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)

Political Satire...The Arab Way

At least her video has a... "message."



(Hat tip: Leila)
More about the video: Juan Cole, Abu Sinan

Al-Arian Speaks Out, Continues Hunger Strike

The case of Dr. Sami Al-Arian has been covered more than once on this blog, and unfortunately I must continue to write about the case while this innocent man is still languishing in prison. This time, however, I will not write much about the case, but let Al-Arian speak for himself. Last Wednesday, Amy Goodman hosted him on Democracy Now, making it the first time Al-Arian appears in a broadcast interview in four years.

Goodman interviews Al-Arian, his attorney, and his daughter, all of whom shed light on the current conditions Sami is facing, the way the government has been denying him his rights, and the future of the case. You can read the transcript, or listen to the podcast on iTunes (Feb.7th episode). It's really worth it to hear the details of this case directly from Al-Arian, the hunger strike he has started, and the impact it has had on his family.

As for the hunger strike Al-Arian started on January 22, community members and his supporters are now also participating in a rolling hunger strike to bring attention to the injustice taking place in his case. The Muslim American Society's Freedom Foundation is calling on everyone who supports human rights, freedom of expression, and due process, to support Sami by participating in the rolling hunger strike and to take action by writing to the judge presiding over the case, attorney general Gonzalez, Senator Leahy, and their own congress members asking them to end the suffering Al-Arian is facing. Fellow bloggers at KABOBfest had their own "KABOBfast" in support of Al-Arian last week.

More:

• TruthDig Article on Sami Al-Arian, Feb. 11th.
• Free Sami Al-Arian Website
• Democracy Now! Exclusive Interview with Al-Arian

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" -MLK, Jr.

Keith Ellison Responds, Swears on Jefferson's Quran

Yesterday, January 4th, Representative-elect Keith Ellison was sworn in as the first Muslim Congressman. He placed his right hand on a copy of the Quran owned by one of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson. As noted in my earlier posts, Ellison has come under heavy attack for choosing to swear on the Quran because he is a Muslim. But in a savvy move forecasting his political wit, Ellison chose to shut the critics up by using Jefferson's Quran as a symbol of the man's open-mindedness and level of education compared to the bigots who roam the airwaves and even the chambers of Congress today. In a powerful editorial posted yesterday on the Washington Post's "On Faith" forum, Keith Ellison tells the American people to "Choose Generosity, Not Exclusion." It's a must read.

We need a politics of generosity based on the reality of abundance as opposed to a politics of not-enough. The richest 1 percent of the nation, on average, owns 190 times as much as a typical household. The child poverty rate in the United States is the highest of 16 other industrialized nations. Employers are shifting health insurance costs onto workers. Not only are fewer employees receiving health insurance through their employers, but those who still do are paying more for it.

Recently, I have become the focus of some criticism for my use of the Qu'ran for my ceremonial swearing in. Let me be clear, I am going to be sworn into office like all members of Congress. I am going to swear to uphold the United States Constitution. We seem to have lost the political vision of our founding document -- a vision of inclusion, tolerance and generosity.

I do not blame my critics for subscribing to a politics of scarcity and intolerance. However, I believe we all must project a new politics of generosity and inclusion This is the vision of the diverse coalition in my Congressional district. My constituents in Minnesota elected me to fight for a new politics in which a loving nation guarantees health care for all of its people; a new politics in which executive pay may not skyrocket while workers do not have enough to care for their families. I was elected to articulate a new politics in which no one is cut out of the American dream, not immigrants, not gays, not poor people, not even a Muslim committed to serve his nation.

Kudos to you, Mr. Ellison.

Photos of the ceremony:

Keith Ellison (D-MN) places his hand on an English translation of the Koran once owned by Thomas Jefferson and held by his wife Kim (C) as he is sworn in as the first Muslim member of Congress by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi on Captitol Hill in Washington, January 4th, 2007. REUTERS/Jim Young


Rep. Keith Ellison, places his hand on the Quran once owned by Thomas Jefferson as his wife Kim Ellison holds the two-volume book during his swearing in ceremony, Thursday, Jan. 4, 2007, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington. (AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari)

James H. Billington, the Librarian of Congress, left, joins Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., as they look at the Quran once owned by Thomas Jefferson which Ellison later used during his swearing in ceremony at the U.S. Capitol, Thursday, Jan. 4, 2007, in Washington. (AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari)

The Quran once owned by Thomas Jefferson and used by Rep. Keith Ellison, is displayed at the Library of Congress , Thursday, Jan. 4, 2007, in Washington. (AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari)

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"

Saddam Hanged, Part II

It's nearly impossible to avoid the news of Saddam's execution over the past few days. Every blog I visit, every channel I watch, every newspaper I flip through, every conversation I have has involved the fate of the former Iraqi dictator. I wrote my last post about the hanging before I had seen the images of Saddam being taken to the gallows. Since then, a lot of feelings have come over me, the most prominent of which is an utter sense of hopelessness and mild disgust.

I'm disgusted with the videos which I don't believe should have been made public by random individuals who were present at the execution. I'm disgusted with the chants I heard while Saddam was being hanged; individuals calling out the name of Muqtada Al-Sadr, for example. I'm disgusted with the "houses of mourning" for Saddam that sprung up in different parts of the Arab world. There's a lot to be angry about right now.

Trying to take it all in, I'm starting to realize how much of a negative impact this event will have on the future of the Iraq that is already in shambles. Many questions come to mind when I think of what has happened over the past three and a half years in Iraq. Sanctions, weapons, lies, invasion, victory, capture, elections, trial, chaos, conviction, civil war, hanging.

Saddam Hussein deserved to die, and all Iraqis deserved to see the man who tortured them given the justice he deserves. All is a key word here. Not just the supporters of Al-Sadr, and Al-Maliki. But every single Iraqi, because they all suffered under his rule. Unfortunately, the occupation in Iraq has succeeded at intensifying the sectarian differences between Iraqis, and they have used Saddam as a tool for that. He has been portrayed as the representative of the Sunni population, although he abused any Sunni and any Iraqi who did not bow down to his commands. Projecting the hanging as a victory for only some Iraqis is wrong, but it is the only way to succeed in "dividing and conquering" what is left of Iraq. If Iraqis were united at this time, Saddam's hanging would have been much more meaningful. Instead, it has become an event that will only exacerbate the existing tensions between the population.

Saddam should not have been hanged until he was tried for every crime that he was accused of. Executing him after only one trial related to his Shiite victims, and ignoring the Kurds and Sunnis who were oppressed by this man can only be explained in one way. The trial, conviction, and sentence of Saddam Hussein was meant to divide the Iraqi people and not unite them against him. Iraqi Sunnis became synonymous with him which is baseless lie. As I mentioned before, every Iraqi suffered from him, and his victims from all sects and ethnicities should have been avenged through his trial and even present at his hanging. The fact that Moqtada Al-Sadr's loyalists were even able to penetrate what should have been a highly secure execution. Instead of chanting against the dictator and for a better future for Iraq, they chanted the name of a man who is a divisive leader of a militia responsible some of the chaos and not a uniting force in Iraq.

Finally, the fact that he was quickly executed while his trial on other charges has just begun raises many questions. Was the US afraid of a trial that would reveal that Saddam received his chemical weapons from them? Did they not want to hear Saddam say that they had secretly given him the green light to invade Kuwait? Did the US not want to highlight to the world the fact that they were silent while Saddam gassed the Kurds?

Too many questions, not enough answers. The only thing clear today is the bleak future of Iraq. I'll leave you with excerpts of some interesting articles on this subject.

The Los Angeles Times Editorial says the execution has become irrelevant today:

It is absurd to regret the death of a man so brutal. His removal from power was heartening to defenders of human rights everywhere. Yet it's worth asking, as U.S. troops go on heightened alert in Baghdad, whether Hussein's death represents progress or yet another anticlimax for Iraq. When his regime was toppled in the spring of 2003, and again at his ignominious capture three years ago, Iraqis and U.S. troops — not to mention Washington policymakers — allowed themselves to hope that they had reached some kind of turning point in the war.

No one voices such unrealistic optimism anymore. Hussein's irrelevance was one of the main achievements of the war in Iraq. It is also one of the main reasons why that war continues.

This from the New York Times article, "Hussein Divides Iraq, Even in Death":

Almost four years after United States troops entered Iraq with a broader foreign policy goal of ushering in a “new” Middle East, one built on democracy and rule of law, the execution of Mr. Hussein on one of the holiest days in Islam marked the unceremonious demise of that strategy, many Arab analysts said.

“If you compare the results to the objectives the U.S. claimed to realize, whether it was democracy or control of the region, their policies have evidently failed,” said Nawaf Kabbara, professor of political science at Balamand University in Beirut. “They were not able to spread democracy, control anything or make any serious breakthrough. It is a failure on all levels.”

As vicious as he was, Mr. Hussein also held the country firmly together. Beyond military control, there was a subtle social glue: Iraqis of all sects loved to hate Saddam together. Now that he is gone, Shiites are afraid to joke with Sunnis about him, and Sunnis feel they are being blamed for his crimes.

Others, namely Kurds, opposed the quick hanging. Now, Mr. Hussein will not testify in other important genocide cases, especially the trial over the Anfal military campaign against the Kurds, in which he is accused of unleashing mass killings and chemical attacks that killed tens of thousands of villagers.

“The truth of what happened in al-Anfal has been buried,” said Abu Abdul Rahman, a 38-year-old Kurdish taxi driver. “What happened in al-Anfal? Who took part in it?”

Mr. Hussein may be gone, but the fear that succeeded him is what defines her life today.

“Where can I live, if Baghdad is divided?” she said in English. “In the Shiite sector or Sunni sector?”

“I have to run away. It’s not a place to live in anymore.”

And this also from the NYT, "For Arab Critics, Hussein's Execution Symbolizes the Victory of Vengeance Over Justice":

“Saddam Hussein was guilty a thousand times over, but still the Americans and the Iraqi government managed to run a shabby trial,” said Jihad al-Khazen, a columnist and former editor of the pan-Arab newspapers Al Hayat and Asharq al Awsat. “If they organized a fair trial with international observers that could have served as a model for other countries. Instead they messed it up, and I think Saddam in the eyes of many people will now be seen as another martyr.”

Egypt + Guns + Fatah = Trouble

News from the Occupied Palestinian territories gets more depressing and more interesting by the hour. The latest are reports that Egypt has sent a hefty arms shipment to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah affiliated security forces, with the approval and support of the US and Israel. Abbas had met with Israeli PM Ehud Olmert a few days earlier.

Egypt has sent a large quantity of arms to the forces of moderate Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas's Fatah party with the help of Israel, an Israeli official said.

"In coordination with Israel, Egypt delivered a large quantity of guns and munitions to the Abbas forces," the official told AFP, asking to remain anonymous.

The Haaretz daily meanwhile reported that "a load of 2,000 Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifles as well as 20,000 cartridge clips and two million bullets were transferred to Fatah's armed groups in the Gaza Strip, in coordination with the Israeli army."

Israeli public radio reported that there would shortly be another delivery of weaponry to Abbas's forces in the West Bank, this time from Jordan. [AFP]

These steps seem to follow an expected route since the coup that Abbas attempted last week when he announced his intention to call for early presidential and legislative elections in the territories, effectively sidelining the ruling Hamas party. Since then, it has been clear that Abbas was given the green light for this by the US as American officials expressed support for his declaration. It is no coincidence either that Abbas was hosted by Israeli PM Olmert a week later for some unexpected and somewhat secretive discussions.

Abbas's Fatah affiliated security forces are known to have been heavily involved in much of the violence that has been taking place in Gaza and the West Bank for the past two weeks between various Palestinian factions, armed groups, and criminal gangs resulting in a shameful display of Palestinians shooting and punching one another. The shipment of arms to a corrupt security apparatus like Fatah's can only cause more trouble for the already instable territories.

Instead of calling on Israel to stop its settlement expansion, incursions, wall construction, and the occupation altogether, Egypt has gone on attacking the democratically elected government which Hamas now heads. So much for the "only democracy in the Middle East" and the "champion of democracy around the world."

It is very amusing to see how the Israeli government flip-flops with regards to its relationship to Fatah, condemning them when they want, and supporting them when they want. These days, Fatah represent the "forces of peace":

Amos Gilad, head of political military policy at the Defense Ministry, told Israel Radio on Thursday that the assistance provided to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas' Presidential Guard is aimed at reinforcing the forces of peace in the area.

"The assistance is aimed at reinforcing the forces of peace in the face of the forces of darkness that are threatening the future of the Middle East," Gilad said, commenting on the news of an arms transfer from Egypt to Palestinian security forces, first published in Haaretz Thursday morning. [Haaretz]

I guess this is what they call "democracy promotion."

All together now, D-E-M-O-C-R-A-C-Y!

On a side note, I wasn't pleased when I heard that Palestinian PM Ismail Haniyeh was going on a trip to preform the Hajj. I'm pretty sure he's already preformed this religious duty, and even if he hasn't, right now is not the time to be leaving your people to fend for themselves for personal trips. Let's not take the Fatah route, shall we? Just because you're going to Hajj, doesn't make it different from Fatah officials' trips to Paris and Milan, even though we know you won't be going to splurge in Mecca.

God I wish I could go train these politicians. I'll give you a discount, what do you say?

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.

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]

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]

More News on Attempts to Kill Habeas Corpus

Here are some more articles and commentary on the military commissions bill being debated in the Senate right now. If you haven't called your Senator today to ask them to defend the writ of habeas corpus, please do so ASAP because the vote will likely take place today. See my earlier post for more details.

Molly Ivins: Habeas Corpus, R.I.P. (1215 - 2006)

Boston Globe: Legal Residents' Rights Curbed in Detainee Bill

LA Times: Don't Suspend Habeas Corpus

WP: Rights Groups Decry US Senate Bill on Detainees

MSNBC: Specter to Press for Detainees' Habeas Corpus Rights

Znet: Indefinite Detention and Torture: A Political and Moral Mistake

[technorati tags: writ, habeas, corpus, Bush, civil rights, senate]

Save the Writ of Habeas Corpus!

Recent news about the compromise on the military commissions bill that was debated in Congress has focused on article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and relevant US military stipulations regarding torture of detainees. A very critical section of the bill that has not been discussed by the media is the abolishment of the writ of habeas corpus for anyone in the US who is not an American citizen. The passage of this section of the bill would be a disaster for civil and human rights advocates across the US. Abolishing the writ of habeas corpus is slap in the face of the founding fathers of this country. While the bill has passed in the House, it is still up for debate in the Senate, and we still have a chance to try to stop it from passing!

What is the writ of habeas corpus?

A writ of habeas corpus is a court order addressed to a prison official (or other custodian) ordering that a detainee be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he or she should be released from custody. The writ of habeas corpus in common law countries is an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.

This is what the Supreme Court has said about the write of habeas corpus:

the Supreme Court has "recognized the fact that`the writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.' Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 290-91 (1969). " Therefore, the writ must be "administered with the initiative and flexibility essential to insure that miscarriages of justice within its reach are surfaced and corrected." Harris, 394 U.S. at 291.

This is what Congress wants to do with the writ; from the Center for Constitutional Rights:

Congress is on the verge of passing a military commissions bill that would authorize the indefinite detention, without access to the courts, of immigrants detained inside or outside of the United States—even if they are not charged with any crime. What began as legislation to regulate the trials of men at Guantánamo has grown so sweeping that it would encompass any non-U.S. citizen picked up anywhere in the world, even permanent legal residents detained inside the United States. This is being voted on in the House of Representatives today and will likely be voted on in the Senate on Thursday. Senators Specter and Levin will be introducing a bipartisan amendment to remove a provision that denies these immigrants access to courts. It is essential that you call your Senators and Representatives and urge them to vote for the Specter Amendment to remove the jurisdiction-stripping provision from the military commissions bill. (more)

Please act now to ensure that out Constitution continues to protect all who reside in this country. Call your members of Congress immediately, especially those listed with contact information below.

Kent Conrad (ND) (202) 224-2043
Joe Lieberman (CT) (202) 224-4041
Ben Nelson (NE) (202) 224-6551
James Jeffords (VT) (202) 224-5141
Lincoln Chafee (RI) (202) 224-2921
Richard Lugar (IN) (202) 224-4814
Craig Thomas (WY) (202) 224-6441
Chuck Hagel (NE) (202) 224-4224
Lisa Murkowski (AK) (202) 224-6665
John Sununu (NH) (202) 224-2841
Peter Dominici (NM) (202) 224-6621
Gordon Smith (OR) (202) 224-3753
Arlen Specter (PA) (202) 224-4254
Daniel Inouye (HI) (202) 224-3934
Mary Landrieu (LA) (202) 224-5824
Ron Wyden (OR) (202) 224-5244
Olympia Snowe (ME) (202) 224-5344
Susan Collins (ME) (202) 224-2523
Carl Levin (MI) (202) 224-6221
Hillary Clinton (NY) (202) 224-4451
Richard Durbin (IL) (202) 224-2152
Harry Reid (NV) (202) 224-3542
John Kerry (MA) (202) 224-2742
Lindsey Graham (SC) (202) 224-5972
John Warner (VA) (202) 224-2023
John McCain (AZ) (202) 224-2235

We cannot continue to sit back and watch idly as the Bush administration and their cohorts in Congress tear apart our constitutional rights. If we don't defend our own rights, noone else will!

It only takes a few minutes to write an email or make a phone call to your Senators, but it will take years if not decades to bring back our rights if they are taken away.

[Feel free to repost this on your blog or send it as an email to friends and family. Let's get the word out!]

*Update*: There are some reports that the Senate will be voting on this early this morning, so please call early and call a lot!

[technorati tags: writ, habeas, corpus, Bush, civil rights, senate]