Evil pasta.

haha, watch this journalist give a state department spokesperson a hard time.

Guest Post: Starving Gaza

When it comes to Palestine, I have become emotionally immune to the horrible news stories that fill the press every couple of months. Whether it's the eruption of sewage pipes and the drowning of Palestinians, the starving of 1.5 million people or the killing of a family with a lone surviving child, I remain mute.

A friend, on the other hand, has offered to guest post and vent her frustration...

Dear Friends,

There is not much I can write about what is going on with Gaza that has not been said already by Ban Ki Moon, Tony Blair, Miguel D'Escoto, the government of the UAE, and thousands in Egypt and Jordan. Even the Foreign Press Association is protesting the ban on journalists from entering Gaza and filing a suit against the Israeli government.

I don't want to bore you with facts that you may already know. I just want to share with you this story:

On the morning of November 5, I received an email from a friend who returned home last year to Gaza after a year of studying in the United States:

"Dear All American friends in the US and around the world,

I would like to congratulate you all for the great democracy of the United States of America. The American people proved to be the greatest nation in the world with this historical elections.

I hope that this new administration will be able to come over all the crises inside America and around the world.

I hope you and your great nation all the best in the coming days and months."

That morning, as I rubbed my eyes and read that email after a long night of unforgettable celebration, I realized for the first time that Obama's victory was not just my own. A curtain had been drawn back in the mind of the world, and the unprecedented had become possible. There was the possibility that our policy trains could some day run off their tracks, our taboo brick walls could come tumbling down. There was the possibility that we could be honest.

That same day day, on November 5th, a comprehensive blockade on humanitarian and commercial goods was imposed on the Gaza Strip. After to numerous appeals, Israel reopened the Gaza border to allow a partial resumption of aid on November 17^th. Following the resumption of rocket fire, the border was once again closed completely. The Israeli government reopened the border to allow in a one-day shipment on Monday, November 24^th, and again, resealed the border. Today they let in a limited amount of aid again, but the UN said it's not enough.

Israel has announced that it refuses to alleviate the seige until rocket fire on Southern Israel has ceased. Despite Ismail Haniyeh's pledge of allegiance to the five-month ceasefire due to expire mid-December, rockets have continued fall southern Israel from Gaza. Israel has not yet announced a breach of the truce, but two Palestinian militants were wounded by airstrikes in the Strip on Saturday, November 22^nd.

On November 5th, only three weeks ago, my friend from Gaza continued:

"I am sure that Obama has many things to offer to US and to the world. I hope that a new policies toward the middle east is coming with the new administration.

Me and my people will be waiting for new HOPE for peace and for justice, and I am sure that we all together WE CAN do something. YES WE CAN, YES WE CAN."

Tomorrow, when my family goes around the table and everyone says what they are thankful for, I will say that I am thankful to live in a country where I can be proud of my government. I hope that my government will find the strength to step in and condemn the rockets falling on Israel, and denounce the degradation of Gaza, its people, and its dignity.

With love,

Elizabeth

Two Days

On November 4th the American people will fill in their ballots and decide who they think will best be able to repair America’s standing in the world. They will be thinking about the economy and energy policy as well, but foreign policy will remain their focus. With two wars waging and an economy based on oil imports, no matter what you care about, it is intertwined with our relationship with the outside world.

For more than a year now, the pundits, myself included, have labeled the current president of the United States a lame duck. His call for peace between Israelis and Palestinians at Annapolis, Maryland triggered this. Wild speculation erupted about what this president hopes to achieve in the little time he has left. Surely he does not think it is possible to get Palestinians and Israelis to kiss and make up? Bill Clinton, with his wonderful charisma, couldn’t do it in eight years. It must be a more sinister plan, an alliance to destroy Iran. Well this has not happened. It actually turned out to be a genuine push for peace, albeit seven years too late. Along Annapolis, other positive policy shifts have occurred in the last year, talking to Iran, rapprochement with Syria and a nuclear agreement with North Korea. This is not to say that this administration has finally figured it out. We have seen negative and very dangerous developments as well, a different kind of nuclear agreement with India, targeted killings in both Syria and Pakistan and an ignored Afghanistan crumbling just to name a few.

Shifting through the foreign policy remains (or wreckage) of George W. Bush will be an overwhelming task for our next president. Many issues are on the table and most have never been so complicated. Distinguishing between good and bad policy will be daunting. This administration has left unpopular fingerprints everywhere. As a result, it has even contaminated policy that is working and sensible.

Identifying good policy is solely not enough. A realistic grand strategy is needed. If President Bush had anything right in his early days and if anything should be brought back to life, it’s the need to support democracies. The cancellation of that policy based on perceived losses was tragic. These losses were merely battles in a long push forward to democratize the Arab world. After 9/11, numerous people claimed that “they” hate us for our freedom and our way of life. This is partially true, “they” don’t hate us for our freedoms but rather because what they perceive as the United States preventing them from reaching their own freedom.

Our current fight with militant Islam in no way resembles the threat that the USSR posed. But it should be noted that the United States did not win the Cold War in South America or Vietnam; the wall fell in Berlin. Communism wasn’t destroyed with troops on the ground, but in the hearts and minds of Eastern Europeans that knew only democracy would fulfill their hopes and aspirations. So when you stand in your private booth thinking about who will most successfully fulfill the foreign policy needs, who will keep us safe, pick the one you think will return us to a moral path, a path of democracy promotion, although one that does not send our youth to foreign lands.

Must watch

Economics 101: Warren Buffet on Charlie Rose

Mahmoud in the US

Below, is the President of Iran on Larry King. Click here to listen to his interview on NPR.



He performed at his best. At the same time, I think the interviewers were at their worse. Larry King spent too much time on Israel and homosexuals while ignoring other, more powerful arguments, such as religious freedom and women rights. The interview on NPR was a little more stimulating, but still did not focus on more important issues such as Iraq and Afghanistan, or maybe even how the government of Iran might feel about foreign policy issues that are central to the US such as the War on Terror or maybe the Georgian-Russian conflict.

I think the media plays into his hands by focusing on issues he is very well prepared for, the holocaust, Israel, homosexual rights, and nuclear weapons. These are all points that he has been asked more than once and has mastered answering. Along with that, Ahmedinejad answers the questions to an audience he knows very well, and I am not referring to Americans. He knows very well that an interview on Larry King is not going to convince Israelis or conservative Americans that he is not that bad of a guy (you know, someone you can drink a beer with). His audience is more global, and this was obvious in his answer on who exactly the world is (something that Noam Chomsky has written about before). When Ahmedinejad talks, he becomes the spokesperson that Osama never was. He speaks for the 400 million Arabs who despise what they perceive as American bullying, and the more than 1 billion Muslims who are holding a grudge against the West for what they perceive as anti Islamic comments. Watching these two interviews it is easy to understand why he is the third most popular leader in the Arab world, only landing after Secretary General of Hezbollah, Hasan Nasrallah and the President of Syria, Bashar al-Assad(most likely because of a language barrier).

Religion and Politics

Walk in the West Bank

Curious about Somalia?

Thank you Londonstani at AM

International Insurgency?

In the Insurgency and Counterinsurgency class that I took last semester, the professor talked about Al Qaeda and the threat that it posed to the world as global insurgency. Interesting idea, Al Qaeda has a lot of the characteristics that a more traditional insurgency might have. A supposedly better idea, grass root support, leadership (questionable), mix of military and terrorist tactics, sanctuaries and others.

What has made me bring this up today? An article in the Christian Science monitor is reporting that foreign fighters from Iraq have recently shifted their focus to Afghanistan through Pakistan, most likely as a result of the increased military pressure from the American surge in Iraq. Does this strengthen the global insurgency argument?

I am a little skeptical about this because of the leadership aspect of Al Qaeda. Members and sympathizers might look at Bin Laden and Zawahari for direction but does that mean they control them?

You could easily find some answers to this question. Recently a book was reviewed in the LRB that was about what some might call the grand strategist of Al Qaeda. In it, the writer talks about the idea that this Al Qaeda thinker played with of an anarchic group, a franchise.

Lots of thoughts, most people would agree that in a powerful insurgency a leader is of no importance. I would say this is true in regards to Al Qaeda so does this mean that the leadership aspect is not important anyways?

Who knows??

Almost Famous

Can you win both?

A couple of days ago someone (I cant remember who) sent me a news piece on Obama's encounter with a couple of scarf wearing Muslims at a rally. If you don't know the story, apparently these 2 individuals were invited to stand behind Obama during his speech. This tactic is used by candidates to show diversity and gain support among different ethnic groups. Apparently his staffers at the rally felt that two women wearing hijabs would not go well and denied them entry. The campaign later apologized. I am not going to comment about this incident but rather use it as a platform to talk about some more important issues.

First off, I would like to say sorry to the New York Times. Lately I have been trash talking them for what I think has been really crappy reporting but today at Starbucks (sorry pro Palestinian boycotters) I noticed that this issue was placed prominently on their front page with a picture and a well written article. It focused on the Muslim vote in the upcoming election and mentioned the potential impact of the Arab and Muslim American vote in this country. After reading this New York Times article I was wondering if McCain would attack Obama over this and try to take the initiative and gain support among this potentially important community. So far I have not seen this but it is still possible.

The potential for Arab and Muslim Americans to have an impact on an election has been an issue we constantly talk about at work. Michael, my boss is constantly bashing the community that I am a part of for giving the election to GWB in 2000 by not voting for Gore-Lieberman for what he perceived as anti semitism (but that is a different story) and has been trying to figure out ways to bring them (the Arab and Muslim Americans) to the enlightened party (Democrats). Now I am not one to support a candidate, but I do have a preferred candidate and that happens to be BHO so I too have been thinking about this issue. So I started to think about issues that concern my community and of course foreign affairs topped the list. The problem with that is according to a recent article in Foreign Affairs Zionism is an old American pastime like Baseball and beef jerky and 70% of Americans support the current US stand in regards to Israel so I doubt issues of foreign policy are going to be going their way anytime soon, the recent annual AIPAC convention confirmed this. So what could Obama and the Democrats do to gain support among my community?

Most in my community could be described as socially conservative. In this area the Republicans have a clear advantage but concerning their bread and butter I would say that Democrats could articulate their economic policy in a way that sounds a lot better than the old Republican 'no to taxes'. Economically they are above average, most in the $60,000 to $80,000 bracket with the first generation consisting of mostly small business owners and only the second generation taking their time to attend college. As small business owners, mainly convenient stores, grocery stores, gas stations, cellular phone stores, clothing stores and other 'insert noun' stores. Their cliental is based mostly on middle and lower class segments of society which means if these parts of society are doing better economically so are these different businesses. Most of them also have larger than average families making health insurance an issue for this community, something the Democrats as we all know have already picked up.

Another strong point which the Democrats need to push not only to win this crucial vote but also for one of the most important ideals this country was born on is civil rights. After 9/11 the Arab and Muslim American communities have been ostracized, discriminated against and greatly affected by some of the laws and rhetoric that has come out of this administration and congress. Modifying the Patriot Act and stressing the need to combat discrimination based on religion and race would really mean a lot to this community and could become a very powerful incentive to pull them closer to the Democrats.

Is it possible for a Presidential candidate to satisfy pro-Zionist segments of society but at the same time win the hearts of anti-Zionists? I believe so. Why has it not happened in this current election? Probably because Islamophobia has reached a point where even the vote of a Muslim or Arab would be considered suicidal. Candidates look at reaching out to Arab and Muslim Americans as a political liability and it is obvious by their reluctance to visit mosques and Arab churches while having no problem attending black churches and synagogues. It is a real tragedy when a loyal segment of the American community is ignored, definitely something Obama should keep into consideration when he talks about unity during his highly choreographed rallies.

Lil Wayne: I support terrorist

Fox News just had some breaking news. At a concert in California, wearing a hatta lil wayne showed his support for terrorist world wide:

The roads that led me here

I just read Amin Maalouf's new book "Origins". It is probably one of the best books I have read, well at least since his last one. It is a book on his grandfather. After finding out from an aunt that his grandfather was an avid diary writer he decides to dig through the massive amount of notes, comments, poems, and other human left overs to learn what thoughts were running through his grandfathers mind at a very important time in history (early 20th century).

There are a lot of interesting family facts that he learns, one of the most intriguing is in regards to his great uncle who immigrated to Cuba where he became one of the richest men on the island. This episode surfaces questions for his grandfather about immigration, whether it is better to stay and try to better ones country or is the motherland a lost cause and immigration the only solution. This will be the focus of the book and is brought up constantly. This issue really touched my heart because it is a question that I, and plenty of other immigrants have asked ourselves.

There are other great episodes in this book that represent a turbulent time in history. The famine that Lebanon witnessed during the first World War is mentioned. The power of the Free Mason movement across the world is also very evident throughout the book. Small comments, like his father calling himself an Ottoman citizen, or his American immigration card stating he is from Syria, Turkey were all very fascinating and really shed some light on what life was like during that period.

The political situation at the time is also mentioned in great detail. His grandfather was a pundit and also a poet, so he praised and condemned different actors at different times. The last Ottoman Sultan was praised as a modernizer and a person who would cure the old man of Europe. Once this dream was shattered, he began to support the Free officers movement during its campaign to gain control over the empire. Running into the French during their mandate was another episode, complaining that the French only funded projects that not only fell in line with their political but also their religious views. Something he despised.

Immigrants are constantly judging their decision to leave a land they love. It is always part of the conversation that occurs between fellow immigrants. Debating whether they took the easy way or the only way weighs heavily on their hearts and minds. Constantly wondering whether they will have the chance to return to their beloved land or is assimilation inevitable.

This personal debate can also be found in the book. The pros and cons of a country are known to most. He mentions the never ending family squabbles over petty issues. Lack of economic opportunity which prevent one from advancing his standard of living. But also the simple minded villagers. His grandfather was very different from most villagers, well educated and what some might call open minded and always seemed to be the center of debate in the village which weighed heavily on him. At one point he refused to baptize his kids claiming that he has no right to pick their religion, this was rather interesting and the reaction of the villagers is predictable.

I know immigration is not a new phenomenon. People have been traveling across the globe for centuries. Today, it could even be considered easier. One could fly and visit, call, and even video chat on Skype! The world has become smaller, you can even buy a good Felafel sandwich at a small shop in Adams Morgan. This still does not replace the feeling of living in an environment that just feels like home.

His grandfather does get a taste of the immigration life. He visits his brother in Cuba during his early years as an immigrant and tests the waters. Living in an attic on top of their business he is convinced that this life is not for him and returns to his beloved Lebanon, not before stopping in New York where he mingles with the diaspora community where he is respected based on his education credentials.

As a son of immigrants. I am one of a special case. I was born in the USA and only spent a third of my life in the country that I call my home. I do love the USA and what it has offered myself and my family but it does not fill in the gap that I feel.

I dedicate this post to all who have left their home in search of a brighter future.

Mac Crashed

Came back to DC, thought I would be able to get my life back on track but apparently the God of computers had other plans for me. My hard drive crashed and I have been depressed ever since. I have a warranty but their system is so effed up. They mail you a box, you box your laptop and mail it back. You then (im)patiently wait for your life to be delivered by DHL.

Till then, I will finish reading books, work and play Playstation 3. Blogging will be on hold.

Bye.

A little late

I will not be posting till June. I am very busy in Florida. My delicious might be updated, but not as often. My summer reading list is long and interesting, so this blog will bear the fruits of it soon. 

Saeed

Recommended Read (My favorite writer)

“But what if nobody takes notice?”
By Alastair Crooke, Conflicts Forum, May 11, 2008
http://conflictsforum.org/2008/but-what-if-nobody-takes-notice/

“But what if nobody takes notice?” is the question posed by Robert Malley and Hussein Agha in an article in the recent New York Review of Books concerning the putative ‘shelf agreement’ being discussed between President Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert. A ‘shelf agreement’ is an exercise in outlining some principles for the settlement of the Palestinian issue, rather than to attempt a full solution. It is a document, the culmination of the Annapolis process, intended not for implementation; but rather immediately to be set aside — on the ‘shelf’ — whilst all parties, Bush, Abbas and Olmert declare the document to represent a huge triumph — whilst shamelessly waving this Chamberlinesque ‘peace in out time’ paper before their electorates in order to ‘help’ in their respective elections, or to cement legacies.

Israel is expected to go to parliamentary elections shortly — whether or not Olmert survives the threat of a criminal indictment hanging over him. Olmert’s strategy has been to persuade Israelis that the ‘agreement’ is somehow an achievement. And in one limited sense, it may be seen by Israel to be an ‘achievement’. But not in bringing any change on the ground: the Occupation and the grinding life of Palestinians will continue as before. Indeed almost all Israelis and Palestinians understand that the much fêted ‘shelf agreement’ will be inoperable — neither Olmert nor Abbas can implement it, even if they wished so to do.

Change will be shelved. Olmert’s ‘achievement’, if it comes, will be in terms of pocketing further Palestinian concessions: Concessions on the Right of Return for refugees; on settlements; and in ambiguity on borders and Jerusalem. This is the ‘gift’ that President Bush hopes to present to Israel on its 60th birthday this year. Mahmoud Abbas may believe that Palestinians, desperate for any hope, will endorse it — and throw a lifeline to Fateh, Abbas’ fractured movement — in elections due in 2009. And Bush will have a ‘legacy’.

But it is the wrong question: Malley and Agha raised it essentially to highlight the likelihood of such a ‘shelf-agreement’ being ignored; and therefore to focus attention on what, in their view, must be done to rescue the ‘two-state solution’ from this shelf-process, which they suggest, by feeding Palestinian and Israeli scepticism and cynicism about yet another meaningless, unimplementable deal, will end up “dooming” for good the two-state solution, rather than strengthening it.

But reality is different: In the region — beyond the Ramallah hothouse — there is no “what if?” The failure of the two-state solution is expected, and discounted, as thinking has evolved in a different direction: The cheer-leaders among Europeans desperate to ‘rescue’ it are stuck in denial from this perspective.

They are in denial about the failure of the incremental process initiated in Oslo in 1993; in denial about the changed psychology of much of the region; and, as Henry Siegman, the former head of the Middle East programme at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York has noted, are “delusional” in believing that accommodating this ‘shelf’ agreement would be an act of friendship for Israel; or atone for what befell the Jews in Europe.

Even if the Israeli Prime Minister belatedly were to recognise that its policy ultimately has not served Israeli interests, the theft and fragmentation of Palestinian lands, without let-up over forty years — as even a child understands — makes any meaningful independent Palestinian state now virtually an impossibility. Palestinians have understood this for a long time. It is hardly surprising however that Israeli premiers find it difficult to resist the acquisition of Palestinian land — as we observe to be the case even in the midst of the Annapolis process — in the absence of any international blow-back to settlement expansion.

What is astounding is the international community’s denial in pretending to believe Israel’s claim that it is somehow ‘the victim’; and that, by allowing this devastating Palestinian dispossession to continue, as Angela Merkel and Nicholas Sarkozy’s virtually uncritical support for Israel clearly conveys, can lead to Israeli ‘moderation’. Plainly it achieves the opposite.

Will an un-implementable statement of principles ‘doom’ a two-state solution as Malley and Agha fear? Of course. Have European leaders still not woken up to this? It is a conclusion that has been shaping thinking beyond Europe’s circle of pro-western ‘moderate’ Arab friends for some time now. As polls show, despite western ‘peace politics’, Muslims overwhelmingly view Israel as a threat, and not as a partner for peace: 95% of Muslims in the six mainly Sunni moderate Arab states polled by Zogby and the University of Maryland see Israel as the main threat to security in the region — and 88% also see the US in the same light, rather than as a peace broker — whereas, by comparison, a mere 6% view Iran as a threat.

There is perhaps a fine irony here: As Israel has contributed to the self-destruction of President Mahmoud Abbas’ Fateh movement, by undermining its credibility and by continuing with the settlement project; so too, perhaps, has Fateh slipped a suicide pill to Israel. Israel’s and America’s blindness to the sea-changes taking place in the region — or the contempt with which they are viewed — may stem in part from their overly close association with the ‘moderates’ in Fateh.

Israel has become so accustomed to Palestinian negotiators running to talks with Israel — irrespective of the deaths of Palestinians or new announcements of further illegal settlement construction — that Israel and the US Administration take the “Palestinians desperate for any hope” narrative so seriously that they believe that an Israeli ‘signal of peace’, however cynical its motive, is enough to placate the region — and to allow Israel and the US the quiet with which to continue with their plans.

But if this is what they think, then it is little wonder that the West so regularly misreads the ground in the region: Not all Palestinians are ‘desperate’ for hope from Israel. Far from it, many are making ready against the possibility of conflict.

The feeling among Islamists, many secularists, Christians, and a number of states is of being at the cusp of fundamental change. Change is coming; and the region will not again be what it is today: This major current does not foresee the coming era to be the one that Europe or the US envisages; but something very different. Islamic movements and states such as Syria and Iran increasingly are concerned to judge the evolving strategic shifts accurately. This is more important to them than to make some tactical and short term political accommodation with western powers — no one wants to be caught on the wrong side of events.

Underlying this psychological mood-shift is the realisation that neither Israel nor the US seems able to come to terms with the key outcome from the two Gulf conflicts: the inevitable emergence of Iran as a pre-eminent regional power. Similarly, the consensus is that the US is incapable also of coming to terms with the prospect of Islamist empowerment; and therefore of adjusting its secular, free-market vision for the region. And there is no sense that Europe or Israel or the US understands the nature or the energies being released by the growing forces of ‘resistance’. Unlike those in the region, Europe seems unaware that its policies of espousing ‘moderates’ against ‘extremists’ is mobilising more and more Muslims into the resistance against the ‘western project’.

In short, there is no real sense that Israel or its US and European friends possess the political resources to make a strategic change of direction; or even to come to terms with Iranian or Islamist empowerment.

Belatedly, the West is now showing some understanding that the impact of globalisation on the region has been one of falling real wages and social fragmentation: Stock markets may have boomed for the tiny Arab élite; but for the majority it has brought the erosion of community support structures, and a poverty widening into what remains of the middle class, that is threatening to unloose a wave of political frustration and anger. It is a tide that will re-shape the region.

Many will turn to Islam — an Islam that increasingly does articulate an alternative social vision for the future. The experience of Iraq has soured Muslims toward the Western vision of nation-state building. They look to a new vision — and almost certainly this will be an Islamist one.

But they see also the darkening political shadows from the West’s inability to internalise what a real settlement in Palestine would entail; or to internalise the consequences of its wars that facilitated Iran’s rise to pre-eminence. They understand that a pre-eminent Iran critically challenges the West’s own standing. They understand, too, that the West feels troubled and vulnerable from the rising tide of Islamism and anti-western sentiment in the region — and of Iran’s leadership of it. They see too that the West does not know how to manage these phenomena — and thus, feeling events slipping away from it, dwells heavily on its fears.

The dynamic of waning western power to shape events as the West would like, is that sooner or later, the risk of a clash between the polarised forces of the West with some part of the ‘axis-of-resistance’ becomes much greater. When Annapolis, Iraq and the current Israeli overtures to take Syria out from the ‘axis’ fail; when western options narrow; and when its ‘peace initiatives’ come-up empty, logic argues that a frustrated West is likely to resort to military means to weaken or break the ‘resistance’.

Syria and the Lebanese understand that they are in the frontline in this event — as much as Iran; and all are mentally stiffening themselves against this prospect. The region is not ‘desperate’ for peace: It would welcome it, of course; but much of it is also preparing and judiciously expecting the worst. It is the West’s lack of recognition of the strength and rigour of this new psychology of resilience towards prospective conflict, and of lack of understanding why western policies are seen as so dangerously inadequate and misconceived, that pushes many in the region to believe that a West, sunk in deep denial, carries with it the probability of conflict — whether inadvertent or deliberate. Unless it is understood that it is this strategic focus that preoccupies Iran, Syria, Hesballah and Hamas, their thinking cannot begin to be judged accurately — and grave mistakes may occur.

West Beirut in opposition hands

enjoy

Thanks Amira

McCain's Spiritual Advisor on Islam