UN and domestic violence in Iraq: when the White Man Cares, the White Man lies

Yesterday, I post this. And I was quite suspicious not only because I am naturally suspicious of Western agencies when it comes to women in the Middle East but because the language raised my alarm. I basically did not believe that "the vast majority" of Iraqi women are victims of domestic violence. Of course, the report was circulated in newspapers around the world and around the internet. I asked my readers to send me the full text of the report and several did (thanks Luay, Saeed, and Michele) send it to me. So what did I find? Well, my suspicions were founded. First, I do follow studies of domestic violence and I am aware that we have one of the highest rates of domestic violence here in the US where 23 women are killed EVERY WEEK by a boyfriend or husband. And I know that studies of domestic violence in the Arab world don't indicate that they have worse rates than here. The only comprehensive study ever conducted in an Arab country (and by a UN agency) was conducted in Syria and it showed rates similar to those in the US. It has been around 30% of all women are victims of domestic violence, although many believe that the rates here in the US may be much higher (see the studies that Catherine MacKinnion cites in her book Feminism Unmodified). So this study of Iraq which was publicized internationally said the following: "13 According to a survey published by the UN Information and Analysis Unit (IAU), 83.1% of Iraqi women are victims of marital control behaviour; 33.4% of survey group reported at least one form of emotional or psychological violence; 21.2% of Iraqi women are victims of domestic physical violence." The person who did the study either needs to resign or need to be fired. There was a deliberate attempt in this report to inflate the figures for victims of domestic violence. You read this and you learn that the rate of domestic violence in Iraq is actually 21.2%: quite high but quite smaller than the rate here in the US where one third of all women are victims of domestic violence. But the UN was not satisfied and wanted to make things worse than they are so they decided to expand the category to include "victims of marital control behavior." Now what the fuck is that? And we can safely say that the vast majority of all women around the world are in fact victims of "marital control behavior". You should be very critical and skeptical when you encounter "studies" by Western agencies of the status of women in the Arab world. You need to consult real books and real studies by real experts. I have been reading, for example, for a review Judith Tucker's Women, Family, and Gender in Islamic Law. This is a book that I recommend unlike the junk that is out there on the subject.

The Bush Zone. Stupid media bother me. And I know I have more than enough at my disposal--with the US and international media that I am exposed to, by default. I was reading tomorrow's issue of Al-Quds Al-Arabi (funded by Qatar and seems to mysteriously express admiration for Saddam and for Bin Ladin simultaneously), and the headline is "American Holocaust in Fallujah." I hate such language. I have consistently argued in Arabic and English that no matter how much one opposes Zionism and Israel, and I am fiercely anti-Zionist, one should not so casually use a word like "Holocaust" to stigmatize acts of murder and killing by an enemy. It is important, at least out of respect for the victims of the holocaust, that we not throw the word in to make a polemical point. It is not difficult to be fierce pro-Palestinian and yet be sensitive to the Jewish question, and respectful of the victims of the Holocaust in general: Jews, communists, Roma people, gays and lesbians, and others. I know that some Arabs, foolishly, think that they will get Western attention by invoking that word. But why do we have to compare injustices and inhumane acts of history. I am outraged by US war crimes in Fallujah, and am more outraged by the lack of outrage that I encounter here in the US, and the silence of the corrupt and tyrannical Arab governments (and I am not excluding any one government; I include them all: Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Algeria, Tunisia, Syria, Jordan, puppet Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Morocco, Yemen, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, etc). All are scared of the US government, and are willing to butcher their people to win points with Bush. So now Conoleeza Rice is the new Secretary of State. The Secretary of International Lying has resigned. Powell will be remembered in history not only for the war crimes of the 1991 Iraq war (remember the bombing of retreating Iraqi army units?), but also for the Anthology of Lies that he presented at the UN on behalf of the Bush administration. The neo-conservative team will now be in full control in alliance with the Christian fundamentalist camp. Let the world brace itself, again. My colleague at Stanford University who dealt with Rice when she was Provost tells me that he she never cared about the Middle East, and she did not think that the Middle East (or Middle East studies) are important in any way. She certainly deferred the Middle East files to the fanatical team at NSC and the vice-president's office. That explains why a fanatic who used to cover Latin America in the Reagan Administration (Eliot Abrams) is now the "Middle East expert" at NSC. Nathan Sharansky (the fanatic right-wing Israeli politician lionized by liberals and conservatives in the US) has a new book of wisdom on the Middle East and "democracy." This Sharansky was at the White House: he met with Bush for more than an hour, I heard. He must have taught him a few lessons about Arab inferiority. So Bush is now relying on Sharansky to learn about the Middle East. Lovely. Whenever you hear the word "democracy" in relation with the Middle East, especially from the mouth of Israelis or Americans, place it between quotation marks. They mean something else by it. They mean something mean and sinister by it. Well, watch the footage from Fallujah (if they let you) and you know what they mean. They went into Iraq to find WMDs and to end the alleged links between Saddam and Al-Qa`idah. They entered Fallujah to find Zarqawi and to end the supply of car bombs. They did not find Zarqawi (I just listened to yet another tape by Zarqawi in which he reiterates his threats) and car bombs have continued, and will continue. Ask the puppet prime minister: he is a car bomber himself. I saw him interviewed on the pro-Allawi and pro-US pro-Saudi channel, AlArabiyya TV. The interviewer (the right-wing Lebanese Elie Naquzi) is from what I have read either a formal or informal media advisor for Allawi. The questions were like the questions that Larry King asks to celebrities: "Why do we love you?" or "Why are you so great"? And some hard tough questions, like "Why do you look so good in blue"? etc. At one point, he asked him about his puppet government's arrest of an AlArabiyya correspondent. He said that he was not good. Biased, was the word that he used, I think. He was sitting on what appeared to be a Saddam chair, or throne really, fitted with a golden frame. He looked the role: (of a Saddam imitator). NBC aired the report of the shooting of the injured and unarmed Iraqi man. But NBC had to preface it with a "context" report that all but justified the killing. Patriotic media and patriotic Americans would accept no less. By the end of the report, the viewer is left with the clear choice: you either support American troops, or you are with with the terrorists. Make your selection now. Terrorists, terrorists, and terrorists. In the first phase of the occupation, we only heard about Saddam loyalists and dead enders and Fida`iyyi Saddam. Remember how much we heard about the latter group? They were supposed to be behind all the mayhem in Iraq. A decent retired US general was asked the other day point blank by Chris Mathews on MSNBC (after talking about terrorists and Saddam loyalists) about the percentage of Iraqi insurgents who are neither terrorists nor Saddam loyalists. He said: probably 70 percent (of all insurgents) and growing. Did you get that? Some Iraqis neither support Saddam nor Zarqawi but detest the foreign occupation of their land and are willing to fight it. What do you consider those? Terrorists too? Are we yet again redefining the term to suit the expanding imperial designs of a 2nd Bush administration? Whoever opposes US foreign policy is now a terrorist. Whoever objects to the presence of US troops on her/his land, is also a terrorist. Some body was talking about how the Arab world would receive a female secretary of state. Give me a break or a potato. I really hate it when some American male pontificates about sexism of Arab/Muslim men. I say: excuse me? You are giving lessons in feminism? You dare to give lessons about feminism. Of course, most men (American or Arab or Chinese) are sexist, but no one group should feel the right to lecture to the other group on this. The American record on domestic violence is quite shameful, and this does not absolve the Arab/Muslim male of course. The record of all is quite shameful. To Palestinian affairs: And they talk about "window of opportunity" now presented by the death of Arafat. What kind of bankrupt policy it is that is predicated on the death of one man. If this feels too weird, you have entered the Bush Zone.

Paradis Now? Paradise Never. Not With….Sally Field. My hosts here expected me to see the movie Paradise Now to include in my talk about Arabs in recent US movies. I did not have a chance to see it before arriving in Seattle. One of my hosts was clearly disappointed as she picked me up from the airport. I suggested to watch it before my talk. That was promptly arranged. I was put in a room, and watched the movie on my laptop. I watched it very carefully, and even waited to the very end to read the credits. I could not help but notice at the end that Sally Field was thanked. Sally Field? What is Sally Field doing in a Film on Palestine? A film that has been widely praised as a contribution to the effort to promote the Palestinian cause in the West (more on that later). But Sally Field was part of one of the worst and most racist and ignorant movies ever made on the Middle East (Not without My Daughter). That was a movie that was shot in Israel, with Israeli experts and consultants (and you know about cultural sensitivity to Arabs and Muslims in Israel), and the natives, especially the veiled women, were portrayed as beasts. And as in typically racist Western movies, there were no subtitles when the natives spoke. And notice that the main character, the Iranian doctor, did not become abusive until he stepped foot on Iranian soil. He was a kind and loving husband on US soil, until he arrived in Iran. The premise is that Fasinjoon or Saffron may cause men to become abusive. Of course, experts on domestic violence will tell you that the premise is flawed, that he most likely was abusive back when he was in the US, but the author of the book on which the movie was based, had to tell a tale in which her story becomes more palatable to Western audiences, and then there is the obvious self-serving purpose. And now this same Sally Field gave her seal of approval to this movie? There must be a reason for that. First, in providing a critical evaluation of a movie, or of any element of popular culture, it is important that we exercise an independent judgment, and not be swayed by popular opinion, here or over there in the Middle East. It is also important that we resist the pressures to succumb to groupthink lest we stifle, wittingly or unwittingly diversity of opinion and critical debates within the community of Arabs/Muslims in the US. I also know that as the community feels, especially after Sep. 11, that it is under siege, and that may lead to lowering the standards of expectations and of decent and sensitive references to Arabs and Muslims in the West. Furthermore, the status of Arabs and Muslims have been so negative and stereotypical, and members of the community are so eager for any semblance of positive portrayal that they want so bad to raise “a star” from within. The community wants to feel pride; this explains partly the chauvinistic and ignorant—if not the laughably hilarious—From Lebanon segment that runs daily on LBC-TV. This explains why somebody like the late Mustafa Aqqad, whose real claim to fame was (the production of) the lousy and sexist Halloween movies, is such a wildly popular figure in the Arab world. And he dared to tell the community that he did those movies to fund his “more artsy projects.” What artsy projects? He never used that money for his “serious movies.” The Message and Lion of the Dessert were funded by Arab governments, and oil money, and not from Aqqad’s private fortune. But the community wants pride, and anybody would do, especially if he/she has Western “seal of commercial approval.” Oh, and the community, and people in the Middle East, believed that he lived in Hollywood. In Hollywood, I am telling you. In that sense, the community was proud of Hani Abu As`ad. There is also another point, the portrayal of Arabs and Muslims has been so bad for so long, that any lessening of the racist and negative portrayal, is seen as progress. But the question I pose is this: if Arabs/Muslims have been portrayed as 1/4<sup>th</sup> of human beings, should be celebrate when they are portrayed as ½ of human beings? Is that reason to cheer? Or should we aim higher, simple to portrayal of them as full human beings? That is the question. Or is that too much to ask? Getting back to Paradise Now. It is a good movie, as a movie, that is. The story was well-told, and it was interesting to watch. That is in general. I also liked watching a movie with the Palestinian dialect of Arabic. You don’t see that much in Arab popular culture, and rarely even see it the proliferating Arab media. Palestinian dialect is quite distinctive; you are not likely to find Arabs from the mashriq who are able to distinguish aMoroccan dialect from a Tunisian dialect, but Arabs can tell a Palestinian dialect. Phalange militiamen (allies of Hariri Inc and Hizbullah in the last parliamentary election in Lebanon) used to kill kidnapped people during the Lebanese civil war on the basis of dialect sometimes. But when I saw the movie, I also thought. Do we really allow the Palestinians to live their lives in the Arab world? I mean, as we represent them, and as we judge their coverage in popular cultures, do we allow them to be entitled to a full life, or do we insist and expect that they engage in struggle, all day long, seven days a week, and all year? I thought about that as I read on the plane on the way to Seattle the wonderful novel by Palestinian writer, Suheir Daoud, Madinat Ar-Rasas. She spoke about her life, and loves, and disappointments, without talking much about struggle. And I was happy for that. Of course, occupation and the Palestinian issue was in the background. How could it not be? How could be buried. It can’t. But we should allow the Palestinian to express themselves by themselves, and not impose expectations on them. This is exactly why Algerian struggler, Jamilah Buhayrad, withdrew from the spotlight, and did not want to talk to the Arab press for much of her life. She just could not handle the pressures. Did Mahmud Darwish once not tell an Arab audience to spare him their love, or something to that effect? Similarly, I applied that test to the movie, and the Palestinians, who are overtly and intensely political, as a people, also live their lives: they live, they laugh, they drink, they make love, they fall in love, they eat, they dance, they fight, they act silly, they act serious, and they listen to music, and they can watch movies do. Oh, and they also engage in struggle, many forms of struggle. I saw that as the main character (Said?) in the movie was seen to be awkward in love, not being comfortable with the woman that he liked, as if the “struggle” has prevented Palestinians from knowing how to love and be loved. And toward the end of the movie, two children were flying a kite, and the kite itself was a Palestinian flag. I mean, Palestinian life is politicized by virtue of the reality of occupation and oppression, but come on. But there are serious problems with the movie: the movie clearly was intended for Western audiences and sensibilities, and was driven by them and designed around them. And I must confess that when a movie penetrate the walls of Western barriers of acceptability of “an other,” I always wonder and brace myself. I mean, the seal of approval from Golden Globe and “the academy” must not only mean something, but must also be due to something in the movie that captured their attention and approval. This is not the best Arabic movie made, ever, and yet something in it appealed to Western reviewers, and I see why, now. I dare say that Israeli civilians in the movie are more civilian than Palestinian civilians in the movie. Even Israeli soldiers were portrayed quite humanely. This has been a staple of Western portrayal of Arabs and Israelis, that no matter what, and no matter whether they are armed or not, Israeli soldiers are more human and more civilian than unarmed Palestinian civilians. Even the last scene, Israeli occupation soldiers were seen in the buss smiling widely, and a male and a female were talking; you had to identify with them, and you had to sympathize with them, and you had to curse the killers, who dared to disturb their lives, but don’t you dare curse those who disturb, on a daily basis, the lives of Palestinian civilians. And you had to see that scene where Sa`id could not ride on the bus because there was an Israeli child. Israelis have children, Palestinians don’t. Palestinians give birth to terrorist babies, you know. This explains why Israel has no qualms about indiscriminate bombardments of refugee camps. But the major flaw and problem with the movie is the premise itself (of the plot): the false premise about how individuals get “recruited” to undertake “missions”. In the movie, there was this sneaky and suspicious fanatic Muslim character who recruited Sa`id, just like that, at a short notice. Leaders of organizations do not press members to engage in attacks, it is the other way round. In other words, members lobby and press leaders to send them on missions. This is true in secular and in religious organizations. In Munich, Palestinian fighters who were outraged at Israeli bombing rampages against Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon in February of 1972, pressed and pleaded with Abu Iyad to plan an attack of revenge (more on revenge later) against Israel. It was in this context that Munich was improvised. In the last several years, when suicide missions spread in direct response to massive Israeli killing of Palestinians, sometimes men and women would knock on the doors of several organizations before they are sent on missions. One woman had to beg several organization leaders before one agreed to sponsor her. That is how this happens. The Israeli propaganda account is that they are pressured to go, or that Saddam’s past payment to families were the motives. Of course, Israeli military propagandists also thoroughly look into the background of the individuals who undertook such missions (Lebanese and Palestinians no matter whether they are religious or communist) in order to find something about their personal life stories to deny the political motive). Even during the Israeli occupation of Lebanon (which continues in Shib`a Farms, Kfar Shuba hills, and the seven villages), Israeli occupation propagandists would also outrageously claim that the people who engaged in suicide attacks were motivated by personal reasons, that this woman once kissed a neighbor when she was 15, and that she was fearing “shame,” to the rest of the tale distilled form The Arab Mind. The movie does the same thing: we had to learn about how his father was killed as “collaborator” and that a personal motive was at play here. First, every struggle for independence entails punishment of collaborators, whether you like it or not. The French resistance did plenty of that—and many innocent people were killed in the interim, as did Algerian struggle against French colonization, and in South African struggle against Apartheid, they were “necklaced” as you may remember. But then again, Palestinian struggle for independence is subjected to the most exacting and most unrealistic standards of scrutiny. It is expectedto be a struggle that adheres to the most “humane” and most “peaceful” standards there are, while Israeli occupation and oppression is subjected to no standards whatever. The Israelis can do what they wish, and US Congress and media will provide pretexts and justifications. Was that not what they did after Jenin? I sat in this country while watching people arguing in polite company and on TV that the Jenin was NOT a massacre because a mere 54 Palestinians were killed. Such are the non-standards applied to Israeli killing. In the case of the Palestinians, all forms of their struggle, including peaceful forms, are subjected to such minute scrutiny that there was an uproar once because Israeli propagandists, and their parrots in the US, objected to a line in a poem by Mahmud Darwish—how dare he? The Western pearls of wisdom in the movie were delivered by well-known French (or is she Belgium?) actress, Lubna Az-Zabbal, who appears in French movies. But that was significant, very significant. She was supposed to be the person who represented “rationality” and “civility” while the Palestinians were the “emotional” and “the agitated.” And her pearls of wisdom were rather silly. She delivered those “insights” as if the Palestinian people had not contemplated such thoughts before, or more importantly, as if the Palestinians had not exercised such options before. Well, o visiting French actress to Palestine, the Palestinian people did, AND STILL DO, engage in a variety of struggles against occupation, and most of them are NOT violent, although that is not focused on—not in US media and culture, and not in this movie that pleased many US reviewers. Palestinian struggle for independence was largely, if not exclusively, non-violent from 1948 until the 1960s, and Israel—contrary to the preachment of the visiting French actress—did not need an “excuse” to attack and kill Palestinians, her pearls of wisdom notwithstanding. Even in Benny Morris’ account of the Arab-Israeli conflict, he talks about Israeli killing of thousands of Palestinians who peacefully used to try to visit their lands from 1948 until the 1960s. As if the world took note of the plight of Palestinians during the time. In reality, the world did not notice Palestinian struggle until the Palestinian took up the option of armed struggle. That is a fact. Prior to that, Golda Meir could say that there is “no such thing as the Palestinian people” and not be challenged.” And even today, most of Palestinian struggle constitutes non-violent means and methods. But that does not get into the media. It has to be buried. Because even Palestinian chants and songs are “terrorist.” How many of you actually read the Road Map (to Peace?)? You have to read it, and that is why, among other reasons, why it is important to oppose it. The Road Map would ban not only violent struggle but non-violent struggle of the Palestinian people would also be banned under that “plan” the perpetuation of Israeli occupation and hegemony. And why did the film portray suicide bombings in such Islamic religious light? Dying to Win was just published, and it shows that most suicide bombings were not by Muslims, and that non-religious people did most of the suicide bombings in recent decades. And notice that in the West, Islamic religiousity (and fundamentalism) is seen as more silly and more "fundamentalist" than Christian or Jewish fundamentalism and religiousity. And why is the Islamic paradise sillier than Jewish or Christian paradise? I notice from years of teaching Islam in the west, that it is easier, much easier, for non-Muslims in the US to mock elements of Islam than it is to mock elements of Judaism and Christianity. I mean, have you actually read the Old Testament (or the New)? On this point, I remain firm. You either mock all religions, or you are a bigot. And the “enlightened” Westerner in the movie (made to be half-Palestinian to give her credibility) expressed outrage that the motive of Palestinians may be revenge. Revenge? Who engages in revenge in 2006 (except US, Israel, and others of course). But Western revenge is not seen as revenge; only Easter revenge is portrayed as “revenge” to underline its backward and atavisitic nature. Was Munich (the movie) not based on a book called Vengeance? Was the war on Afghanistan not a war of revenge par excellence? And the debate on the war on Iraq was really a debate over whether the war was “legitimate revenge” versus “excessive revenge.” Israel itself refers to its own wars and regular bombing campaigns as “retaliation”, another polite word for revenge, of course. But the Palestinians, again, subjected to scrutiny and standards not applied on any other struggle in the world, are not supposed to engage in revenge. And do you notice that Palestinian struggle is the only struggle that is supposed to pursue options and courses of actions—or inaction—determined by its enemies? By its own enemies? This is like asking the victims of Apartheid to ask for recipes of action, or inaction, from the white minority regime in South Africa. This movie does not deviate from that. But a Palestinian director was seen chatting with Hollywood celebrities; the nation should be proud, and the community has to abandon its own standards and sensibilities, at least until the show is over.

foreign domestic workers in the Middle East

"Reforms undertaken by governments in the Middle East to protect domestic workers from abuse are insufficient to shield women working as house maids from abuse and violence, Human Rights Watch said Thursday. Millions of mostly Asian women who work in countries like Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates remain at risk of human trafficking, forced labor, confinement and sexual violence, the New York-based group said." (thanks Olivia)

Domestic violence--not in the Middle East

"With nerves frayed by months of tremors that peaked in a horrifying earthquake this week, Christchurch residents are lashing out against those they need the most.  Police said domestic violence surged by 50 percent after a major tremor rocked New Zealand's second city last September, the prelude to Tuesday's quake that left at least 123 dead and destroyed parts of the city centre.  Just a day into the latest disaster, police commander Dave Cliff said authorities had seen another surge in family assaults, with many homeless or without power and water, and as some turned to alcohol to cope.""

"Sri Lankan domestic workers face serious abuses, including violence, harassment and exploitation when they migrate to work in the Middle East, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Human Rights Watch said the governments of Sri Lanka, Kuwait, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates should do more to protect women from labor exploitation and violence when they migrate to the Middle East, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today." (thanks Nadim)

On Bahrain

"Kardashian went to Bahrain and Kuwait to promote "Millions of Milkshakes."  She evidently had a great time, declaring at the end: "Thanks Sheikh Khalifa for your amazing hospitality. I'm in love with The Kingdom of Bahrain." For this, she was roundly mocked by Bahraini opposition and Middle East commentators. Bahraini activist Maryam al-Khawaja posted an open letter to Kardashian inviting her to meet with human rights activists during her trip.   The one bright note, such as it was, came from @Therwees: "Kim Kardashian tweeting about Bahrain makes more news than actual Bahrain."
Kardashian, much like April's Formula One, generates positive publicity for a Bahraini regime which carried out an unspeakably brutal crackdown last year, continues a fierce campaign of repression, and has been utterly unrepentant.  The Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry authoritatively catalogued the massive human rights violations during the crackdown:...
The Bahraini regime has responded in at best pro forma way, seeking to project an image of compliance without actually making any serious reforms or imposing real accountability. Human Rights Watch recently concluded that Bahrain had failed to implement most of the recommendations of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry -- an assessment shared by the Project on Middle East Democracy, which a few weeks ago found only 3 out of 26 recommendations implemented.  Cherif Bassiouni, who had previously defended the BICI argued that "a number of recommendations on accountability were either not implemented or implemented only half-heartedly. The public prosecution has yet to investigate over 300 cases of alleged torture, some involving deaths in custody, and there has been no investigation, let alone prosecution, for command responsibility, even at the immediate supervisory level, of people killed in custody as a result of torture."
What's more, in many ways Bahrain's practices are getting worse, not better. Stiff prison sentences for activists such as Nabeel Rajab, arresting people for criticism on Twitter, targeting activists and critics, revoking the citizenship of activists, and banning all public protests do not suggest a regime on the mend.   The violence which erupted a few weeks ago only highlights Bahrain's ongoing social and political deterioration.  Even the U.S. State Department, which has rightfully been criticized for failing to pressure Bahrain on human rights and political reform, recently spoke out with unusually lengthy and detailed criticism of its escalating crackdown, and last week warned that Bahraini society could break apart. Neither pressure from domestic activists and international human rights organizations nor occasional international media scrutiny has had much effect.  
Bahrain's regime has focused far more over the last year and a half on a public relations pushback than on addressing its real political deterioriation and human rights disaster.  It has spent heavily on PR firms to rehabilitate its image, and anyone who writes or tweets about Bahrain has become quite accustomed to the inevitable responses which follow. Holding the controversial Formula One race in April was a key part of the attempt to demonstrate to the international community that Bahrain had returned to normal -- a portrayal somewhat undermined by the burning tires, furious activists, and critical media coverage which followed. (My all time favorite video response remains this "Epic Fail" from Katy Perry.)  This Index on Censorship story suggests that whatever her personal intentions, Kardashian's visit falls into the same category of attempts to rehabilitate Bahrain's image without any meaningful policy changes.   That protests and tear gas disrupted the international media coverage of her visit as well is therefore in some ways a promising sign that the reality of Bahrain's ongoing repression and failure to deal honestly with its recent past has not yet been washed away."

Luke Russert pontificates on the Middle East now

Luke Russert, who got a job with the network because his daddy worked for the network, now thinks that he can be cute offering observations on foreign policy too.  "Is #BinLaden using his wife as a human shield really surprising? Let's not forget how poorly woman are treated in much of the #Arab world."  Oh, yes Luke. Teach us about women in the Western world.  Tell us about domestic violence in the US.  (thanks Max)

The new spokeswoman of the Iranian foreign ministry

Western media strain to find evidence of reform in the horrific oil and gas kingdoms of the GCC.  Yesterday, the director of the Middle East section of Human Rights Watch wrote a congratulatory note to Saudi Arabia for "passing" (as if their is a legislative body to pass laws) a law on domestic violence (the new law states that any man who hits his wife will now receive a new car by the House of Saud).  I say that because I noticed that none of the Western media noted (to my knowledge) that the new Foreign Minister of Iran appointed a woman as his spokesperson.  Now, I am not exaggerating the significance but only compare that to...your beloved Saudi Arabia and Qatar, where women live in medieval-like conditions as far as political rights are concerned.  I know there is tokenism in Iran as there is in Washington, DC and that men (in both countries) run the show (although the men in the former country are elected and the men in the latter country are not--or are in questionable and limited elections).

Western media only cover "honor crimes" from the Middle East. They won't cover feminist and women's protests there. Today, there was a massive women's demonstration against domestic violence in Beirut. Some pictures

PS The two Beirut-based correspondents for the New York Times and the Washington Post are serving as mere propagandists for the Hariri family and Free Syrian Army.  They would not cover something like that

PPS Those pictures were posted on the pages of my friends on Facebook.

A new Saudi law against terrorism in information media, there is this sentence

 In a new Saudi law (please, tell HRW that laws in Saudi Arabia are not "passed", as they indicated when its Middle East director "congratulated" the Saudi government for "passing the law on domestic violence.  Laws in Saudi Arabia are decreed and the implementation is up to the particular prince in charge) against the use of information technology by terrorists, the Saudi regime inserted this phrase: "And the spread of thought that could disturb public order and public morality".  Kid you not. 

  "وكذلك ترويج الأفكار التي من شأنها الإخلال بالنظام والآداب العامة»."

Why Jubran Tuwayni was right: When Jubran Tuwayni left for France a few months ago-- and he stayed there for months--he claimed that he was told of a black list of "leaders" targeted for assassination in Lebanon, and that he was prominent on the list. He said that he was warned to stay away. The first person to mock his claim, and to ridicule him was none other than Walid Jumblat, who publicly and repeatedly accused Tuwayni of seeking publicity for himself from those claims. This Jumblat is effusively mourning the death of Tuwayni today. Read this interview with Walid Jumblat in last week's issue of Ash-Shira` magazine (it is not easy to navigate--go the left, and select the issue from 2 weeks ago with Jumblat on the cover to read the interview), and see how Jumblat twice (as I remember) mocked and criticized Jubran Tuwayni, that he now is praising. (And today, LBC anchorperson, Marcel Ghanim talked about those "who mocked and ridiculed" Jubran's references to threats against him. But Ghanim would not dare name Jumblat. You never name names in Lebanon; you name some names, and protect others. This is Lebanon. You will always have imposed taboos and icons; and when somebody new takes over at the helm, new taboos and new icons replace the old taboos, and on and on. You all remember those grotesque portraits of Hafidh Al-Asad (and later of Bashshar) filling the air and covering the buildings all over Lebanon. Let them mount the portraits of Mehlis NOW.) I say this because now Jumblat will shed tears, and declare Tuwayni a "martyr" of Lebanon. He has already. That is another word I don't like: "martyr." I wish this word, like "freedom" and "Jihad", would be banned from common usage, whether here, or in the Middle East, once and for all. I want people I don't like to live, and I want my political enemies to live, because, among other (humanitarian) reasons, I don't want them to become "martyrs." Their statures get inflated, and their biographies get invented; look at how people talk about Bashir Gemayyel in Lebanon today. Now, Jubran Tuwayni has become a "martyr." Lebanonese seem to have a special privileged connection to God which allow them to brand all their dead, provided they belong to the right sect and to the right side of the sectarian and political divide, "martyrs." Of course, as an unbeliever, the word "martyr" has presumptious religious claims that bother me. Now, for those who care about my reaction. What? Am I going to lie? Am I going to suddenly pretend that I liked or appreciated Jubran Tuwayni? No. Having said that, you know how I feel about those heinous weapons of car bombs and suicide attacks and let us not forget Israeli indiscriminate bombings that now characterize the Middle East landscape. Those weapons also show carelessness about innocent civilian lives; car bombs are not assassinations. They are far worse. In the past, assassinations targeted individuals, with knives and poison at the time of Hasan As-Sabbah (of the famous Hashshasshin fame) for example. Car bombs are like destroying a village, to kill one person. I, of course, never agreed with Jubran Tuwayni on anything. Not on anything, literally. And it frustrated me that he was writing editorials in a language that he had no command of, and no facility in. We attended the same high school in Beirut (IC), but he was a few years ahead of me. From those days, while I supported the Palestinian secular Left, Tuwayni in school was known as a fanatic right-wing, anti-Palestinian Phalangist. I never dealt with him, and never met him in my life. I don't know who is behind this bombing, and I still don't know who was behind the assassination of Hariri, although I refuse to absolve the Syrian intelligence apparatus, and its Lebanese tools, of responsibility, just as I refuse to absolve Israel and the outside parties from violent intervention in Lebanese affairs, especially these days; especially these days. And I am also eager to learn who was behind the assassination of the poor Syrian workers in Lebanon. I know, I know. They don't travel around in armored cars, and they don't own TV stations and newspapers, and even their own government has not shown care for them. But I do care about that truth. Did you notice that nobody in the Lebanese or Arab or Western media noticed that there was a car bomb in Ba`albak two days ago? The Lebanese arena is back to what it was before and during the civil war: an open arena for violent and foreign intelligence intervention, and for sectarian and political scores to be settled by blood. This is the history of Lebanon. And whoever is behind those assassinations, you have to admit this, no matter where you stand (or sit) on the political issues of the day: they really are killing people who are quite influential in public opinion making in Lebanon, no matter what you think of them, and no matter whether you agree or disagree with them. I certainly don't think that Jubran Tuwayni was a good writer (he was a lousy writer in fact), and I certainly don't think that he was a sophisticated thinker or an intellectual: but in the context of Lebanon, he really was seen as a public intellectual--only in Lebanon. What do you know. I kid you not. Just this week: I was talking to a friend in Beirut, and I just asked him. Do people still read An-Nahar? Do they not see it for what a it is, a right-wing propaganda sheet? Don't people see what a lousy writer Jubran Tuwayni is? And he said: you will be surprised. He said that there are people who buy AnNahar on Thursdays just to read Jubran Tuwayni. Well, people often prefer simplicities and rabid sloganeering, which was what Jubran Tuwayni did to a great effect for a section of the Lebanese public opinion. So those who are killing Tuwayni and the others, want to undermine public opinion against Syria, most likely. Early on I commented: that if the Syrian regime feels threatened, it will fight back, and will fight back dirty. And don't forget this: there are Lebanese domestic considerations too. I just read the words used by a hitherto unknown Syrian nationalist group that claimed responsibility for the assassination. When Lebanese changes (political) direction, it always does so by force and conquest, and often with the help of outsiders. Whether in '58 or '76 or '82 or '90 and now. You know which Tuwayni family member I liked? No, not Ghassan (his father) for sure, and not this Jubran. The first Jubran (Sr.), the real founder of An-Nahar, and the grandfather of this Jubran. He was a real progressive, and was even part of the follow-up committee that was formed by the first meeting of the precursor of the Lebanese Communist Party (Hizb Ash-Sha`b) in 1925 when it convened in Cinema Crystal in Beirut--see the book Judhur As-Sindiyanah Al-Hamra', on the history of the LCP. Jubran Tuwayni Sr. also championed women's rights, and was an effective Minister of Education. Do you know that he met Jubran Khalil Jubran in Paris by chance too? A long story. Now you know. My grandfather knew Jubran Sr. I am told. I knew Ghassan Tuwayni in the 1980s, and the 1990s and he knew my father very well. He always insisted when I saw him that he taught my father at AUB, and I would in vain explain to him that my father attended college in Cairo at King Fu'ad University, before it was named Cairo University. He just had known my father for a long time, and could not remember when he first had met him. But in the summer of 2004, when I ran into him at the last public talk of Hishan Sharabi, he was furious at me, I could tell, and would not shake my hands. I realized that he must have been offended by my unending criticisms and attacks on An-Nahar over the years, and I have mocked him and his pretensions, and I mocked the poetry of his late wife in Al-Adab (linked on this page in the article against Franophonie). Certainly Ghassan had some talents, especially in recruiting people and managing them, and especially in the 1960s and 1970s, when he assembled a team of good journalists, and the team was diverse in its political orientations. Ghassan (unlike his son) created an ostensibly "liberal" newspaper. That was the widely read An-Nahar of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. In recent years, An-Nahar filled the partisan right-wing void left by the Al-`Amal newspaper of the Phalanges Party. Read the recent memoir of Riyad Ar-Rayyis in that regard. But Jubran, and I know that I am supposed to "mention the virtues of the dead," as Muhammad urged, really had no talent. And please, I just heard Jumblat's tool, Akram Shuhayyib, talk about Jubran being on a hit list by Syria, when his boss, Walid Jumblat, had mocked the reference by Jubran to his being on a hit list. These Lebanonese politicians, not only Jumblat--but he is their star in this regard, they lie and change their tune from one day to another. Amazing. And people are not noticing and not caring, as if an entire group of people are comatose. So the Lebanese cabinet met, and decided to ask for so many international committees and councils, and UNSC interventions, that I lost count. I am even tempted to ask for UNSC help in finding the truth about what happened to my kitchen sink. I mean, I know that Mehils is busy, but can he also add that to his items of investigation? And how could the US and French governments find time, any time, to deal with the affairs of their governments, when they are spending so much time on Lebanese affairs, on every development in Lebanon. Did the US and France condemn the car bomb in Ba`albak the other day? No, of course, not. You see the US and France are opposed to violence and terrorism but only if targeted against some people. That explains US and French tolerance, if not glee, at Israeli killing of Palestinians. That does not lead to UNSC meetings. The press briefing by Minister of Information, Ghazi `Aridi, was symptomatic. Some reporters were mad that the council of ministers reacted to the assassination of Tuwayni, but not to the car bomb in Ba`lbak. They got testy. This is a sign of what is come. Sectarian lines in the sand are drawn; and will be marked, as they are often in Lebanon, in blood. Some Shi`ites will now accuse the council of minister of sectarian and political bias (especially that Jubran Tuwayni was very unpopular among Shi`ites since he referred to them as "sheep" in the midst of the Hummus and Batata Revolution), and others especially Sunnis will now accuse Shi`ites, Hizbullah in particular, of implementing an agenda on behalf of Syria and Iran in Lebanon. And Hizbullah thus far has not formulated an argument for the Lebanese as to why they should maintain their weapons. Every Hizbullah leader gives his own explanation. Sunni-Shi`ites frictions are at an all time high; a Lebanese student sent me early this morning a Lebanese web site where Lebanese were reacting to the assassination. Some were cheering the murder of Tuwayni, while others were promising revenge and calling for the murder of other (opposite side) Lebanese politicians. To be fair, the ICG report that I critiqued a few days ago, very carefully warned of international exploitation of Lebanese events, and at least implied that things may get out of hand. The reason why there is no hope for a national formula of salvation to emerge in Lebanon is that there is an absence of a secular national party or even leader who can propose an agenda well outside the confines of this sect or that sect, or of this outside patron or that, and every Lebanese sectarian group has its own external patron, make no mistake about that. And did you see how fast MEMRI put out its "obituary" of Jubran Tuwayni? I never thought that MEMRI mourned the death of Arabs. Wait. I forgot. Tuwayni was a Lebanonese Pheonician. And when you read US media obituaries of Tuwayni, you will not read that he--and this while I condemn the murder of course--actually spent a career expressing hatred and racism against the Syrian and Palestinian PEOPLES. You also will not find a reference to what he did in 1990, when he took a group of thugs to occupy and ransack the US embassy in Lebanon--that was when he occupied the position of sec gen the pro-`Awn branch of the Lebanese Forces militia's front (the Lebanese Front) during the civil war . He was quickly forgiven for that, and let me know if you find ONE reference to that in any US newspaper today or tomorrow. Start looking.

The UNSC 1701 Resolution: Why No Lebanese Should accept it. So here is the text of the draft UNSC resolution. "Expressing its utmost concern at the continuing escalation of hostilities in Lebanon and in Israel since Hizbollah's attack on Israel on 12 July 2006, which has already caused hundreds of deaths and injuries on both sides, extensive damage to civilian infrastructure and hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons." This paragraph clearly lays the blame on Hizbullah for the Israeli war of aggression. And notice that Hizbullah's capture of the Israeli soldiers is sneakily blamed for "the hundreds of deaths and injuries on both sides." Both sides is always brought up when Israeli record of murder and terrorism is being covered by an international agency under US pressures, in order to absolve Israel. And notice that the identify of the victims, and the destruction of Lebanon by Israel is not identified by name: so as to imply that there was damage and destruction in Israel comparable to the damage and destruction in Lebanon. The next paragraph says: "Emphasizing the need for an end of violence, but at the same time emphasizing the need to address urgently the causes that have given rise to the current crisis, including by the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers". Again, the root cause is traced to those two soldiers, and "the root cause", in US understanding, is a camouflage to promote Israel's point of view. Notice that the release of the two soldiers is "unconditional". Why? As a free service to Israel for its great behavior and noble conduct? But then the following paragraph says: "Mindful of the sensitivity of the issue of prisoners and encouraging the efforts aimed at urgently settling the issue of the Lebanese prisoners detained in Israel". Here, it is old-fashioned, classic racism. That Arab prisoners are just not as cute and not as valuable as Israeli prisoners. For Israeli prisoners, it calls for immediate release, but for Lebanese prisoners, it urges "settling the issue." Settling the issue?" Is that like US settling the Palestinian cause over the years? Or is that like that reference in UNSC 242 to the "refugee" problem? Settling the issue? The next paragraph says: "Welcoming the efforts of the Lebanese Prime Minister and the commitment of the government of Lebanon, in its seven-point plan, to extend its authority over its territory, through its own legitimate armed forces, such that there will be no weapons without the consent of the government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the government of Lebanon, welcoming also its commitment to a UN force that is supplemented and enhanced in numbers, equipment, mandate and scope of operation, and bearing in mind its request in this plan for an immediate withdrawal of the Israeli forces from Southern Lebanon." Well, well, well. What was missing was the Sanyurah boo hoo hoo points here. Here, the UNSC (with Israel and US) are trying their best, and quite blatantly, to prop up a failed government. A government that has been kept in power only by the efforts of the US/Israel (patrons of Hariri Inc), and the dumb calculations of Hizbullah--and Hizbullah is consistent in dumb political calculations in their domestic alliances and decisions. And this consistent record of dumb decisions by Hizbullah leads to me believe that it may agree to this resolution. But what does this resolution mean when it categorically states that "there will be no weapons without the consent of the government of Lebanon"? And how do you verify that? I know villagers in South Lebanon who celebrate weddings with RPGs and AK-47s. Will John Bolton go and search those villages? And the Swiss people are armed, with more than the Swiss army knives, and Israeli settlers are armed, so please, spare me that Weberian argument about the monopoly of violence that is being imposed on Lebanon. I mean, the US is supplying the private militia of Dahlan in Palestine, and the criminal militias of Somalia, and the warlords' militias in Afghanistan, and several militias in Iraq, and the Hariri Inc militia in Lebanon, under the guise of the Internal Security Forces. So no more Weber. So that can be tossed out of the window because it will not be verified nor implemented unless you wish to send Ahmad Fatfat to Hizbullah strongholda to ask the party members to surrender their weapons to him. Fat chance. But this sentence is worrisome: "a UN force that is supplemented and enhanced in numbers, equipment, mandate and scope of operation." What does that mean? That vague phraseology is quite troubling because it is as vague as the Balfour declaration when it talks about preserving the "civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." And what is the mandate and scope of operation? If you want to expand and enhance the scope and mandate, you are in all but name creating a new force. But the dumb and not-so-dumb Lebanese ministers will not see that. They will try to sell this as UNIFIL. No, it is not. Or it does not have to be. But then I get confused when it says this: "Determined to act for this withdrawal to happen at the earliest." Wait. Wait. Hold on. Before I wake up the children and release the pigs from the barn, you need to explain this one to me, NOW. First you talk about "an immediate withdrawal of the Israeli forces from Southern Lebanon" and then you talk about at the earliest . Are you kidding me? Which is which, o wise and mild-mannered John Bolton? Is it immediate or is it "at the earliest"? And if you leave Israel to interpret a UN resolution, there is a long trail of unimplemented trail of resolutions soaked with blood. What if Israel decides that the year 2040 is the earliest? Resolution 425 and 426 (calling on Israel to withdraw from South Lebanon) were passed in 1978, and it was in 2000 when Kofi Annan thanked Israel for being so kind for withdrawing from South Lebanon, although Israel continues to occupy Shib`a Farms, Kfar Shuba Hills, and the seven villages, not to mention Palestine and Golan Heights. And then: "Taking due note of the proposals made in the seven-point plan regarding the Shebaa farms area. What! Is this an inside joke? Did I miss something here. A UNSC resolution is referring to Israeli occupation of Lebanese lands, and it merely, merely, refers to it as "taking note"? It does not even identify the identity of the occupier for fear of hurting the feelings of the Israeli people? Taking note? I take note of the utter stupidity of this sentence, and I consider it a reason--one of many--why this resolution should be rejected on grounds of principle. And then: "Welcoming the unanimous decision by the government of Lebanon on 7 August 2006 to deploy a Lebanese armed force of 15,000 troops in South Lebanon as the Israeli army withdraws behind the Blue Line and to request the assistance of additional forces from UNIFIL as needed, to facilitate the entry of the Lebanese armed forces into the region and to restate its intention to strengthen the Lebanese armed forces with material as needed to enable it to perform its duties." Well, here notice that the Israeli Army is clearly not planning on withdrawing immediately and completely, and can easily find grounds for staying on Lebanese territory. Also, when the US, here the UN but what is the difference really, talks about "strengthening" the Lebanese Army they only mean strengthening it vis-a-vis the Lebanese people, especially those--fundamentalists, leftists, Arab nationalists, and others--who wish to resist Israeli occupation of their country, and not vis-a-vis Israel. Srenghthening does not entail an air defense system which is the most needed weapon of defense for the country, unless you plan to rely on the elite fighting force of the Lebanese Army which surrendered their weapons today to the Israeli occupation force in Marji`yun, and apologized to the Israeli occupiers for not vacating their barracks earlier to make room for an exhausted and frightened occupation army. This one is Orwellian: "Determining that the situation in Lebanon constitutes a threat to international peace and security." Did the august body not notice that the Israeli war of aggression on Lebanon has been posing a threat to international peace and security until TODAY? It has been over a month. But thanks for noticing. Quite callous, I say. Notice this paragraph: Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hizbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations." They mean to draw a distinction between Hizbullah attacks, which are called "attacks", and yet Israeli attacks are "offensive military operations". Does that mean that the Israeli massacres in Siddiqin, Qa`, Tyre, Marwahin, Srifa, Shiyyah, Qana, and others were merely "military operations"? We need to know to know what to tell the survivors. And when it prohibits Israeli "offensive operations" it clearly permits what Israel will consider "defensive" operations, and all Israeli wars of aggression and occupation have been termed as "defensive" by Israel, as Tariq Mitri pointed out in his speech before the council. And then: "Emphasizes the importance of the extension of the control of the government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory in accordance with the provisions of resolution 1559 (2004) and resolution 1680 (2006), and of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, for it to exercise its full sovereignty, so that there will be no weapons without the consent of the government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the government of Lebanon." But Hizbulalh's armed presence has hitherto enjoyed the consent of the Lebanese government and the official statement of the Lebanese government pays tribute to "resistance" and to the legitimacy of all means to liberate occupied Lebanese lands? What about that, o Kofi? The presence of UNSC 1559 is crucial here: it is the crux of the matter, and it shows once again that the first foundation of the international conspiracy against Lebanon was layed by Rafiq Hariri when his interests met with the interests of Israel/US, in pushing for UNSC 1559. Hariri thought that with UNSC he would please US/Israel and would rule as king in Lebanon. Well, that was not meant to be, I am afraid. It is all about UNSC 1559. Then: "Reiterates its strong support for full respect for the Blue Line. How do you show your respect for a line? Do you bring it flowers? Do you leave cookies and milk on the line every day? Please enlighten me because I never respected "lines" before. And are you implying here that Israel has a great record of respecting lines, anywhere? And then: "Affirms that all parties are responsible for ensuring that no action is taken contrary to paragraph 1 that might adversely affect the search for a long-term solution, humanitarian access to civilian populations, including safe passage for humanitarian convoys, or the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons, and calls on all parties to comply with this responsibility and to cooperate with the Security Council." Notice that it says "all parties" when it should have said Israel, because it is Israel that has been attacking humanitarian convoys in Lebanon. But this resolution fails to even once hold Israel responsible for any of its crimes in Lebanon. This is yet another reason why it should be rejected, categorically. Here: "security arrangements to prevent the resumption of hostilities, including the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11, deployed in this area." This is May 17 Agreement all over again. The Lebanese Army in South Lebanon is being turned into a South Lebanon Army. The only duty of the Lebanese Army becomes to protect Israel and its occupation. This "full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of July 27, 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state" is a clear violation of Lebanese sovereignty. Not that it exists of course, but the Lebanonese advocates shout about it. This is an internal Lebanese matter, and the UN has no business in even referring to the Ta'if Accords which dealt with Lebanese internal reforms. Imagine if the UNSC were to issue an opinion on the US constitution. And don't you like the qualification in the sentence "no foreign forces in Lebanon without the consent of its government." Is this like the consent that the "Iraqi government" gives to the US occupation in Iraq? Explain that, please. Here, there is one demand from Lebanon: "provision to the United Nations of all remaining maps of land mines in Lebanon in Israel's possession." But there is no timetable. When? A year? A decade? When? Why not specify a deadline? This is another tricky one that smells of the May 17 Agreement: "Invites the Secretary General to support efforts to secure as soon as possible agreements in principle from the Government of Lebanon and the Government of Israel to the principles and elements for a long-term solution as set forth in paragraph 8, and expresses its intention to be actively involved." What is being hinted here? But certainly the end here is quite obscene: "Stresses the importance of, and the need to achieve, a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, based on all its relevant resolutions including its resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 and 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973." This is basically the American peace process that has brought you all the peace and prosperity that the people of the region are now enjoying. Go back to sleep.
PS Oh, I forgot to say that this resolution, when it comes to the arrangements in South Lebanon, is meaningless. When it talks about preventing Hizbullah from returning to South Lebanon, how do you do that? The resolution talks about the return of all refugees. So Hizbullah fighters are part of the Southern Lebanese refugees. They will return. But will they return with their weapons? Well, it will not be difficult to smuggle them back in. And more bunkers will be built, and more recruitment will take place. If anything, I think that, like the Palestinian Resistance after the Karamah Battle, Hizbullah will receive more recruits than it can accommodate. Stay tuned. The Arab-Israeli conflict continues.