Four Years Later, Regret

I don't want to write another post about the ill-advised invasion, or the miserable state of the occupation. I did a little of that a few weeks back, on the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. Today, on the anniversary of the fall of Baghdad, the day I literally felt my heart sink, I leave you with the reality of "liberation".

One way I have felt closer and more hurt by this war is because one of my closest friends is Iraqi. When her great aunt and uncle were brutally murdered in their home a few years back, I felt the reality of the numbers I heard everyday. When her recently wed cousin was also killed in Iraq, I did not know what to tell her. Today, she spoke to one of her cousins on the phone... a young girl who is too mature for her age, one of many that have become adults as a result of living through this war. Today, the 14-year old told my friend...

"I hated Saddam, I really did. He hurt Jido* a lot. But the day his statue came down in Baghdad 4 years ago, that's the day Iraq died. And thats the day we all died."

Another powerful account is that of a man who helped in the oft televised image of the Saddam statue being brought down by Iraqis and American soldiers. The Post profiles his story...

"We got rid of a tyrant and tyranny. But we were surprised that after one thief had left, another 40 replaced him," said Jubouri, who is a Shiite Muslim. "Now, we regret that Saddam Hussein is gone, no matter how much we hated him."

(*Jido: grandpa)

On the Egyptian Referendum and the DC Protest

A protest was held today in front of the Egyptian embassy in Washington, D.C. where activists gathered to voice their opposition to the constitutional amendments that seek to cement Mubarak's power and silence any opposition to his rule. It was a diverse group of activists in terms of nationality, age, gender, and profession, but all were united in their belief that the Egyptian president and his NDP are taking Egypt towards a path that can only lead to more autocracy and oppression. A letter to Mubarak was signed by the protesters and handed to embassy officials. For more details about the protest, check Nora's post. I'm glad I had the opportunity to attend even though it was not a large presence, but we were at least able to send a message to the embassy that these backward "reforms" cannot and should not be tolerated. The protesters chanted mostly in Arabic, with slogans like "down with Mubarak, father and son", "Egypt is not your father's ranch", and my absolute favorite, "Give Mubarak a visa, and take him, Condoleezza". They all sound much better in Arabic though, and the organizers did a great job of leading the chants, and even singing patriotic and revolutionary songs.

As for the referendum that took place in Egypt today, most non-official sources have indicated that the turnout most probably did not exceed 4%. Of course the official government line is that the turnout reached 23-27%. All opposition parties, including the Muslim Brotherhood, called on Egyptians to boycott the referendum because even if 99% of Egyptians voted NO, the amendments would pass.

Mike Hanna, Al Jazeera's correspondent, said the government "has made absolutely clear that it will regard a majority 'yes' vote as an endorsement of its constitutional amendments, regardless of how many people actually vote".

In fact, the NDP was in full force pushing Egyptians to go to the polls and "vote yes" for the amendments. Marc Lynch writes about the night before, linking to blogs that displayed memos sent to state employees urging them to vote YES in favor of the amendments. Lynch also gives an updated report about press coverage of the big day, which includes observations from people on the ground who reported a very weak turnout. Commentator Josh Statcher writes:

The Brothers basic argument today was that they were not protesting because if they did, the government would bring tanks on the street. Perhaps....but I suspect their calculation is that the regime is doing more harm to itself than if group comes out on the streets. Because If they did, it gives the government an excuse to distract attention away from how the whole amendment ordeal has been so blatently rigged. By doing nothing, the MB helps keep the pressure/focus on the state.

Perhaps, I am overanalyzing what was in many many respects a completely average day in Cairo during March. Not that I can prove this but well over 90% of Egyptians seemed to think the Amendment/Referendum process was a joke and it did not matter if they participated or not.

Flipping through some stations, I saw Egyptian state television displaying various reports "from the street" where they interviewed students and average citizens who of course expressed their support for the amendments and bashed those who didn't turn out to vote. Abdelmonem Mahmood, a young journalist and MB blogger, gives some reports about incidents at polling stations and how some people were brought by buses so they could vote YES.

I snapped a few pictures of the rally, and chose to focus more on the signs than the actual protesters. Check my Flickr page for more. There was a "relatively" large police presence considering there was only 20-25 protesters. There were 3 police cars stationed a few feet from the embassy entrance, and three police/security officers at the entrance as well. They didn't intimidate us or anything like that. Nothing, of course, compared to what Egyptian protesters have faced over the past few weeks in harassment, arrests, detentions, and torture.

The results of the referendum are to be announced tomorrow. I wonder if they will pass!

Protest Egypt's Constitutional Amendments in DC, Monday

On Monday, March 26th, Egyptians will be voting in a referendum on the constitutional amendments approved by the parliament that seek to cement the hold of Mubarak's NDP as the one and only party running the country. The amendments limit the freedom of citizens and parties to join the political process, and introduce draconian measures against alleged suspects of terrorism who will have to be tried in military tribunals behind closed doors. To protest these recent developments, there will be a rally held outside the Egyptian embassy tomorrow, Monday the 26th in Washington, D.C.


For more information, check Nora Younis' blog.

Let your voice be heard.

More Than Just "Stirrings" in Egypt

In case you've been living under a rock over the past few days (ie: watching/reading/listening to the American msm), I thought I would bring attention to the latest "birth pangs" of democracy on the Egyptian front.

In brief: the NDP (Mubarak's ruling party) introduced to the parliament amendments to the constitution that seek to cement their control and limit the ability of opposition parties to challenge the status quo. Parliamentarians from the opposition, mainly the Muslim Brotherhood along with some leftist parties, voiced their strong disagreement with the amendments and eventually decided to walk out and boycott the vote which ended up taking place, approving the amendments. Some protests followed, along with a security crackdown, and much speculation about the consequences and the next steps to be taken by the opposition. On March 26th, a national referendum will take place on the constitutional amendments.

The media in the US hasn't paid much attention to these important developments, but the blogosphere is rife with commentary, analysis, and up to the minute news on the situation. I highly recommend the following reads on the current situation in Egypt:

Egypt's Constitutional Showdown and Baathism on the Nile by Marc Lynch:

Amnesty International has described the changes as "the biggest threat to Egyptian democracy since emergency laws passed after the assassination of President Anwar Sadat by Islamist extremists in 1981." That's exactly right. I said this on Friday, but let me say it again, slowly. Mubarak is about to do exactly what he always accuses Islamists of secretly planning: won an election and then used his majority to abolish democracy.

Crackdown By a Clique by Abdel Moneim Abul Fotouh:

Stability cannot be achieved by depriving social and political leaders of civil justice. Nor can it be achieved by resisting democracy and excluding the largest political force in the country from political life. By closing the doors to dialogue, the state is opening a door to chaos and extremism. The consequences will be severe, not only for Egypt but for the entire Middle East.

A Parliament to Watch by Baheyya:

Obviously we’re still a very long way from a real parliament capable of both checking and bargaining with the executive and forging durable extra-parliamentary coalitions. But I can’t shake off the feeling that what happened Sunday portends something new, perhaps even the spark that may ignite the parliamentarisation of Egyptian politics.

Police Crackdown on Kifaya Demonstration by Hossam el-Hamalawy:

The Tagammu was under siege by un-bloody-believable numbers of black-uniformed CSF troops and plainclothes thugs, as well as Gestapo agents and uniformed police generals. In front of the building gate there was a crowd of 200 (mainly left-wing) demonstrators, chanting “Down with Mubarak! Down with State Security!”

Burying Democracy Further in Egypt by Amr Hamzawy and Dina Bishara:

By resorting to outright repression of the Brotherhood, Mubarak is making a mockery of the American push for democracy in the Middle East. Turning a blind eye toward the ongoing crackdown undermines the credibility of an already shaky American commitment to democratization in the Middle East. It also cements the perception among Egyptians that Washington blesses autocratic regimes.

Also on the recent history of Egypt's Kifaya opposition movement is Anthony Shadid's two-part series that ran a few days ago in the Washington Post:
Imagining Otherwise in Egypt
Egypt Shuts Door on Dissent as U.S. Officials Back Away

Four Years Later

Hundreds of thousands dead.
Millions displaced, internally and externally.
Homes burned, mosques destroyed, schools bombed, markets attacked, lives destroyed.
Corruption rules. The kidnappers rule. The murderers rule.
Welcome to Iraq, four years after liberation.

53% of Iraqis have a close friend or relative who has been hurt or killed in the war violence.
86% worry about a loved one being hurt.
51% say they try to avoid leaving their homes.
70% report multiple signs of traumatic stress.

In November 2005, 63 percent of Iraqis felt very safe in their neighborhoods. Today just 26% say the same.
33% don't feel safe at all.
In Baghdad, 84% feel entirely unsafe.
In 2005, 54 percent said their power supply was inadequate or nonexistent; now it's up to 88%. In 2005 just 30% rated their economic situation negatively. Today it's 64%.

75% say they lack the freedom to live where they wish without persecution, or even to move about safely.
48% cite security as the single biggest problem in their lives, up from 18 percent in 2005.

97% of Sunni Arabs and Shiites alike oppose the separation of Iraqis on sectarian lines.

42% think their country is in a civil war; 24% more think one is likely.

Three in 10 say they'd leave Iraq if they could.

[source 1, 2]

Letters to the editor, on the 4th anniversary

At the anti-war protest this weekend in Washington, D.C.:


My thoughts on the 3rd anniversary of the war (and pictures)

Obama in Town

I guess he's always "in town" since he works right around the corner, in the Senate, but last Friday, he was at George Mason University for a rally sponsored by Students for Barack Obama. I was invited to this event through Facebook, and since GMU is my alma mater, the political junkie in me just had more reason to spend my Friday standing up for a couple of hours so I can see Mr. Obama for about 20 minutes. Thankfully, he did make an appearance, and gave a moving speech about the way he grew up and how that has influenced his plans to run for president in order to take the country off the disastrous path it is on now. I won't go into much detail, because the speech is of course available for your viewing pleasure on YouTube.

But I would like to note something interesting about this event that will surely have an influence on the whole 2008 election process. The event, as I mentioned, was organized by SFBO, and the event was advertised primarily through a Facebook event page. If you don't know what Facebook is, well, there's not much hope for you. No really, it's a social networking site that began on the college level and has now expanded so that anyone can sign up. It's the 7th most visited site in the US, with more than 7.5 million users and 20,000 new members joining everyday. The fact that such a political event was organized through this website shows just how important new media will be in the upcoming elections. In the 2006 midterm elections, many candidates (or their staffers) created Facebook accounts, listing their political platforms, and other information that might attract young voters. Each Facebook account holder also had the opportunity to add certain "agenda items" that they considered important, such as "I support abortion" or "I oppose the war on Iraq". Your personal profile becomes a place for you to share your political opinions with friends and acquaintances, and a medium through which politicians can reach out to you. Candidates are also starting their own blogs in an attempt to tap into all forms of media to communicate with voters and potential supporters.

And of course, we all know the important role bloggers can play in reporting happenings, recording videos of events, and revealing information about candidates before the mainstream media can get to it. All it took was a YouTube video to bring down Republican Senator George Allen after the infamous macaca incident. In addition to recognizing the organizers of the rally, Senator Obama also recognized the creator of a Facebook group called "Barack Obama (One Million Strong for Barack)". It's really amazing how important these tools will become in the next few months leading up to the primaries and the elections. We will just have to wait and see who takes advantage of them most, and who does so successfully.

Until then, here are some pics and clips from the event taken by yours truly. (No, I didn't jump on stage after he finished talking, or race to grab his hand and get his autograph, or follow him out to his motorcade. Others definitely did, I witnessed. He was definitely a celebrity, and he knew how to work that crowd.)



You can watch the full video of the event here, or check the short clips below taken by me.

Iraq, After the Gallows

The world is still recovering from the hangover of Saddam's execution (no pun intended). With the leaking of a cell phone recording of the full hanging, more questions have been raised, and more people are angry with the way the cold blooded dictator was put to death. I've been following the reaction of the blogosphere in general, and the Iraqi blogosphere in particular, as well as other editorials in major newspapers around the world.

A great summary of the reactions of Iraqi bloggers to the hanging is provided by Iraq Slogger. While most of them agree that Saddam should have been put to death, nearly all condemn the way the execution was handled and indicate that such a shameful process does not bode well for the future of Iraq. Click here to read the full summary. (h/t Healing Iraq)

Sami - Iraqi Thoughts I am still shocked even after watching hours of TV. Its funny how as I grew up this was the man I hated most in my life and have always wanted him killed but for some reason the feelings of joy were not what I expected.

Iraq Pundit- Saddam has long been a dead man walking, and I don't care about him or whatever hell he has gone to. My concern is how his well-deserved execution will affect the continuing crisis in Iraq.

Dr Fadhil Badran (Iraq4Ever)- The assassination of Saddam Hussein has killed the last hope of peace in Iraq.

Treasure of Baghdad Although I expected it, I was shocked when I heard it. I felt I want to cry but my tears were mixed, tears of happiness and sadness at the same time. Memories of my life under Saddam flashed back in my mind like a train moving fast.

Meanwhile in Iraq, the killings and kidnappings have not stopped. Iraqi Konfused Kid provides a heart wrenching account of his friend's ordeal in attempting to save the lives of his brothers who have been kidnapped by militias. It's a must read.

But by far one of the best editorials I have read about the execution is Ghada Karmi's piece in the Guardian:

It was always clear that Saddam's fate was sealed from the moment US forces "got 'im", in Paul Bremer's tasteless phrase. He was to be used as a trophy of a mindless and catastrophic war, to redeem America's dented image. But it was also essential to stop him revealing secrets about the west's past enthusiasm in supporting and arming his regime. Hence he was tried on the relatively minor charge of killing 148 people in the village of Dujail, after a plot to assassinate him. Far better to put him away safely for that rather than risk his exposing western hypocrisy, treachery and double-dealing.

Also, today's New York Times editorial, "The Ugly Death of Saddam Hussein" hits the right note:

Saddam Hussein deserves no one’s pity. But as anyone who has seen the graphic cellphone video of his hanging can testify, his execution bore little resemblance to dispassionate, state-administered justice. The condemned dictator appeared to have been delivered from United States military custody into the hands of a Shiite lynch mob...

Most Americans, whatever their view of the war, understand that the rule of Saddam Hussein brought a murderous curse and untold suffering upon the Iraqi people. Mr. Hussein has now gone to his grave. But the outrageous manner of his killing, deliberately mimicking his own depraved methods, assures that his cruelty will outlive him.

Keith Ellison & Thomas Jefferson's Quran

Yes, Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of this nation, owned a Quran, the holy book of Islam. He was known to be an education man, well-traveled, and believed to have obtained the book because he had a personal interest in learning more about different cultures and civilizations. His copy of the Quran sits in the Library of Congress, including his own notes written in the book. At his swearing in ceremony, the first Muslim Congressman, Keith Ellison, has decided to use Jefforson's copy of the Quran.

Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, found himself under attack last month when he announced he'd take his oath of office on the Koran -- especially from Virginia Rep. Virgil Goode, who called it a threat to American values.

Yet the holy book at tomorrow's ceremony has an unassailably all-American provenance. We've learned that the new congressman -- in a savvy bit of political symbolism -- will hold the personal copy once owned by Thomas Jefferson.

"He wanted to use a Koran that was special," said Mark Dimunation, chief of the rare book and special collections division at the Library of Congress, who was contacted by the Minnesota Dem early in December. Dimunation, who grew up in Ellison's 5th District, was happy to help.

When Ellison announced that he will be using a Quran for the swearing in, some bigoted radio hosts and even congressmen objected, saying that such an act would be against tradition. Ironically, their statements are a slap in the face of our founding fathers who wanted independence so they can practice their religion free of any government or other intervention.

This is a very smart move on the part of Congressman Ellison who will be sworn in tomorrow with much attention focused on his faith. He made the right choice to remain steadfast in his desire to use the book he prescribes to and is bound to in such a ceremony. If he is expected to pledge allegiance to this country and his new position, he should do so in a manner that makes him comfortable. Condemning him for making such a choice when other representatives have chosen to use Bibles, Torahs, or no book at all, is purely discriminatory and is against the most fundamental rights this country is based upon.

Thomas Jefferson's copy of the Quran shows that although we have come a long way in developing our democracy, it is still the case that we have many individuals who choose to be impediments in the way of securing personal freedoms which every American is entitled to. These are the people we must be vigilant of, not those who choose to swear on their holy books.

Read the full Washington Post article here, and this from Reuters.
Related post: "We Don't Need Any More Muslim Congressmen"

We Don't Need Any More Muslim Congressmen

Definitely none that will take their oath on the Quran. That's what a Congressman from southern Virginia, Rep. Virgil Goode Jr, wrote in a letter to his constituents criticizing the influx of immigrants into this country and indicating that an open immigration policy will only lead to more Muslims becoming members of Congress. Fortunately, most of the public has expressed disapproval of Congressman Goode's remarks. The Washington Post lead editorial today lambastes the congressman for his bigotry:

BIGOTRY COMES in various guises -- some coded, some closeted, some colossally stupid. The bigotry displayed recently by Rep. Virgil H. Goode Jr., a Republican who represents a patch of south-central Virginia, falls squarely in the third category. Mr. Goode, evidently in a state of xenophobic delirium, went on a semi-public tirade against the looming peril and corrupting threat posed by Muslim immigration to the United States. "I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America," he wrote in a letter to constituents.

The inspiration for Mr. Goode's rant is Keith Ellison, a Minnesota Democrat who last month became the first Muslim elected to Congress. Mr. Ellison, who was born in Detroit and converted to Islam in college, has decided to use the Koran during a ceremonial swearing-in, as is his constitutional right. This does not sit well with Mr. Goode, who, obnoxiously referring to his congressional colleague-to-be as "the Muslim Representative from Minnesota," warned ominously that current immigration policy would lead to an outbreak of elected Muslims in this country and unfettered use of the Koran.

Forget that Muslims represent a small fraction of immigrants to America. And leave aside the obvious point that Mr. Goode was evidently napping in class the day they taught the traditional American values of tolerance, diversity and religious freedom. This country's history is rife with instances of uncivil, hateful and violent behavior toward newcomers, be they Jewish, Irish, Italian or plenty of others whose ethnicities did not jibe with some pinched view of what it means to be American. Mr. Goode's dimwitted outburst of nativism is nothing new.

No, the real worry for the nation is that the rest of the world might take Mr. Goode seriously, interpreting his biased remarks about Muslims as proof that America really has embarked on a civilizational war against Islam. With 535 members, you'd think that Congress would welcome the presence of a single Muslim representative. Whether it can afford a lawmaker of Mr. Goode's caliber is another question. [emphasis added]

The Council on American Islamic Relations the Muslim American Society's Freedom Foundation have called upon the congressman to retract his statements and apologize. So far, he has stood by what he wrote.

We have a long way to go before we can preach tolerance and democracy to the world.

For more on the subject:

Rep. Goode's Letter

CAIR Questions GOP Silence on Rep's Islamophobic Remarks

Keith Ellison Responds

Goode Defends His Letter

VA Lawmaker's Remarks on Muslims Criticized

Abu Mazen's Coup D'état

No matter how you look at it, the Palestinian president's announcement that he is planning on holding early legislative and presidential elections in the Occupied Territories, is at best an attempt to seriously undermine the democratically elected government and at worst an attempt to overthrow it. Since the constitution does not stipulate what the procedures would be in the case where a 'no confidence' measure is to be taken, president Abu Mazen has decided that he can interpret it in his favor since he is the executive, albeit one who does not seem to want to let the workings of democracy take root.

The constitution does not indicate that the president has the right to call for early elections, but it does not indicate that he cannot call for them either. Abbas sugar coated his decision by indicating that this is the choice of the people, and that he wanted to give them the opportunity to express their choices through the ballot box. However, as the author of this article states, this decision is purely anti-democratic and against the basic laws of the PA:

The Palestinian President relied on what he regarded as one of his constitutional rights by virtue of the second article of the Palestinian Basic Law, which stipulates that the 'people are the source of legislative, executive and judicial authority'. He expressed his desire to leave the choice to the Palestinian people to decide the fate of the legislative and executive authorities.

But the view of the Palestinian President is constitutionally deficient. The phrase 'people are the source of authorities' means that it is the people who elect their representatives in such authorities through public elections on the scheduled time. But to leave the door open for the people to choose their representatives at any time they want, or at the time the President wants, runs contrary to the spirit of constitutional law of any country.

Abbas's comments were purely inflammatory and as the president of a people already plagued with war and poverty, he should have known better than to make such statements that will only divide the Palestinian people at a time when they long to be united. Nevertheless, I don't think that the situation will "erupt into civil war" as the mainstream media would have us believe. Why don't they use those same words with confidence when speaking of Iraq?

It is worthwhile noting that the reactions to the call for early elections have been mixed. One poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research among Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza depicted these mixed reactions:

48% believe the government should resign, 47% believe it shouldn't.
61% support holding early elections, 37% oppose.
56% believe that the president has the right to call for early elections, 38% believe he does not.

If parliamentary elections were held today:
42% would vote for Fatah
35 % for Hamas
12 % for independent lists
10 % undecided

If presidential elections were held today between these two candidates:
46% for Mahmoud Abbas (Fatah)
45% for Ismail Haniyah (Hamas)

Public dissatisfaction with Abbas is up 15% compared to three months ago.
Public dissatisfaction with Hamas is up 9% compared to three months ago.

The margin of error is 3% which means that the race for president is at a dead heat, if those two candidates were to run together. As of today, Hamas has said that it would boycott such elections because they are illegal and unconstitutional.

However, if Hamas does decide to participate in the next elections, and is defeated by Fatah, this story will become a perfect example of how Islamists will always fail in a democratic environment. Never mind the fact that they were isolated by the entire world, leaving their population starving and their leaders begging for cash.

Let me say this, Mr. Abbas: at least the leaders in place today are willing to put their lives on the line in order to bring back money into the territories to keep the government running and keep the people alive. This is the exact opposite of what you and your cohorts did when you stuffed the dollars down your throats, vacationed in France and built mansions in undisclosed locations.

It seems like Abbas and Dahlan are desperately missing the cash that used to flow between their fingers. I don't blame you. I'd want early elections too.

Saturday: Protest Gaza Seige @ Dupont Circle

This Saturday December 2nd is the international day of action against the Gaza Siege. There will be peaceful protests held around the world in coordination with the main one being held in Tel Aviv. Check this website for information about events in your city, or organize one yourself. For those in the DC area, the protest will be held on Saturday at 12 noon in Dupont Circle. For more information on this protest, click here.

Saturday, December 2, 2006

12:00 noon

Rally at Dupont Circle

Speakers:

Rev. Walter E. Fauntroy, (invited)

Former DC Delegate to the US House of Representatives

Dr. Mark Braverman,

Partners for Peace, and Washington Interfaith Alliance for Middle East Peace

Huwaida Arraf,

Co-founder, International Solidarity Movement

Yonatan Shapira,

Israeli Refusenik, Co-founder, Combatants for Peace

Mai Abdul Rahman

American Palestinian Women’s Association, President and WIAMEP, member

Washington DC Rally Sponsored By:

Washington Interfaith Alliance for Middle East Peace, the Coalition for Justice and Accountability, Save Gaza and the DC Anti-War Network (DAWN)

Dupont Circle, intersection of Massachusetts and Connecticut

Easily accessible through the Dupont Circle Metro stop on the Red Line

For more information or to sponsor, call 1-888-810-6202 or relamine@yahoo.com

Be there. It's the least we can do to speak out against the injustice being inflicted on Gazans.

Random News Stories

Hunger has been eradicated in the US. Yes, you heard me right. We no longer have a problem called "hunger." It's now called "low food security". The people at USDA are geniuses, really. Now the homeless man in front of my office will be saying, "Hi, I'm hungry suffering from very low food security, can you spare a dollar?"

You know there is something either seriously wrong with CNN or seriously wrong with some of my fellow Americans when you see this headline on their website: Woman Microwaves Baby. It was on the homepage yesterday. Sad, sad world.

Does something happen to politicians after they leave office? Because it seems to me that they start making sense only when they're not in office. Powell now says Iraq is in a "civil war." Or maybe they just have more freedom to speak their mind when they leave.

And to stop North Korea from nuking the world, the Bush administration has thought of a genius plan: no more iPods for Kim Jung Il. Yeah, don't dream of them buddy. We're not going to sell them to you! Nana nana na naaaaa!

Did you know Matt Lauer is 48?! Am I the only one who thought he was 35 or something like that? His make up artist must be good.

Talking About Palestine and Israel, in America

A few interesting articles caught my attention over the past few days, all related to the way Americans talk about the "Israel Palestine issue". That's about the only similarity between these articles; one about pro-Israeli evangelicals, another about a former president's view of Israel, and the last about college students bickering about the conflict.

David D. Kirkpatrick writes in the New York Times today with a provocative headline, "For Evangelicals, Supporting Israel is 'God's Foreign Policy' ". Kirkpatrick discusses the rise of popularity of pro-Israeli evangelical Christian groups recently, especially during the war on Lebanon this past July. One such group--the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews-- ran commercials on Fox News network asking viewers to donate to help Israelis hurt by the war.

The response, mainly from evangelicals, “burned out the call centers,” Mr. Eckstein said. During the five-week war, his group added 30,000 new donors. Thanks to the influx of money, he said his organization has exceeded its income from the first 10 months of last year by 60 percent, putting it on track to pull in $80 million this year. “The war really generated a momentum,” Mr. Eckstein said.

On the other side of the spectrum, former president Jimmy Carter is feeling the heat even before his new book-- entitled "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid"-- was released today. Pro-Israeli groups pounced on the opportunity to start a smear campaign against anyone daring to question Israel's apartheid-like occupation of the Palestine territories. American politicians didn't hesitate to make statements criticizing the book (before reading it) and its author for such a characterization of the Jewish state.

Two key party leaders — Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, party chairman, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi — and several congressmen issued statements Monday saying that the book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” does not represent their views on the Jewish state.

“It is wrong to suggest that the Jewish people would support a government in Israel or anywhere else that institutionalizes ethnically based oppression, and Democrats reject that allegation vigorously,” Pelosi wrote in a statement. “With all due respect to former President Carter, he does not speak for the Democratic Party on Israel.” [h/t www4report]

(Side note: If you just now realized that Nancy Pelosi's position as the new Speaker of the House won't do the Palestine issue any good, feel free to go cry in the corner). The politicians do not even attempt to give the book a chance and wait to read it then refute its arguments. Even this Israeli reporter notes the futility in arguing against characterizing Israel as an apartheid regime (although he goes on to criticize Carter's use of the word in terms of "the context and bigger picture").

Apartheid is the worst word one can use against Israel and stay within the boundaries of legitimacy. Using analogies to Nazi Germany - as some anti-Israel activists have done in the past - is unacceptable. Using words like Occupation is not strong enough to earn any attention. Carter pushed the envelope just a little bit futher, but got the effect he wished to have: Anger, controversy, political turmoil, hurt feelings. Arguing about Apartheid is pointless. There is enough material evidence to prove that apartheid exists in the occupied territories in one form or another. If you argue about the use of this word, you lose. If you argue that Israel is blameless you also lose.

Finally, a lengthy article in the Boston Globe today looks at the dynamics of discussions on this conflict across college campuses in the US. Jake Halpern writes that the issue of Palestine and Israel is simply "Too Hot to Handle", even though more controversial issues such as race and homosexuality are more openly broached without the same intensity among college students.

The question for students and administrators at Brandeis, UC Irvine, Penn State, and other schools is this: Why is it so hard to talk about Israel in an open, civil, and constructive manner? After all, our college campuses have long provided a forum for discussing the nation's most divisive and controversial issues - including date rape, racism, abortion, and gay rights. So why, exactly, is the subject of Israel so difficult to discuss?

The Holy Land has never been an easy topic of conversation. The fact that three of the world's major religions all have a large spiritual stake in the city of Jerusalem, Israel's capital, guarantees that virtually every young person with an opinion has something to say on the fate of this place. But why is the topic especially contentious right now?

The answer in part is that Christian, Jewish, and Muslim college students are more organized than they ever have been - and more outspoken, especially when it comes to Israel.

This is indeed true that many American students are more aware and engaged in what is going on in the region, and have put their energy into organizations that support their views and allow them to express their opinions on the conflict. It is also the case that pro-Israeli student groups receive a lot of funding and training from national organizations such as AIPAC and ADL, in addition to having Hillel's resources at their disposal, despite the fact that the latter is predominantly a religious organization and ideally should not engage in all this politics. The work of pro-Israeli groups is thus more organized and much better funded than that of pro-Palestinian groups which nonetheless are generating a lot of discussion about the occupation and American support for it despite the intimidation they face from some hard-line pro-Israel groups and university administrators.

[photo courtesy: Amazon]
[technorati tags: evangelical, Palestine, Israel, Jimmy Carter, apartheid, college, Hillel, AIPAC]

Israel Doesn't Just Destroy Lives

It destroys history too. During their vicious rampage in Beit Hanoun, the Israeli Occupying Forces managed to bring to the ground an 800 year old mosque.

The An-Nasr mosque in Beit Hanoun, which was completely destroyed by the Israeli shelling during the invasion of Beit Hanoun, is a historic mosque that was built 800 years ago.

The imam of the mosque, Sheikh Shihda Abu Zreiq, told Ma'an on Friday that the occupation has ruined "the house of God", which was built in the year 637 according to the Islamic calendar, following the 'Um An-Nasr' battle between the armies of Sultan Mahmoud Qutob and the Crusaders' armies in the area between Gaza City and Asqalan (today's Ashkelon). The Muslim armies triumphed in the battle.

If a Palestinian rocket destroyed a small insignificant synagogue, what would the world's reaction be? Not to mention an 800 year old synagogue...

"This mosque is more than 800 years old. It is part of our heritage and thousands of people visited it every year," laments Akram Abdel Jawd Qassam, whose family have been caretakers of the holy site for half a century.

"The Jews want to destroy everything. Even our heritage and our history. It’s a tragedy," adds the old man.

"They said there were fighters in the mosque but they are liars. I have the keys and it was closed. They occupied my house for two days and never asked me to open the doors to show them that it was empty," he said.

Just another day in the Occupied Territories...

[photo: Ma'an News]

It's the War, Stupid.

Cover of The Independent, Nov. 9th.

[hat tip: Tworset]

51 to 49; Democrats Control Senate

It's official. Republican incumbent George Allen has conceded that he lost the election for Virginia's top congressional seat to Democrat Jim Webb. The majority of the senate hinged on the tight race in Virginia, which some thought would end up in a recount because of how close the vote was. Jim Webb won by a slim 0.3% margin, a little more than 7,000 votes in a predominantly and historically Republican state. Last night, the Associate Press called the seat for Webb. Today, Allen's concession makes it official.

Republican Sen. George Allen conceded defeat Thursday to Democrat Jim Webb, sealing the Democrats' control of Congress and the political downfall of a man once considered a White House contender.

Allen said the "owners of government have spoken and I respect their decision." "The Bible teaches us there is a time and place for everything, and today I called and congratulated Jim Webb," he said.

Webb, a former Republican and Navy secretary under President Reagan, claimed victory early Wednesday after election returns howed him with a narrow lead of about 7,200 votes out of 2.37 million ballots cast. llen chose not to demand a recount after initial canvassing of the results failed to significantly alter Webb's lead.

"I do not wish to cause more litigation that would not alter the results," Allen said, adding that he saw "no good purpose being served by continuously and needlessly expending money and causing any more personal animosity."

The Virginia contest was the last undecided Senate race in the country, and Webb's victory tipped the scales, giving the Democrats control of 51 Senate seats and majorities in both the House and Senate for the first time since 1994.

AP: Webb Wins, Dems Take Control of Senate

The latest from the Associated Press declares that the Democratic party has gained control of the Senate with the winning of Democrat James Webb over Republican incumbent George Allen in Virginia. The AP's declaration that Webb has won is based on the following:

The Associated Press contacted election officials in all 134 localities where voting occurred, obtaining updated numbers Wednesday. About half the localities said they had completed their postelection canvassing and nearly all had counted outstanding absentees. Most were expected to be finished by Friday.

The new AP count showed Webb with 1,172,538 votes and Allen with 1,165,302, a difference of 7,236. Virginia has had two statewide vote recounts in modern history, but both resulted in vote changes of no more than a few hundred votes.

An adviser to Allen, speaking on condition of anonymity because his boss had not formally decided to end the campaign, said the senator wanted to wait until most of canvassing was completed before announcing his decision, possibly as early as Thursday evening.

The adviser said that Allen was disinclined to request a recount if the final vote spread was similar to that of election night.

George Allen has not conceded yet, but he might make an announcement as early as tonight. The loss of a historically Republican state such as Virginia is a stinging defeat for the Republicans.

Stay tuned, I'll updating as much as possible tonight.

You Rock Virginia!

[by the way, it's interesting that I heard this first on Aljazeera's 9PM EST broadcast, before CNN, FOX, or ABC had it on their websites]

BREAKING NEWS: Rumsfeld Resigns

From the AP:

President Bush said Wednesday Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is stepping down and former CIA Director Robert Gates will take over at the Pentagon and in prosecuting the war in Iraq.

Rumsfeld, architect of an unpopular war in Iraq, intends to resign after six stormy years at the Pentagon, Republican officials said.

The development occurred one day after midterm elections that cost Republicans control of the House, and possibly the Senate, as well. Surveys of voters at polling places said opposition to the war was a significant contributor to the Democratic victory.

Bush described Rumsfeld as a "superb leader" in a time of change, but said his defense chief recognizes the value of "fresh perspective." He said Rumsfeld is a "trusted adviser and friend," and that he's "deeply grateful" for his service to the country. Bush said he and Rumsfeld agreed that "the timing is right for new leadership" at the Pentagon.

American politics is so entertaining!

Latest Results from VA Senate Elections-- Webb vs. Allen

I'm hooked on the VA General Elections website that updates the results every few minutes or so. This is so nerve racking! So far Webb, the Democratic candidate, has been trailing by less than 1%. I'll keep updating this as it changes:

9:52 PM, 88% reporting: Allen leading by 0.4%

9:56 PM, 90% reporting: Allen leading by 1.3%

10:00 PM, 90.3% reporting: Allen leading by 1.23%

10:02 PM, 91.53% reporting: Allen leading by 0.84 % (yessss, please keep going down!)

10:20 PM, 92.63% reporting: Allen leading by 0.96 % (nooooooo!)

10:40 PM, 94.31% reporting: Allen leading by 0.55%

10:56 PM, 95.6% reporting: Allen leading by 0.62%

People, we're talking about less than ONE percent here! We're talking about RED hot Republican majority Virginia where only a few weeks ago Allen had a SIXTEEN percent lead over Democrat Jim Webb. If the result difference turns out to be less than 1 percent, the candidates can ask for a recount. If the difference is less than 0.5%, the state pays for the recount.

This is a nail biter!

11:24 PM, 97.26% reporting: Allen leading by only 0.31% (I can't tell you how exciting this is!)

11:48 PM, 97.67% reporting: Allen leading by only 0.13% (ahhhhhh!)

With less than 2% of precincts left, here's some of my analysis. As you can see here, the only localities left with significant votes to be tallied are:
Prince William County, Fairfax City, and Richmond City. All of these localities are leaning (some heavily) to the Democratic side, which means this could really make the difference for Webb! When he came on tv a little while ago, he said that they are confident that out of the votes left to be tallied, most will be in his favor.

Now, at 12:00 AM, with 99.10% reporting, Webb is trailing by ONLY 0.07%!

12:42 AM with 99.26% reporting, Democrat Jim Webb is now leading by 0.08%! (yes I'm still up!)

***As of 10:01 AM*** Wednesday morning, with 99.84% reporting, Democrat Jim Webb is leading by 0.30%. Late last night, Webb declared victory while Republican incumbent George Allen has refused to concede. The votes are indeed too close to call and a recount looks eminent. If that does happen, the votes will likely take weeks to be recounted and verified and the majority of the Senate might hinge on these results.

Who knew that good old Virginia could be interesting?!

[technorati tags: elections, midterm, Congress, Allen, Webb, Virginia]

Meanwhile in Iraq...

The threat letters are everywhere...

"Warning.. Warning.. Warning. To the worshippers of the Sajjad mosque: Beware of coming near this mosque, or your fate will be death. Woe to the unjust. Death to transgressors. Damn you, lackeys of the occupiers."

"Warning. Warning. Warning. To the Palestinian traitors who allied themselves with Wahhabis, Takfiris, Nawasib and Ba’athist Saddamists, especially those who inhabit the Dar Al-Shu’oun area: We warn you that we will eliminate you all if you do not leave this area entirely within 10 days."

"As a result of the criminal and sectarian behaviour of what is called (the disgraceful) Jaish Al-Mahdi and (the treacherous) Badr forces by killing, kidnapping and deporting the Sunni community (at Mahmoudiya, Rashidiya, Sha’ab, Shu’la and Hurriya), as well as violating the honour of Sunnis and plundering their possessions, the organisation has decided, Inshallah, to return the strike twofold and treat them the same (an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth). It has been decided to deport you from Sunni areas, including Ghazaliya, within 24 hours, or otherwise your heads will be cut off, the same as your militias act with members of the Sunni community. He who has warned is henceforth excused." [Healing Iraq]

The "secterian violence" continues...

Iraqi police found 60 bodies dumped across Baghdad in the 24 hours until Tuesday morning, all apparent victims of sectarian death squads, a grim reminder of the spiraling communal bloodshed that has killed thousands.

A bomb placed under a car near a Sunni mosque in the southern Baghdad district of Doura exploded at midday, killing 10 people, police said. [Reuters]

Yet another Republican Senator on Iraq:

It seems to me the situation is simply drifting sideways," Warner told reporters after completing his eighth trip to Iraq. "It was a markedly different trip from ones before. We just did not have the freedom and ability to travel where I have been before." [Chicago Tribune]

While our young Americans are dying for Bush...

The US military is suffering one of its worst weeks since the invasion. Fourteen US troops have been killed since Monday. The military says that's the highest three-day total so far. A military spokesperson attributed the deaths to a record number of bomb attacks on US troops. Meanwhile a new poll by the veteran advocacy group VoteVets.org has found nearly two thirds of troops who've fought in Iraq and Afghanistan believe the military is overextended. [Democracy Now]

In Iraq, school is out...

Iraq's school and university system is in danger of collapse in large areas of the country as pupils and teachers take flight in the face of threats of violence.

Professors and parents have told the Guardian they no longer feel safe to attend their educational institutions. In some schools and colleges, up to half the staff have fled abroad, resigned or applied to go on prolonged vacation, and class sizes have also dropped by up to half in the areas that are the worst affected. [Guardian Unlimited]

In Baghdad, no family is spared...

The brother of Iraq's Sunni Arab vice president was assassinated yesterday by gunmen who broke into his home, the third of the politician's four siblings to be slain this year. Sunnis blamed Shi'ite militias and demanded a crackdown to stop the sectarian violence raging in the capital.

Iraqi authorities, meanwhile, arrested the head of the mess hall at a base where as many as 400 mainly Shi'ite policemen suffered food poisoning during a Ramadan meal in what may have been the first known attempt by insurgents to carry out a mass poisoning against police. [Boston Globe]

But in Washington, a "Day of Celebration" is in the works...

Tucked away in fine print in the military spending bill for this past year was a lump sum of $20 million to pay for a celebration in the nation’s capital “for commemoration of success” in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Not surprisingly, the money was not spent.

Now Congressional Republicans are saying, in effect, maybe next year. A paragraph written into spending legislation and approved by the Senate and House allows the $20 million to be rolled over into 2007.

The original legislation empowered the president to designate “a day of celebration” to commemorate the success of the armed forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, and to “issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe that day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.” [NYTimes]

And there you have it folks. This is Iraq. Not Condi's Iraq. Not Rumsfeld's Iraq. Not Bush's Iraq. Not Fox News' Iraq.

[technorati tags: Iraq, war, Bush, John Warner, civil war]