Category: self-authored

The demonstration by an estimated million women across Italy Sunday points to a continuing denial of fair opportunities for women at work. The protest demonstrations, in 280 cities in Italy and 28 cities abroad, were called to demand action against Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi over the latest scandals. The turnout was some measure of the determination among women to take the political and public debate in Italy to the real problems of women. The protest followed weeks of intense debate over allegations that Berlusconi paid for sexual intercourse with a number of young women, including a 17- year-old undocumented girl from Morocco. In Italy the age of consent is 14, but prostitution below 18 is illegal. Full article.

…

i saw this excellent doc a while back called “videocracy” (a combination of video and democracy). it’s a terrific exploration of everything described in this article. berlusconi’s life and politics, his social stature and corporate media dominance have altered italian culture in a v sick way. no wonder millions of women have had enough. my review of the film here.

pls don’t minimize the egyptian revolution. try to mobilize 20 million people to come out in the streets for 18 days and remove a cruel and powerful tyrant from office peacefully, then tell me about it.

i’m so tired of all the skepticism. of course, it’s not over yet – it’s just the beginning. egyptians are not prepared to go home and watch soap operas while suleiman assumes the role of mubarak II. i don’t think they would have come this far if that had been their MO.

this is a seminal moment in history. for egyptians and tunisians, for arabs, for the middle east, for client states, for people who are treated with contempt by their own rulers and elite, for people who have been told that they don’t count, for people who have come to believe that they are helpless and weak, for populations that have been labeled apathetic and not deserving of democracy, for all of us who yearn for justice and dignity and some voice in the unfolding of our own destiny. today is a great day for all of us. yes, the road ahead is always hard, but today we deserve to celebrate with and for the people of egypt. period.

this essay highlights many things for me: wikileaks cables r NOT the pentagon papers – they do not reveal anything new. hertzberg, much like fareed zakaria (an unflattering comparison by any standards), finds the leaks reassuring as they simply showcase the apparent honesty of american foreign policy and the eloquence of american diplomats.

the biggest revelation, according to both writers, is how iran has been proven to be a threat, not just to israel and by extension the u.s., but also to arab states in the region. this is what wikileaks has accomplished – a judith miller via the internet, with oh, so much more credibility.

i’m deeply disappointed by hertzberg’s use of corporate-media-speak. he insists on calling the iranian govt “mullahs” while failing to call the american govt “war criminals” – that would put things in perspective, no? the iranian govt might place religion on an altar but don’t we do the same with corporate profit? they imprison women for adultery because it’s against their religion and we torture people for resisting our military occupations because it’s against ours.

i’m also tired of ahmadinejad’s corny description as holocaust denier and potential eraser of israel. how come we don’t use similar labels for netanyahu or pretty much every israeli politician of import? here r some ideas: ethnic cleanser of palestine, bulldozer of homes, incarcerator of children, supporter of apartheid, blockador and decimator of civilians, etc. so preposterous to judge one politician (ahmadinejad) on rhetoric while refusing to judge another (netanyahu and others) on action.

it’s also incredible to me that someone of hertzberg’s intelligence would consider an imaginary iranian bomb to be a threat to israel because it would embolden its enemies and shatter its mystique of invincibility. can’t he see the obvious disadvantages of the lopsided distribution of power in the middle east, which is further distorted by israel’s unilateral possession of nuclear arms. how does that encourage balance or any investment in diplomacy? i’m not advocating nuclear bombs for everyone but a change in thinking – nuclear disarmament on every side, not just countries that fall outside our sphere of influence and consequently off of our most popular client state list.

most disheartening of all r hertzberg’s reasons for not going to war again, on muslim soil: in view of time investment and poor chances of bloodlessness (for americans, hertzberg is quick to elaborate). he doesn’t care to mention the illegality of the wars or the massive horror and mayhem visited on muslim civilians.

he ends with some wisdom about internal change being a better option in iran. but he reminds the u.s. and israel (he makes it a point to see them as interchangeable) to keep up their “steady vigilance, strategic patience, and stomach for twilight uncertainty” in order to defeat iran’s evil intentions. he is particularly excited by the “biting” sanctions against iran in this regard. an equally strong argument can be made for non-western or muslim countries (on whose soil we like to play our war games) to use their vigilance, patience and stomach for uncertainty vis a vis what the united states/israel have in store for them. if the present wars and occupations r any guide, it’s not anything good i’m afraid.

Iran and the Bomb by Hendrik Hertzberg
The New Yorker, DECEMBER 13, 2010

WikiLeaks Shows the Skills of U.S. Diplomats By FAREED ZAKARIA
Time, Thursday, Dec. 02, 2010

dr norman finkelstein spoke at le moyne college, in syracuse, last thursday. it’s a miracle he got to do so in view of the pressure that was put on le moyne to cancel the event. when an outright cancellation could not be achieved, the idea was floated that a panel should be set up to “discuss” finkelstein’s arguments. both those attempts at sabotage were foiled by local activists, thankfully, and we got to hear the man.

what i like about norman finkelstein is how he builds his case – deliberately, factually, with scientific precision and logic, with specific references and quotes, he constructs an argument that is solid and seems self-evident by the time he’s finished.

finkelstein began his lecture with the election of hamas in gaza, in what were unanimously believed to be fair and open elections. however, since the “wrong” party won, the united states and israel tried to back up a coup, which failed, and then imposed a blockade.

all military activities were halted on june 19, 2008 when a cease-fire was brokered by egypt under which hamas was to stop rocket and mortar attacks and israel was to lift the blockade on gaza. hamas stopped the attacks but israel reneged on its obligation.

on nov 4th, american election day, israel attacked and killed 6 palestinians inside the gaza strip thus ending the cease-fire.

hostilities resumed and israel initiated operation cast lead on december 27, 2008. finkelstein is particular about how the world should describe what happened in the following 22 days – it wasn’t a “war” but a “massacre”. why? finkelstein asked the audience to google “breaking the silence” and to read the testimony of israeli soldiers. time after time the soldiers repeat that they didn’t see anyone – there was no enemy, there were no battles, there was no fighting. of the 3,000 air missions flown into gaza, each and every plane came back to base. no plane was damaged. some of the soldiers’ metaphors: it was like playing video games, it was like hunting season, it was like a child burning ants with a magnifying glass. the word “insane” comes up over and over again: israel used insane fire power – the ground shook, soldiers were asked to exit the houses they were operating from lest they collapse. insane fire power. white phosphorous, which had been used before in 1982 in lebanon, was also used in gaza. white phosphorous burns at a temperature of 1,500 degrees F.

how about some stats to back up the claim that it was a massacre? ratio of israeli to palestinian deaths: 1 to 100 including soldiers, 1 to 400 when looking at civilians only. what about israel’s claim of hamas using human shields? more than 300 reports have been written about what happened in gaza by various human rights organizations. no evidence of human shields was found by any of them. autopsy reports confirmed that palestinians were not killed because they got caught in cross fire. rather they were bombed while they slept in their beds or they were air-targeted while they were at home.

after the 22 day-long gaza massacre, the blockade was not lifted. it became more insidious. gaza’s infrastructure had been completely destroyed (including its schools and hospitals, its only flour mill and its cement mixing plants) and there was no way to repair it.

we then come to the gaza aid flotilla which was the 8th or 9th attempt to break the blockade. finkelstein refuses to believe that israel’s motive was anything but violence.

why did israel not disable the ship’s propeller or engine? why didn’t they block the flotilla with their ships? if they didn’t expect any resistance, why did they launch a commando raid at 4 am? why did they use a unit that’s trained to kill? why didn’t they bring journalists along to document everything?

finkelstein believes that the answer is two-fold:

1) israel wanted to restore its deterrence capacity. what does that mean? they wanted to re-instill “fear” in the arab world after their defeat in lebanon.
2) israel wanted to cut turkey down to size. let’s not forget that 60% of the passengers on the mavi marmara were turkish. 95% were muslim.

one of finkelstein’s most ominous predictions is that israel will launch a highly spectacular attack against lebanon in the next 12-18 months, in order to make up for a string of failures (israel’s defeat in lebanon in 2006, the invasion of gaza which was seen as cowardice rather than a show of strength, and the assassination of a hamas leader in dubai which created innumerable diplomatic embarrassments). such an attack would be in line with israel’s fear of a new encirclement (hamas, hezbollah, syria and iran). israel is likely to initiate such an attack. syria and iran are likely to join the fray for they know that if lebanon is destroyed, they will be next. finally, the united states will be pulled into such a war in order to support its ally in the middle east. a terrifying scenario.

finkelstein emphasized the historic achievement of the gaza aid flotilla. that the words “the israeli siege of gaza is unsustainable” have now become common currency, is on account of the heroism of activists. he urged the movement for palestinian rights not to be distracted by “side shows” such as the peace process – which has allowed the gradual annexation of the west bank (42% of it is now occupied). the peace process is just a facade for an annexation process.

during Q&A, finkelstein was obviously confronted with the “one-sidedness” of his arguments. his answer was simple:

1) don’t blame the messenger for the message. there are over 300 human rights reports on the gaza massacre. finkelstein has read up to 10,000 pages of them. they r all consistent. he just quoted from them.
2) look at some stats: 100 to 1 dead, 6,000 to 1 homes destroyed – yes, that is one sided.

the metaphor of a child burning ants with a magnifying glass was critiqued. also, it was observed that maybe the “magnifying glass” was being used to look for gilad shalit. finkelstein’s answer:

1) ur beef is with the israeli soldier who used this expression. he was in the field and this was his metaphor. u should argue with him.
2) the ratio of prisoners held by each side: one gilad shalit to 8,000 palestinians. finkelstein challenged the audience to come up with the name of just one palestinian prisoner. silence. he also questioned the motive of bombing flour mills, cement plants and hospitals all the while looking for shalit. it doesn’t compute.

the only thing i didn’t agree with was finkelstein’s stance on BDS. he said that it was appropriate to boycott products made in the settlements (in the occupied territories) but a broad boycott of everything israeli didn’t make sense. his view is that israel is as legitimate a state as any other and therefore such a broad boycott would be discriminatory. i found this to be a weak argument. south africa, india, pakistan, cuba, iraq and iran are all legitimate states just like any other, yet they have all faced sanctions at different times. thus, sanctions do not imply state illegitimacy. in the case of south africa, BDS was proven to be an effective tool against apartheid. i refuse to believe that israel is “unique” in this regard. what worked for south africa, should work for israel. countries that view themselves as first world democracies don’t like to be treated like pariahs. BDS is a powerful, non-violent, international citizens’ movement that bypasses complicit governments and demands change. it gives one hope.

finkelstein finished on an optimistic note. he said that the pace of change is always glacial. it doesn’t happen overnight. it takes place through the slow accretion of knowledge. he talked about facebook. he said he had heard wonderful things about it and activists should use all the media now available to them to organize and educate. he said that activism didn’t have to involve self-sacrifice. to be part of something bigger than oneself is not a sacrifice. it’s a thrill.

well, the fact that 400 people turned up to listen to finkelstein on a rainy thursday evening was a small sign that things might be changing.

i read akbar ahmed’s article a while back and found some of the things he said offensive. i kept it all inside. now he’s written another article in the washington post and i feel like i must vent.

…

How the Florida pastor and the New York imam can live their faiths
By Akbar Ahmed, Special to CNN, September 9, 2010

…

“In both venues, I was struck by how the two men appeared to be disconnected from the storms they have created, unaware of the sociological laws of cause and effect.”

in both his articles mr ahmed seems to be a big proponent of cause and effect. [from his second article: “But as a man who has been an administrator in the Muslim world I am also aware of the sociological laws of cause and effect.”]

what i find interesting then is that he refuses to (or is incapable of) talking about cause and effect when it comes to the mother of all events – 9/11 itself. 9/11 was not carried out in the name of islam. it was a political act, with political ramifications. altho what followed was framed as a clash of civilizations, it was hardly “religious” to attack the financial heart of american empire. just a few days after 9/11, susan sontag wrote a short and courageous piece in the new yorker in which she said:

The disconnect between last Tuesday’s monstrous dose of reality and the self-righteous drivel and outright deceptions being peddled by public figures and TV commentators is startling, depressing. The voices licensed to follow the event seem to have joined together in a campaign to infantilize the public. Where is the acknowledgement that this was not a “cowardly” attack on “civilization” or “liberty” or “humanity” or “the free world” but an attack on the world’s self-proclaimed super-power, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions? […] Those in public office have let us know that they consider their task to be a manipulative one: confidence-building and grief management. Politics, the politics of a democracy–which entails disagreement, which promotes candor–has been replaced by psychotherapy. Let’s by all means grieve together. But let’s not be stupid together. A few shreds of historical awareness might help us to understand what has just happened, and what may continue to happen. (The New Yorker, September 24, 2001)

so let’s stop talking about religion – let’s call that bluff. let’s start talking about politics.

“He [Rauf] has just arrived back from a partly taxpayer-funded outreach tour of the affluent Arab capitals.”

i found this to be a bit personal. rauf was sent on a cultural exchange mission by the u.s. state dept and that means what? that rauf can’t take a stand? mr ahmed has advised general petraeus, ambassador holbrooke, and michael chertoff on islam and foreign policy. i’m sure he was compensated with taxpayers’ money. is he being more patriotic than rauf by toeing the majority’s line?

“Two men of God [pastor jones and rauf], both believing that they are motivated by their faith, are adding fuel to the fire flaring around the religion of Islam in the United States today. They have approached their task from the opposite ends of the spectrum. Jones’ Quran burning means to expose what he calls the “evil” religion of Islam. Rauf wishes to create an Islamic center that would attract interfaith activities and promote understanding. The pastor’s purpose is to provoke; the imam’s to build bridges.”

ok. this i find most offensive. drawing any kind of comparison between jones and rauf is ridiculous. of course mr ahmed explains how they’re coming from two opposite ends of the spectrum (one is burning a holy book and the other one is trying to build bridges) but in effect he is v much drawing a parallel:

“Yet both have transgressed on civility in American society, a concept very important to the Founding Fathers.”

his analogy goes something like this:

even tho a murderer tries to take someone’s life, whereas a surgeon tries to save lives (and yes they r both coming from two opposite ends of the spectrum), yet somehow they r in the same boat. maybe they have both transgressed on god’s will (to either grant life or take it). say what? exactly.

“And Rauf has refused to bend to the sensitivities of those who believe that ground zero in New York is hallowed ground.”

oh, yeah. this part is even more offensive. this whole idea about ground zero being hallowed ground is irrelevant. why? because: 1) the islamic center is not being built on top of ground zero – no bodies r being disinterred. 2) there r strip clubs 2 blocks from ground zero and if they’re not disrespectful to those who were killed, then why should an islamic version of the ymca be?

hallowed means sanctified, consecrated. so what we’re saying is that anything islamic within a 2 block radius of that hallowed ground is like a slap in the face? because islam is such an infamy in that location? well, who’s to say islam or muslims won’t be an equal infamy elsewhere: don’t buy a house here – it’s too close to the church; don’t park ur car here – it’s too close to a cemetery where u.s troops r buried; don’t visit the pentagon – it brings back too many memories.

let’s remember that 1.57 billion muslims didn’t do 9/11. some disaffected militants did. they didn’t do it in the name of islam either. it was about american foreign policy – which sucks to this day and is frankly much more harmful to humankind and the earth than 9/11 could ever be. so the connection b/w 9/11 and an islamic center is illogical and racist to start with.

also, i’m sorry but it’s time to look at things in perspective – yes, 9/11 was horrible (my husband was working in nyc that day so i ought to know) but it was not the crime of the century. look at what we’ve done in iraq: one million people killed. can we wrap our minds around that? 5 million displaced. a country destroyed to such an extent that it will take 100s of yrs to build it back to what it was before the american invasion. what about fallujah, where people have been genetically mutated for generations on account of depleted uranium? women have been asked not to have babies. there r pictures and medical reports from intl agencies on the web. and all of this was unprovoked! based on lies and false slides presented to the u.n. how about grieving for the muslims of iraq? does it qualify as hallowed ground? or afghanistan, where we funded a decade long war with the soviets before we decided to occupy ourselves? every time 50 muslims get killed by mistake at a wedding party on the other side of the planet, does it even register? can we feel what it must be like for a mother to pick up the charred remains of her children and bury them? this happens daily in afghanistan, not just on one day.

there is plenty of grief to go around in the world. we r paying for much grief, much death, much torture being perpetrated on muslims right now. how many more lives, how much more blood, how much more hate will it take to quench our thirst for revenge? as americans we so need to finally get over ourselves.

“I urge them [Jones and Rauf] to travel together to minister to the suffering people of Pakistan.”

alright, i agree with this. this is mr ahmed’s way of putting things in perspective. wish he had also talked about our war zones and the lives we’re destroying there – something we have the ability to stop right away.

…

On Faith Panelists Blog: National security does not “hinge” on mosque
By Akbar Ahmed, September 10, 2010

…

“When 75% of Americans are already against the mosque, this tragedy to me is counterproductive.”

mr ahmed keeps bringing up this 70-75%. first of all this controversy was created and fueled and funded by pamela geller and other marginal racists and haters. it is a non-issue as there is already a mosque closer to ground zero. so to cede to the national lowest common denominator is immensely sad – not just for rauf but for all americans who expect better from their country.

secondly, in matters of law and civil rights we do not take cues from the majority. majorities r known to lynch and segregate and harrass and vandalize. that’s why we have laws. in democracies, the rights of minorities r not determined by polling – they’re supposed to be protected by the state.

“For the imam to say that the national security of the US “hinges” on the building of the mosque makes little sense to me. He must plan for the immediate future regarding the mosque in the context of the United States and not link it to some theoretical or remote ideas of foreign policy and international relations. The problem is squarely situated in the United States and needs to be resolved here. Whether he shifted or changes his structure or comes up with any other solution, little will change in terms of the implications for American national security. However, to many Americans, the imam’s insistence on linking the construction of the mosque with “national security” appeared almost like a veiled threat.”

aie, aie, aie. the imam is just repeating what general petraeus and every other u.s. govt official has already said. and wasn’t general petraeus advised by mr ahmed?

“The [9/11] terrorist attack was basically planned, executed and funded by radical Pakistanis and Saudis.” – wtf! thomas friedman is tired of being a “sucker” but i think it’s the misguided readers of the nyt who should be tired of his sheer dumbness.

here is his article. the following is my response.

The u.s is being suckered.
the u.s. is an imperial aggressor conducting unwarranted wars and killing civilians, directly or indirectly, on a massive scale in countries that pose no threat to its citizenry.

We are paying Pakistan’s Army and intelligence service to be two-faced. Otherwise, they would be just one-faced and 100 percent against us. The same could probably be said of Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai.
the pakistani army has been america’s stooge since 1947 and hamid karzai is a puppet govt installed by the u.s.

China supports Pakistan, seeks out mining contracts in Afghanistan and lets America make Afghanistan safe for Chinese companies.
afghanistan is NOT safe, it was much safer under the taliban. karzai’s govt has hardly any influence outside of kabul. 70% of the country is still under taliban control.

china is not a military occupation force. they’re geographically located right next to afghanistan and pakistan and have had and will continue to have both business and security relationships with their neighbors. america is irrelevant.

Oil consumption, which indirectly helps to fund the very Taliban schools and warriors our soldiers are fighting against.
oil consumption is only part of the problem. the saudis don’t need to invest in taliban training. there’s plenty of hatred to go around w/o any taliban schools. its coming from american bombings, raids, detentions, torture – from our brutal occupation.

That terrorist attack was basically planned, executed and funded by radical Pakistanis and Saudis.
where the fuck did he come up with pakistan? i could stand up and say that the 9/11 attack was planned, executed and funded by the cia and mossad and be on equally firm ground.

The short answer is because Pakistan has nukes that we fear and Saudi Arabia has oil that we crave.
the govts in both pakistan and saudi arabia r owned by the u.s. – we don’t fear shit.

We hoped that building a decent democratizing government in Iraq would influence reform in Saudi Arabia and beyond.
friedman was one of the biggest cheerleaders for the iraq invasion and the neo-con idea of ending a state in order to rebuild it in our own image. one of his fake sense pronouncements: “two countries with mcdonald’s restaurants won’t go to war.” for that alone, friedman should be ex-communicated from serious journalism.

After expelling Al Qaeda from Afghanistan, we stayed on to stabilize the place, largely out of fears that instability in Afghanistan could spill into Pakistan and lead to Islamist radicals taking over Islamabad and its nukes.
al qaeda was never kicked out of afghanistan. al qaeda (or the 100 or so people believed to loosely represent it) is completely portable – they can move around. unlike american forces, they actually live in afghanistan. they have plenty of time to play hide and seek. the spilling over of the militancy/instability into pakistan it on account of american presence, not in spite of it.

The Pakistani Army is obsessed with what it says is the threat from India — and keeping that threat alive is what keeps the Pakistani Army in control of the country.
american sponsorship is what really keeps the army in control in pakistan – like all american-funded latin american military dictatorships.

The absence of either stable democracy in Pakistan or a decent public education system only swells the ranks of the Taliban and other Islamic resistance forces there.
the absense of a stable democracy in pakistan also has something to do with america’s support/preference for military dictators.

If Pakistan built its identity around its own talented people and saw its strategic depth as the quality of its schools, farms and industry, instead of Afghanistan, it might be able to produce a stable democracy — and we wouldn’t care about Pakistan’s nukes any more than India’s.
again, see above. as far as the nukes, the u.s. doesn’t fear them. they’ve known about them forever. they just use that card when needed. read seymour hersh’s article about how americans have an arrangement to deploy a special services unit to pakistan should an internal dispute in the country put the nukes at risk. basically, there is no risk. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/11/16/091116fa_fact_hersh

The al-Sauds get to rule and the Wahhabis get to impose on their society the most puritanical Islam — and export it to mosques and schools across the Muslim world, including to Pakistan, with money earned by selling oil to the West.
the sauds r best friends with the bushes. it’s like egypt. it’s not about oil, it’s about control over countries to the detriment of their people’s will.

So we pay Pakistan to help us in Afghanistan, even though we know some of that money is killing our own soldiers, because we fear that just leaving could lead to Pakistan’s Islamists controlling its bomb.
bullshit on account of all of the above.

We don’t have the money, manpower or time required to fully transform the most troubled states of this region.
what reprehensible, racist, neo con hubris – to want to “westernize” other countries out of compassion by destroying and then rebuilding them our way. yuck.

I am tired of being the sucker in this game.
and we r tired of ur stupidity and ur malignant political agenda.