, and even Cairo's liberal cultural centers refused to run "The Fifth Pound" without it being censored first. Even though, or perhaps precisely because the film does not depict any actual sexual activity, it excites the viewer's fantasy -- an especially odious offense in the eyes of religious censors.

The Internet is a refuge for hidden desires, even though it offers only virtual relief. Google Trends, a new service offered by the search engine, provides a way to demonstrate how difficult it is to banish forbidden yearnings from the heads of Muslims. By entering the term "sex" into Google Trends, one obtains a ranked list of cities, countries and languages in which the term was entered most frequently. According to Google Trends, the Pakistanis search for "sex" most often, followed by the Egyptians. Iran and Morocco are in fourth and fifth, Indonesia is in seventh and Saudi Arabia in eighth place. The top city for "sex" searches is Cairo. When the terms "boy sex" or "man boy sex" are entered (many Internet filters catch the word "gay"), Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are the first four countries listed.

Homosexuality is more than just a taboo in the Islamic world. In fact it is considered a crime, punishable by imprisonment or even the death penalty.

Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an imam who lives in Qatar and has a television show on Arab network Al Jazeera, considers homosexuality as an especially decadent monster created by the West. It is against the "divine order," says the religious scholar, citing verses in the Koran that describe homosexuality as a common practice in pre-Islamic Arabia.

Homosexuals are referred to in Arabic as "Luti," or people from the city of the Lut, which is mentioned in the Koran and the Bible and is described as having been destroyed by God's wrath. The sources seem to clearly support this notion.

As a result, very few gay Muslims even attempt to reconcile their faith with their sexual orientation. Most, says George Assi, a spokesman of Helem, the only gay and lesbian organization in the Arab world, are in despair over the fact that they cannot be as virtuous as their religion prescribes.

Helem, a Lebanese organization that is neither completely legal nor prohibited, has its office in an Islamic business district in Beirut, a city that offers greater political and sexual freedom than any other place in the Arab world. But even here the organization faces protests and threatening phone calls, especially from the Gulf states. "Many talk about us as if we were sick people who must either be healed or abandoned," says Assi.

"Shocking, sad" stories

Unlike Lebanon, Egypt is a place where freedom of opinion is always in jeopardy. The country's once-blossoming worlds of art and literature are especially affected. This makes it all the more astonishing that a play could be produced on a Cairo stage that deals exclusively with sex. Even the play's title, "Bussy," is a provocation. It resembles the English word "pussy," but it is also a slang term Egyptian men use to tell a woman to "look here."

And this is precisely what the directors wanted: to attract attention -- to discrimination, lack of respect and mental immaturity. "We had no intention of being daring or of provoking anyone. We merely wanted to tell the truth," says director Naas Chan. The performance was created as an analogue to the famous New York play, "The Vagina Monologues." When the American production was performed at the American University in Cairo, it was met with disgust, indignation and -- enthusiastic applause. But because it had little to do with the problems of Egyptian women, a group of students decided to stage a sort of "Islamic Vagina Monologue" with amateur actors.

Ordinary women were asked to talk about love and sex. "Their stories were so shocking, so touching, sad and amusing that they needed no editing," says Chan. And that was how "Bussy" was created.

In one scene, a girl, her voice choking with tears, talks about the day her mother took her to the doctor, without telling her that he was going to circumcise her. "When I woke up I felt the pain. Something was missing ... the flesh that they had stolen belonged to me!" Another woman describes her experience with an imam who, when she was 10, forced her into a closet and raped her. "When I told my mother about it, she said that I was making it up."

"I was surprised that almost all the stories we got were serious," says director Chan. The women talked about their experiences with abortions, rapes, female circumcision and plain, everyday discrimination. Each of the 50 stories submitted reflects a slice of Egyptian reality. Telling the stories required a great deal of courage, says Chan. The mere knowledge that one's own story will be performed in front of an audience represents a break with tradition. Sexual abuse, says Chan, is considered a family matter, and if it is disclosed to outsiders, the family feels dishonored and believes the woman has been deprived of her value.

Abir embodies yet another archetype in Arab-Islamic moral society. She is 32 years old, petite, dark-skinned and wears an expensive, long black wig. She lives alone in a small but tidy apartment. Images from the days of the Pharaohs hang on her walls next to large, white pencils -- souvenirs from a trip to Germany's Rügen Island. Abir sits on a white wooden couch with pink upholstery. She wears shorts and a pink T-shirt. A tattoo of the sun adorns her right upper arm and she has a nicotine patch stuck to her left arm.

Abir married for the first time when she was 23. Her mother was dead, her father bedridden and she had been making a meager living as a maid. The marriage was a nightmare. Her husband beat her, and on one occasion her mother-in-law cut off her long black hair and hung it on the wall -- as a warning. Abir obtained a divorce and took a job in a bar, where she met wealthy foreigners.

Abir spreads out a series of photos on her coffee table. They show two happy people, swimming in the ocean, sitting on a park bench, shopping in Germany. But when the man in the photograph, a German named Ingo, still didn't want to marry her after three years, Abir broke off the relationship -- on the phone.

"Why should I waste my life?" she asks.

She also has photos of her and Luis, an American, with whom she had a relationship for a year. Luis wanted to take her home to the United States. "A wonderful man, he spoiled me," she says. But then they had a falling out and Luis left without her. He married another woman and Abir was beside herself. By the time she had come to her senses, she had lost her job as a waitress and decided to do what she had done in the past. She sold her body.
"Egyptians pay 200 pounds (about €28), and Saudis pay 1,000 pounds or sometimes even more," says Abir. "Foreigners pay me $200. Condoms are required." She shows us the results of her most recent AIDS test, which was negative. Without the test she would not have been granted a German visa. Today she is afraid of being alone, says prostitute Abir. Almost all of her siblings are married.

"The police give you a hard time, sometimes for no reason at all. It's enough for them to see an unmarried woman sitting alone in a bar." Prison terms and beatings are the minimum. If a couple is caught in the act, the woman is the one who suffers.

Abir wants to get married as soon as possible. She says that she has just met another American. She wants to take him to the mosque. As a Muslim woman, she can only marry a Muslim man. And she says the American is going to convert soon and learn more about her religion.

When that happens, she says, the first thing she will do is get out of Egypt.

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan

Thursday, January 25, 2007













THE PALESTINIANS: IT IS THE LITTLE THINGS THAT MAKE AN OCCUPATION
The Economist

During 2006, according to B'tselem, an Israeli human-rights group, Israeli forces killed 660 Palestinians, almost half of them innocent bystanders, among them 141 children. In the same period, Palestinians killed 17 Israeli civilians and six soldiers. It is such figures, as well as events like shellings, house demolitions, arrest raids and land expropriations, that make the headlines in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What rarely get into the media but make up the staple of Palestinian daily conversation are the countless little restrictions that slow down most people's lives, strangle the economy and provide constant fuel for extremists.

Arbitrariness is one of the most crippling features of these rules. No one can predict how a trip will go. Many of the main West Bank roads, for the sake of the security of Israeli settlers in the West Bank, are off-limits to Palestinian vehicles--only one road connecting the north and south West Bank, for instance, is open to them--and these restrictions change frequently. So do the rules on who can pass the checkpoints that in effect divide the West Bank into a number of semi-connected regions (see map).

A new order due to come into force this week would have banned most West Bankers from riding in cars with Israeli licence plates, and thus from getting lifts from friends and relatives among the 1.6m Palestinians who live as citizens in Israel, as well as from aid workers, journalists and other foreigners. The army decided to suspend the order after protests from human-rights groups that it would give soldiers enormous arbitrary powers--but it has not revoked it.

Large parts of the population of the northern West Bank, and of individual cities like Nablus and Jericho, simply cannot leave their home areas without special permits, which are not always forthcoming. If they can travel, how long they spend waiting at checkpoints, from minutes to hours, depends on the time of day and the humour of the soldiers. Several checkpoints may punctuate a journey between cities that would otherwise be less than an hour's drive apart. These checkpoints move and shift every day, and army jeeps add to the unpredictability and annoyance by stopping and creating ad hoc mobile checkpoints at various spots.

According to the UN's Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the number of such obstacles had increased to 534 by mid-December from 376 in August 2005, when OCHA and the Israeli army completed a joint count. When Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, agreed last month to ease restrictions at a few of these checkpoints as a concession to Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, human-rights people reported that not only did many of the checkpoints go on working as before; near the ones that had eased up, mobile ones were now operating instead, causing worse disruption and pain.

It is sometimes hard to fathom the logic of the checkpoint regime. One route from Ramallah, the Palestinian administrative capital, to Jerusalem, involves a careful inspection of documents, while on another the soldiers--if they are at their posts--just glance at cars' occupants to see if they look Arab. Israeli law strictly forbids Israeli citizens from visiting the main Palestinian cities, but they can drive straight into Ramallah and Hebron without being challenged, while other cities, such as Jericho and Nablus, remain impermeable. In many places the barrier that Israel is building through the West Bank for security purposes (though in Palestinian eyes to grab more land) is monitored with all the care of an international border, while around Jerusalem the army turns a blind eye to hundreds of people who slip through cracks in the wall as part of their daily commute.

Because of the internal travel restrictions, people who want to move from one Palestinian city to another for work or study must register a change of address to make sure they can stay there. But they cannot. Israel's population registry, which issues Palestinian identity cards as well as Israeli ones, has issued almost no new Palestinian cards since the start of the second INTIFADA in 2000. And that means no address changes either. This also makes it virtually impossible for Palestinians from abroad to get residency in the occupied territories, which are supposed to be their future state, never mind in Israel.

No-through-roads galore

On top of that, in the past year several thousand Palestinians who had applied for residency in the West Bank and were living there on renewable six-month visitor permits have become illegal residents too, liable to be stopped and deported at any checkpoint, not because of anything they have done but because Israel has stopped renewing permits since Hamas, the Islamist movement, took control of the Palestinian Authority (PA) a year ago. (Israel says it is because the PA isn't handing over the requests.)

Like Israelis, Palestinians who commit a traffic offence on the West Bank's highways have to pay the fine at an Israeli post office or a police station. But in the West Bank the only post offices and police stations are on Israeli settlements that most West Bank Palestinians cannot visit without a rare permit. If they do not pay, however, they lose their driving licences the next time the police stop them. They also get a criminal record--which then makes an Israeli entry permit quite impossible.

Some of the regulations stray into the realm of the absurd. A year ago a military order, for no obvious reason, expanded the list of protected wild plants in the West Bank to include za'atar (hyssop), an abundant herb and Palestinian staple. For a while, soldiers at checkpoints confiscated bunches of it from bewildered Palestinians who had merely wanted something to liven up their salads. Lately there have been no reports of za'atar confiscation, but, says Michael Sfard, the legal adviser for Yesh Din, another Israeli human-rights body, the order is still in force. As he tells the story, he cannot help laughing. There is not much else to do.

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

BEIRUT ON FIRE

















Guardian Unlimited



Thousands of demonstrators brought much of Lebanon to a standstill today as they blocked key transport routes to enforce a general strike aimed at toppling the government.
Clustering in small groups around roadblocks of burning tyres, supporters of the opposition Hizbullah party intensified protests that have been going on for nearly two months.

Television pictures showed clouds of thick black smoke hanging over Beirut. Commuters were stranded and an unusual silence hung over many commercial districts.

Police said 14 people had sustained gunshot wounds in isolated disturbances between opposition supporters and pro-government activists in central and northern Lebanon. There were unconfirmed reports that a man later died of his injuries.
Police and troops across the country were working to open roads, sometimes negotiating with protesters, but they refrained from using force. In some instances, the military separated the two opposing sides as they exchanged insults and stones.

Blazing roadblocks cut off the road to Beirut international airport and several flights were cancelled.

The Hizbullah leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, called the strike as part of opposition attempts to bring down the pro-western government of the prime minister, Fouad Siniora, install a new administration and hold early parliamentary elections.

Witnesses said demonstrators had shut down much of downtown and suburban Beirut, as well as other areas around the country. Many workers stayed at home, either in support of the strike or simply fearing violence. Some schools that had said they were open later sent mobile text messages to parents announcing closures because of the unrest.

Government officials described the disturbances as an attempted coup.

"It is one of the chapters of the putsch," the telecommunications minister, Marwan Hamadeh, told al-Arabiya television. "This will fail, as in the past, and the legitimate government of Lebanon will remain steadfast." In another television interview, he called the protesters "thugs".

"The opposition is attempting a coup by force ... This is not a strike," said the youth and sports minister, Ahmed Fatfat. "This is military action, a true aggression, and I'm afraid this could develop into clashes between citizens."

The strike came two days before Mr Siniora and his economic team were due to seek financial aid for Lebanon at an international donors' conference in Paris.

The opposition has also said the grants and loans, which local analysts set at around $5bn (£2.5bn), would only increase the national debt and further weaken the economy, already hit hard by last year's war between Hizbullah guerrillas and Israel.

Opposition supporters have been camped out in front of the prime minister's office in Beirut and have staged several protests since December 1. Troops have been deployed in central Beirut for weeks.

Monday, January 22, 2007














PAN’S LABYRINTH


A FILM REVIEW
by Malik Isasis



It is 1944; Spain has just come out of a Civil War, and there are still insurgents holding out in the countryside. A Franco-fascist Captain named Vidal (Sergi Lopez) has been assigned to clear out the rest of the insurgents in the countryside. Captain Vidal runs his outpost, with brutal precision—anyone who is suspected of being an insurgent are tortured and killed.

Unfortunately, for the young beautiful protagonist Ofeilia (Ivana Baquero), her mother Carmen (Ariadna Gil) is newly married and pregnant with Captain Vidal’s son. Young Ofeilia who still mourns the death of her father and her ever-increasingly frail mother, copes by disassociating herself from reality and projecting herself into a fantastical, dark and nightmarish fairytale. This is where the film Pan’s Labyrinth begins.

Ofeilia is an 11 year old girl with an obsession for fairytales. In the opening scene of the film, Ofeilia rides in the back seat of a car with her pregnant mother. The car is part of a military escort that is enroute to a military outpost in the dense hillside of Spain's countryside. The mother tries to bargain with Ofeilia by getting her to call Captain Vidal, “Father” but the strong-headed Ofeilia refuses, and instead she refers to him only as Captain. Soon after, mother becomes nauseous and stops the car to throw up. Ofelia wanders off into the woods and discovers a praying mantis-like creature in which she believes to be a fairy. The flying creature follows the caravan to the military post.

Later in the night, the flying mantis flies into Ofeilia's room and leads her out to a Labyrinth. It is here that she meets the half-man, half-ram known as Faun, who tells her that she is a princess, temporarily wandering in the human world. Faun tells her that she has three tasks to fulfill in order to return to her kingdom.

Meanwhile, Captain Vidal’s soldiers have captured two civilians, a father and son who claimed to be out hunting rabbits. Captain Vidal makes a quick assessment and decides the men are rebels. He takes a wine bottle and smashes the son's face with it, over and over, and over again. He pulls out his gun and shoots the father in the chest; he finishes off the son by shooting him in the head.

The fairytale sequences are as brutal as the reality of the war in the countryside, but at least to Ofeilia, the fairytale gives her purpose, courage and validation.

The usery relationship between Carmen, Ofeilia's mother and Captain Vidal is apparent throughout the film; she has given into her loneliness and he has found a vunerable women to bear his son. Carmen's emotional and physical weakness reverse the role of mother and daughter. Ofeilia takes it upon herself to become the caretaker.

Mercedes a house domestic is played by Maribel Verdu (Y Tu Mama Tabien) with a quiet desperation as she maintains dual identities. Her brother is one of the rebels in the hillside.

Mercedes is a strong-headed woman, who takes to the equally strong-headed Ofeilia. They become quiet allies. The audience looking for solace, cheered enthusiatically during a satisfying scene where Mercedes challenges Captain Vidal and lives to talk about. The scene like many others is bloody and sadistic.

Ofeilia has to grow up fast, not only does she have to protect herself, but she has to protect her bed-ridden mother from Captain Vidal. It becomes clear, that she is unable to do either. She is a child...limited not by her imagination, but her stature.

It was Helen Keller who said, "Security is mostly a superstition, it does not exist in nature nor do children of men experience it." Guillermo Del Toro, the director, does not give his audience security. Like in life, there are no promises, there are no entitlements to security, or happiness. Pan's Labyrinth is a morality tale, where cruelty reigns, even in the fairy tales, but inspite of the cruelty one can still find hope out of the nonsensical violence of humanity.

Grade: A

Thursday, January 18, 2007


UNEMBEDDED:
FOUR INDEPENDENT PHOTOJOURNALISTS ON THE WAR IN IRAQ

PRESS PLAY

Unembedded is a book and exhibition project that brings together four photographers and two filmmakers who worked extensively in Iraq.

Working outside the confines of the US military’s official “embedding” program these journalists and filmmakers document issues often underrepresented in the mainstream media: the insurgency as seen from inside the separate resistance movements, civilians affected by the violent battles between the US and insurgent forces, growing conservatism and fundamentalism and their effects on women, and the devastating effects of civilian casualties. The book and exhibit give audiences a nuanced view of the civi instabilitity and increased violence in Iraq that has followed the US-led invasion in 2003.

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

OCCUPATION
a shortfilm by Eric Blumrich















PRESS PLAY


WHEN THE RAINBOW ISN”T ENOUGH
by Malik Isasis

Now that the Democratic Party has assumed control of the 110th Congress it is time that they mature and begin to use their own language to frame what is going on in the Middle East. They can no longer recycle the neocons’ language when discussing Iraq. They lose the debate the moment they begin to parrot the carefully polled language of the conservative cabal.

Example: “The War in Iraq.”

Democrats need to drop the use of the word ‘war.’ War is often connected to American heroism and duty, it also suggests a win or lose outcome. It’s powerful, which is why the Bush Public Relation Administration and conservatives frame Iraq using words such as victory and defeat.

Project on Defense Alternative stated in a research paper titled, “Vicious Circle: The Dynamics of Occupation and Resistance in Iraq:”

“[Iraqi]Public discontent is the water in which the insurgents swim. Polls show that a large majority of Iraqis have little faith in coalition troops and view them as occupiers, not liberators. There is significant support for attacks on foreign troops and a large majority of Iraqis want them to leave within a year. But attitudes about the occupation vary significantly among communities.”

There is no Iraq war.

There is an Iraq Occupation. A military occupation is defined as a condition in which territory is under the effective control of a foreign-armed force. This is a fact on the ground, and a fact the Democrats have to use to accurately define policy in Iraq.

When a child’s head is blown off, her family will make no distinction between Republican or Democrat.

The Republican storm has past, but the rainbow left behind isn’t enough. The Democratic Party must take responsibility for correcting the daily tragedy of this Occupation by ending it and drawing up articles of impeachment against President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Monday, January 15, 2007














DAWN OF THE NEOCONS
by Malik Isasis



The neoconservatives, who I sometimes refer to as destructi-cons, or flying monkeys, ascended to the pinnacle of power during the Republican Party’s trifecta, their holdings of all three branches of government: legislative, executive and judicial. It was the neocons—George Bush and company that postulated that if Iraq were invaded, and Saddam Hussein removed from power, not only would we be greeted as liberators but that Syria and Iran would surely follow with their own democratic revolutions; it was Paul Wolfowitz, neocon, who suggested, “We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.” It was neocon de jour Vice President Cheney who stated, “I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.” It was President Bush who said, “Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties.”

Those statements seemed utterly ridiculous then, and absurd now. However, despite the defeat of the Republicans in last November’s election, the neocons’ international policy strategists appear to still have President Bush by the short and curlies. The neocons are looking to start a fight with Iran and Syria, despite the reality of an overstretched military and a failed policy in Iraq. We have Saudi Arabia on one hand saying that they will go into Iraq if we leave the Sunnis defenseless, and Iran on the other hand who appear to be helping the Shia right now-- and on a third hand, Israel is threatening to use tactical nuclear weapons (weapons of mass destruction) against Iran. The region is a hot mess, in no small part due to the neocons’ vision of a Middle Eastern utopia—where the oil would fatten the asses of American oil conglomerates, and blunt China’s access.

Bush’s and neocons’ attempt to isolate China and Iran has resulted in their forming a closer alliance with one another using trade pacts and oil deals. This is why attempts at sanctions against Iran in the UN Security Council has failed.

If Israel were to attack Iran with ‘tactical’ nuclear weapons, who do you think will back Iran? The US will back Israel.

And North Korea, well that is just another failed policy.

Over the past six years neocons have doggedly destroyed a large part of the United States’ military capacity and readiness, Unites States’ credibility in the world, United States treasury and economy but most importantly, they have destroyed millions of people’s lives—with contempt. And yet, they still have the ear of George W. Bush. He still listens to them in spite of their being wrong about almost every single foreign policy prediction. The corporate media mindlessly states how isolated Bush appears.

He is not.

Bush is supported by Saudia Arabia's House of Saud and Israel's Likud Party. Saudia Arabia's King Abdullah suggested that if the United States pulls out, Saudia Arabia will intervene on the behalf of Sunnis. This threat was cover for the Bush Public Relations Administration to continue to escalate the Occupation in Iraq. Benjamin Netanyahu, Likud Party leader stated:

“Iran is [Nazi] Germany, and this is 1938.”

A powerful statement, meant to evoke Nazi Germany and the holocaust. It is designed to build support for preemptive strikes on Iran.

The same neocons that supported Bush before the invasion and subsequent Occupation still support Bush now. He hasn’t lost any support from the neoconic wet dream of attacking Syria and Iran. In my column on December 25, 2006, I stated:

"The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy paper shed light on Bush’s motivation, which to me masked as a diagnosable psychotic break with reality, when historians look back on Bush’s reign, they may very well find that he suffered from a psychiatric mental illness, but for now it appears that he is only a meat puppet with a hand up his ass, moving his mouth. This is why Bush keeps moving forward, even when he doesn’t know what the hell he is doing or when the American people are telling him to stop."

The neocons’ vision of the world is cartoonish, in that they want to rule the world, and by sheer force--no matter the cost. The Bush Public Relations Administration has perfected death and destruction, but has also cultivated their blind spot for diplomacy. Make no mistake about what these people stand for.

Although upwards of 85% of the American people were and are against an escalation of the Occupation, Bush only listens to a higher calling…Saudia Arabia and Israel, with his fragile ego coming in a close third.

Guess where this leaves the American people?

Friday, January 12, 2007












A TIME TO SAY NO TO BUSH
by Joe Conason
Truthdig

Following George W. Bush’s latest attempt to rally the dispirited and angry nation in support of the prolonged conflict in Iraq, the question before Congress is starkly simple: What are the people’s representatives obliged to do about the bad judgment and bad faith of this president?

Bush’s bad judgment is manifest to most Americans in his call for dispatching at least another 20,000 combat troops to Baghdad. Evidently he shares the illusion, fostered by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that a tardy and nominal increase in troops will somehow improve the chances for “victory.”

Bad judgment is the original sin of this war, dating back to the abuse of intelligence data by the president and his advisers. Early in 2001, they decided to invade Iraq and then made sure that “the facts” about weapons of mass destruction and connections to al-Qaida were “fixed around the policy,” in the words of the famous Downing Street Memo. They brushed aside the reluctance of our traditional allies. They rejected the advice of experienced military commanders and civilian experts.

Now they reject the advice of generals both active and retired who say that the proposed “surge” of 20,000 troops will prove useless or worse.

Even the president’s most dedicated supporters have been forced to admit that he and his government made disastrous mistakes in battling the insurgency and running the occupation. But from the beginning, bad faith has exacerbated the effects of bad judgment—and not only in the fabricated case for war.

Before the invasion, Bush promised that he would take military action only as a “last resort” to disarm Iraq. Since the invasion, he has repeatedly pledged that he would increase our forces in Iraq only if his military commanders told him they needed additional troops. For months, however, the generals have told both the president and Congress that sending more soldiers will only result in more American dead and wounded, without quelling the sectarian violence.

Two months ago, appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, CentCom commander Gen. John Abizaid saw no reason to send more troops. “I’ve met with every divisional commander—Gen. Casey, the corps commander, Gen. Dempsey—we all talked together,” he testified. “And I said, ‘In your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq?’ And they all said no.”

More recently, Gen. George Casey, who commands all U.S. forces in Iraq, said that as long as U.S. forces “bear the main burden of Iraq’s security,” the Iraqi government will avoid making “the hard decisions about reconciliation and dealing with the militias.”

Yet instead of listening to those commanders, the president has replaced them with more agreeable officers who will endorse and implement his escalation.

Even more troubling than the prospect of more Americans returning home dead and wounded is the suspicion that they will be sacrificed to save face for the president, his associates and their neoconservative advisers. Almost nobody in the White House believes the “surge” will lead to victory, according to informed sources who suggest that the Bush gang merely wants to delay the inevitable withdrawal until the next administration.

That sounds like the kind of criminally insane reasoning once used to send more troops to Vietnam.

Sen. Edward Kennedy will introduce legislation forbidding the president to send additional troops to Iraq without congressional approval, by using the appropriation power. As he points out, the original authorization to use military force contemplated disarming Saddam Hussein, not inserting American forces into an Iraqi civil war—and as such is “obsolete.” His proposal would not reduce support for the troops already in the field.

The great liberal lion insists that the people’s representatives must not rubber-stamp a deadly presidential error without debate. The dwindling caucus of Bush supporters in the Senate may well decide to filibuster the Kennedy bill, and they may also try to blame his policy’s failure on its critics. But the public has no more patience for that argument, as they demonstrated last fall by rejecting Republican “cut and run” attack rhetoric.

Still, some congressional Democrats will hesitate to confront the president, fearing the political consequences. But hiding behind that excuse is just as unconscionable as sending thousands more young men and women to their deaths to save face. For anyone who no longer supports this war, or never did, the only moral choice is to say no.

Thursday, January 11, 2007

THE LIFE & DEATH OF A 40-YEAR CIA ASSET
by Eric Blumrich















PRESS PLAY


This quick, brutally ironic movie reminds us that America was for Saddam long before we were against him. What’s more, we were apparently for his invasion of Kuwait before we were against it.

Tuesday, January 09, 2007



A DISASTER OF HISTORIC PROPORTIONS
by Harry Bruce
The Chronicle Herald




GEORGE W. BUSH steps into 2007 not just as the worst president in American history, but as one whose monstrous bungles in Iraq have made the entire world hugely more dangerous than it was before he came to office. The disasters that he and his bull-headed henchmen allowed to unfold in Iraq, and the hatred of America that these aroused among millions of Muslims, are a godsend for the recruiters of terrorists everywhere.

As the English journalist Geoffrey Wheatcroft recently told readers of the New York Times, one of the two "great victors of the Iraq enterprise" has been Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Holocaust-denying president of Iran, who wants Israel "wiped off the map." And the other great victor? Osama bin Laden.

Just before Christmas, Mark Danner, an American expert on the war in Iraq, said in the New York Review of Books that the Bush gang’s fears that Iraq was collaborating with groups of terrorists, fears that were once "largely conjectural," have now "attained a terrible reality."

A few days ago, the killing of six more U.S. soldiers pushed the American military death toll in Iraq to 2,978, five more than those who died during the horrors of Sept. 11, 2001. The carnage among Iraqi civilians has been far greater. One Web site, Iraq Body Count, puts it at 52,000, but Iraq’s minister of health believes it’s more like 150,000, and the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health figures it’s well over 600,000.

The United Nations claims 6,599 Iraqis were murdered in July and August alone. Before killing many of their victims, the death squads abuse them with nails, power drills and other tools that Saddam Hussein’s torture teams favoured. One UN expert on torture said last September, "The situation is so bad many people say it is worse than . . . in the times of Saddam."

Describing the "apocalyptic" situation in Iraq in the New York Times, Max Boot, a senior fellow at the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, said, "What’s happening is far messier than the American or English or Russian civil wars. This is not a war of two well-defined sides but a war of all against all. Sunnis and Shiites are not only fighting each other but various gangs of Sunnis and Shiites are fighting among themselves. Some of these disputes are ethnic or religious. Others are simply criminals squabbling over how to divide the spoils."

This hideous mess stems directly from what Mark Danner calls the Bush gang’s "almost unbelievable failures in planning and execution."

These included the monumentally stupid decision to wreck Iraq’s civil service just when the country needed it most. No one could work for the Iraqi government without having joined the Baath Party but, since it was Saddam Hussein’s party, the Bush meatheads fired some 50,000 teachers, policemen, technicians, tradesmen, and others. Many of the suddenly unemployed were powerful, influential, and well-connected.

The defeated Iraqi military hoped to help stabilize and rebuild their war-torn nation but the Bushies — having destroyed the education and justice systems, and driven underground tens of thousands of Baathists — ordered the disbanding of the entire Iraqi army. Thus, the U.S., virtually overnight, cleverly created for itself 350,000 enemies.

"It is the absence of a functioning judiciary or police force that accounts for the sinister condition of Iraq today," Max Boot continued. "New York or London probably would look only marginally better than Baghdad if, four years ago, their police forces had been disbanded, their government dissolved, their electricity turned off, two thirds of their workers laid off, and their prison doors opened to release thousands of criminals."

"The situation is so awful, the prospects so irredeemably bleak," Geoffrey Wheatcroft said. "It’s tempting to say there are no good options whatever for America," he continued, "only a choice between the truly dreadful and the even worse."

While discussing America’s future relations with other countries during the presidential election campaign of 2000, one of the candidates said, "If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us. If we’re a humble nation but strong, they’ll welcome us."

The man who uttered those wise words six years ago was none other than George W. Bush, who went on to prove himself the most arrogant fool ever to "serve" as commander-in-chief of the world’s only superpower.

Monday, January 08, 2007











THE GREATEST SETTLER
by GIDEON LEVY
Haaretz


Among the many obituary notices published by various groups after the death of Teddy Kollek, one group's notice was conspicuous in its absence: the Yesha Council of Jewish Settlements. It is a bit difficult to comprehend this ingratitude by the settlers toward the person who brought approximately 200,000 Jews to the occupied territories - perhaps more than any other person. The settlement enterprise owes a great historic debt to Kollek. Neither Rabbi Moshe Levinger nor Hanan Porat nor Aharon Domb nor Ze'ev "Zambish" Hever are responsible for settling so many Israelis beyond the Green Line as Kollek, the enlightened Viennese liberal.

The fact that most of the eulogies for the former Jerusalem mayor left out this detail and that Yesha did not embrace the mega-settler Kollek is no coincidence. Israeli society has adopted sundry and strange codes to whitewash the settlement enterprise. The settlement of the occupied territories in Jerusalem has never been considered hitnahalut (the term used for Jewish settlement in the territories). And the gargantuan neighborhoods of the capital, which were built during Teddy's term and span extensive Palestinian territory, have never been considered a controversial issue.

The fact that almost no one in the world recognizes this enterprise and the new borders it charts does not change a thing: In our eyes, but only in our eyes, not every settlement is the same and each settlement has its own moral code. But this is a game we play with ourselves. Every home built beyond the Green Line - in Yitzhar or Itamar in the West Bank, in Nov in the Golan, or in French Hill in Jerusalem - is built on occupied land and all construction on occupied land is in violation of international law. Occupation is occupation. Not everything is legal, even if it is anchored in Israeli law, as in the case of the Golan Heights and Jerusalem.

The Israelis invent patents for themselves, but this sophisticated semantic laundering will not meet the legal and ethical test. The Ramot neighborhood is a settlement. There is no difference between the "neighborhood" of Pisgat Ze'ev and the "settlement" of Givat Ze'ev. This artificial distinction does not end with the Jerusalem region. In the West Bank, distinctions are also made between settlements and "illegal outposts," another virtuoso but groundless exercise in semantics with regard to an enterprise that is entirely illegal. There are also no settlements (hitnahaluyot) in the occupied Jordan Valley, but rather yishuvim, a generic word for settlements, unrelated to the 1967 borders. An ethical blemish has never been attached to the residents of these Jordan Valley settlements. Why? Because this is the way it was determined by Labor governments at the time, when they established moshavim and kibbutzim in the Jordan Valley - not "settlements."

Does this make any difference from the perspective of international law? Certainly not. Were the moshavim in the Jordan Valley not built on the land of residents who were disinherited? Have they not crushed the surrounding residents?

With regard to the Golan Heights, we went up another level in the word game we play with ourselves. There are no hitnahaluyot there at all. Why? Because we decided so. There are towns, kibbutzim and moshavim, just like in the Jezreel Valley. But no word game or Knesset legislation can alter the unequivocal fact that the Golan Heights is occupied Syrian land and all of its residents are settlers and that international law regards them as criminals.

This phenomenon reached its peak in Jerusalem, which will celebrate 40 years of its "unification" this year. This act of unification was an act of occupation and the fact that a charming and charismatic figure like Kollek presided over it does not change a thing. Kollek demolished a neighborhood in the Old City and built the new neighborhoods on Palestinian land for Jews only - apartheid at its worst - and this should also be remembered in the balance of his considerable achievements.

The Jerusalem mayor Kollek left behind is a divided and wounded city, despite and because of its enormous development, replete with explosives that will yet explode in our faces. In fact, it was never unified. Like any colonialist city, there is a dark backyard for the natives. To this day, most Israelis do not set foot in Palestinian neighborhoods and the Palestinians avoid Jewish neighborhoods. The city remains divided, despite all of the lofty words about its unification for eternity. Regarding equality, there is nothing to say of course. It is sufficient to travel to the Shuafat camp or even to Sheikh Jarrah to note the outrageous disparity between the services in the eastern and western parts of the city.

Societal neglect, piles of garbage, no playgrounds or community centers, no sidewalk and no streetlights. Gaza in Jerusalem, all on the basis of abominable ethnic discrimination. This did not begin with Ehud Olmert nor with Uri Lupolianski. This began with the wily Kollek. A city whose rule in the Palestinian section is conducted through the strength of arms, with surprise checkpoints and hundreds of violent Border Policemen routinely patrolling the streets, and whose residents are subject to prohibitions that violate their fundamental liberties, is not a "unified" city. Teddy is responsible for this.

The history of the occupation, which has already lasted more than twice the amount of time than the years the state existed without it, is full of "men of peace" from the "left" who are responsible for this injustice. What would the settlement enterprise be without Yigal Allon and Moshe Dayan, Golda Meir and Yisrael Galili and, of course, Shimon Peres? Kollek must now be added to them, belatedly. He brought the wide world to Jerusalem but only to its Jewish part. He loved his city very much, and built and developed it in an impressive way, but on the downtrodden back of half of its residents. Moshe Amirav wrote in his article on Thursday ("Division, where unification failed") that Kollek said to him in his waning years: "We failed to unify the city. Tell Ehud Barak that I support dividing it." Better late than never, but why did we not hear a word about this in the lofty eulogies?

Wednesday, January 03, 2007

HE SLEEPS WELL AT NIGHT
by Malik Isasis

Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, "Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted." Iraq has been drowning in blood for four years, and Bush recently stated, “I must tell you, I’m sleeping a lot better than people would assume.” Since Bush plans to send up to 20,000 more troops in 2007, we can expect more of these images not to make the media daily wargasm reports.

This is why they hate us.







































President George W. Bush...sleeps well.

Tuesday, January 02, 2007



















BLOOD IN THE MORNING, BLOOD AT NIGHT
by Malik Isasis



The BBC reported on January 2, 2007 that Bush is expected to reveal his plan for a troop boost to stabilize Iraq. This should not come as a surprise, over the past six years Bush has shown that this Occupation will continue as long as he is president. When he said that, I believed him.

The new 110th Democratic Congress will begin on January 4, 2007, their mission if they choose to accept it? Drastically change the direction in which the country is going. That means they can no longer sit in the back seat and cover their eyes, as George W. Bush plays chicken with a brick wall.

I am tired of George Bush…so are most Americans, so is the world.

Bush lacks imagination, and sophistication. The only diplomatic tool he has is a hammer, so every problem becomes a nail. The amount of carnage unleashed by Bush and his policies is not sustainable, that brick wall will not give way, and it will be us in the back seat getting thrown into the windshield.

In 2007 President Bush will further push this country into a Constitutional crisis as he moves to increase the troops in Iraq and seek billions more to support an Occupation, that is not only illegal, but immoral.

The funding for the Occupation must be withdrawn by the Democratic Congress, thereby ending the Occupation.

We are the source wound in Iraq. In order to heal, the bleeding must stop. Currently, there is no incentive for Bush to be an adult and have discussions with people he doesn’t like. There is no incentive for Bush to take responsibility for the psychological, emotional and financial destruction of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Americans’ lives, because the Congress has been derelict in its duties by rubber stamping the death and destruction; and the media for romanticizing the war by death-worshipping dead soldiers.

There’s nothing romantic about war.

Nothing.

Democrats, no more negotiating with President Bush, the American people have spoken.

Pull the plug, by withdrawing the funding. End the Occupation.