Rejected by the right, Western Muslims are only left with the left

 
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.5/10 (2 votes cast)

By Osama Diab

No Muslim in their right mind would support far-right Christian groups in the West, though they may well symathise with their Muslim equivalents elsewhere.

Tuesday 2 August 2011

I can still remember the excitement on the faces of many of my Egyptian friends when they learnt that, in 21st-century America, some still believe in abstinence and, despite all the freedom at their disposal, they choose to keep themselves ‘pure’ for their future spouses.

Many young Egyptian dream of an opportunity to start a life in an affluent Western society, but they are always worried about the cultural differences. Muslims are often concerned with what to expect if they tie the knot with a Westerner who might belong to a different faith or even to no organised religion at all, especially when it comes to the thorny question of raising children. Most importantly, many are concerned  about the discrimination they may face or how they may be made to feel like unwanted members of society amidst all the unfortunate events that have unfolded over the past decade, culminating with the recent attacks in the Norwegian capital, Oslo, which were carried out by a far-right fundamentalist Christian who was angry at Europe for accommodating so many Muslims who, in his view, threaten the continent’s Christian identity.

With so many questions running through the average pious Muslim’s head, it is understandable that many find the idea appealing that some in the West share the same values, especially regarding sexuality, gender roles, abortion, marriage and premarital sex.

However, what many don’t realise is that those who seemingly share the same values would probably belong to the far-right on the political spectrum. They are at best not particularly amused by the fact that they live side by side with Muslims, Arabs and immigrants in general, and some even resort to more violent means of expressing their hatred towards non-white and non-Christian minorities, such as Anders Behring Breivik, the perpetrator of the Oslo attacks.

Ironically, Breiviks’s views are in a way identical to those of conservative Muslims, the very same group he and his ilk are fighting. “Ladies should be wives and homemakers, not cops or soldiers, and men should still hold doors open for ladies. Children should not be born out of wedlock. Glorification of homosexuality should be shunned,” wrote the Norwegian terrorist in his 1,500-page manifesto, which he sent by e-mail to a mailing list of about a thousand addresses shortly before he carried out his attacks.

In contrast, those who defend multiculturalism, uphold the rights of minorities including Muslims, and express support for the Palestinian cause, are more left-leaning in their political views.

For conservative Muslims, the dilemma, again, is that these minorities, marginalised or vulnerable groups that leftists defend include – alongside Muslims – homosexuals, women, adherents of non-Abrahamic faiths and atheists. Likewise, for leftists – especially gay rights activists, feminists and atheists - the dilemma is that many of the Muslims they stand up for do not approve of their lifestyle choices or beliefs.

So should a conservative Muslim relate more to the camp that shares her/his values but cannot tolerate their presence, or with the camp that holds a fundamentally different set of morals but sees Muslim as a necessary thread in the colourful fabric of a multicultural society?

The US president, Barack Obama, a radical liberal by US standards, is a sign of shifting allegiances for at least American Muslims. US Muslims, who traditionally voted Republican, overwhelmingly voted for Obama, probably as a reaction to the acts and deeds of the George W Bush administration during their eight-year rule which involved two wide-scale wars against Muslim countries and the growing tension between “them” and “us”, as the former American president liked to put it.

In Sweden, it is believed that 80-90% of Muslims vote left-wing despite the fact that many of them do not hold leftist views. In the UK, Muslims have for long been more likely to vote Labour than Conservative and, despite the war in Iraq which was launched by a Labour government, most Muslims still see the centre-left party as the most friendly to Muslims in Britain.

Voting left is only normal since most far-right wing groups, as well as some more centrist right parties, have long been openly hostile towards Muslims. In May, the far-right group Ataka attacked Bulgarian Muslims performing their Friday prayers in the country’s capital, Sofia. British extremist right-wing white-only parties, such as the British National Party and the National Front, have been hard-line critics of non-European immigrants in general and the Muslim minority in particular, and always adopt programmes that have at their centre the “repatriation” of non-white immigrants.

This implies that most people would agree to make concessions in return for co-existence, especially when they are a vulnerable minority. Since most Muslims approve of liberal politics, despite not necessarily holding liberal views, when they are a minority, they would only be able to avoid accusations of hypocrisy if they apply their implicit approval of liberal politics in their Muslim-majority home countries. They should support the treatment of all minorities in Muslim-majority countries the same way they like to be treated as religious minorities in Western democracies.

This is not only common sense, but the Qur’an also confirms this concept. “Woe to those… who, when they have to receive by measure from men, they demand exact full measure, but when they have to give by measure or weight to men, give less than due.”

This article is part of a special Chronikler series on far-right extremism. Published here with the author’s consent. ©Osama Diab. All rights reserved.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.5/10 (2 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

Sexual harassment: I was harassed and I’m stupefied!

 
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (2 votes cast)

By Yosra Mostafa

Until the revolution in social attitudes comes, women should face their harassers with a loud voice and a shebsheb (a slipper).

Monday 20 June 2011

I went to Tahrir Square before, during the golden days of the revolution. It was too crowded, but I was not harassed. Yet on that particular Friday, when the country’s political streams were divided about going to Tahrir and the square was relatively spacious, I was harassed! 

Setting home, I said goodbye to my friends as we were going different ways and continued alone feeling no reason for worry at all. My friend said “God keep you safe” and I really wondered why she had said that. The world was a safe place to me. 

I had heard a lot of stories from friends and relatives about the rampant harassment on Cairo streets. Yet it has been a long time since I ever faced anything similar, and it was mostly nothing major, maybe because I haven’t really been using public transportations for a while. The two times when something remotely happened, I was either 19 or 20 and I kept away from a man who seemed to get closer towards me on the infamous CTA bus (which stands for Cairo Traffic Agency but commonly referred to those air conditioned buses which were notorious for these kinds of transgressions). Eventually, I’d move to another part of the bus while the man ,who is usually very cowardly, quickly gets off the bus, leaving the other passengers to wonder why the young woman changed seats.

But that was long ago and I was young and inexperienced. At least that’s what I thought. And here I am at 28 years of age and not so sure anymore. I used to reassure myself that if anything like that happens, I’m going to get the hell out of the harasser’s and gather an unmerciful crowd around him. I was no coward, I thought.

But on my way out of Tahrir that day, I walked in line to the exit. Usually, on other days, people respectfully left some distance and circled the women wherever they stood. And I was wary anyway. This time, however, when I felt a slight friction, I looked back and shunned the idea that anything untoward was happening. “I shouldn’t be paranoid,” I told myself. Then again, but the movement was too slight to notice. Then a fight erupted close to the line, and in the confusion of people thrust against each other, the man took more liberties to perform more filthy acts. I was sure then, but I didn’t know whether to worry about the crowds jostling in my direction or the man behind. In an instant,  he was thrust backwards and I was thrust forwards, and the people kept telling me, “come here, come here” and offering me space outside of this mess.

It was over in a flash, and I wished I could make my way back to this man and tear his head into pieces, but with that fight going on I could never get to him. I was left with the worst part: that same confusion of feelings that I would’ve probably felt when I was 19. That thought of “why did he do that?”. This feeling of guilt and wondering “was there something that brought this about on my side?”. And then the ultimate shock of having been so unable to react, despite having previously told myself that I would be so fast to act. And given the fact that I’m usually fast and furious, I can’t imagine how other women and younger girls would cope. This really was painful and humiliating.

I walked away, silently carrying this weight and, since police officers disappeared from the planet after the revolution, there was nothing to be done. And what would they do anyway. I had no proof whatsoever. Even the closest crowds would not have noticed the incident.

 Although a recent draft law proposed raising the penalty for sexual harassment to execution in some cases, as with many laws in Egypt, there would be tons of barriers to actually carrying out that law. And as more than one comment on this news story related to the law reveal, there is always the argument that a woman may only be claiming this to harm the man.

I would have ordinarily thought sexism was a far cry from this issue and that feminists were just exaggerating. But on one of her status updates, Egyptian activist and journalist Dr Nadia el-Awady, says that while furiously addressing a police officer, she was rebuffed with this macho declaration: “If you were are good woman, you wouldn’t talk to a man like that.” And the first impression one gets is that this man definitely thinks he’s her husband.

I have to admit that I felt safe when people encircled us, women, on Tahrir, to protect us on crowded days. But when this male guardianship on the street is about to turn a well-established country back to tribal laws, this phenomenon should definitely be considered and faced.

A friend of mine was wondering why this sort of degraded act did not occur on the “first days of Tahrir” and I told her it was because of the types of people who were there. It is not only sexual frustration that is behind this, as my friend and some guests in this al-Jazeera English show suggest. It may be a much deeper frustration with life in general. The people who were in Tahrir on the first days of the revolution were people who believed in a cause, and were positive about what they believed in. Many were probably not rich, or married, but they thought of something further than their groins.

As women confirm, many of the men who commit these horrors are not young or unmarried. The culprit in my case appeared to be well into his forties and men of that age are usually married in Egypt. Amazingly too, my sister was also once harassed by a young boy who was about eight.

And it may be worth mentioning that I cover up so well that I wear a face veil. So, no, it is not, as the MP on the same Aljazeera programme suggest, always related to what the woman wears.

 And because of all these accusations that harassed women may face, that it is all somehow their own fault, or maybe just out of shyness, I, like many women, did not mention the incident to people around me. Definitely, not to my husband, whose first reaction would have probably been, “See, you shouldn’t have gone to Tahrir.”

Until Egyptian society decides to go beyond its assumptions and prejudices, do more research, and carry out fair laws, women in Egypt will have to make do with a loud voice and a shebsheb. The loud voice theory – my own modest but mind you very important theory – maintains that these harassers are sick, cowardly people, and like dogs, they are drawn by their victim’s fear and driven away by confrontation. If you feel the slightest threat, you must protest early enough, loudly enough and strongly enough so that the aggressor flees and stops before going any further (my mistake in this case is that I didn’t do that).

 The shebsheb, which literally means a slipper, is the more informal – and oftentimes humourous – Egyptian way of settling all kinds of arguments in addition to humiliating the opponent. Remember Iraqi the journalist who hurled his shoes at George W Bush? Well, this something similar. So, besides their make up, mirror, and perfume, the recommendation is that, for now, every woman in Egypt must carry a little shebsheb in her bag, just in case there happens to be a trespasser on her private space and dignity. Isn’t that the perfect tool in a 2011 state of law!

This article is part of a special series on sexual harassment. Published here with the author’s consent. © Yosra Zoghby. All rights reserved

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (2 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

سبيل للخروج من فوضى الشرق الأوسط

 
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

يناقش خالد دياب بأن انتشار الأسلحة النووية سوف يستمر طالما استمرّينا في التعامل مع ترسانة إسرائيل النووية

5 May 2010

English version

إنه لتغيير مرحّب به أن يكون الرئيس الأمريكي باراك أوباما ليس فقط ملتزم بوقف انتشار الأسلحة النووية وإنما يدرك كذلك أن عدم انتشارها يبدأ في وطنه. مقارنة مع سابقه جورج دبليو بوش، الذي مزّقت إدارته العديد من المعاهدات التي وقعتها واشنطن حول الموضوع، وأعلنت عام 2003 أن الولايات المتحدة ستبدأ بتطوير جيل جديد من الأسلحة النووية الصغيرة “التكتيكية” والتي يمكن عملياً استخدامها في ساحة المعركة، وقّع أوباما معاهدة أسلحة نووية تاريخية مع روسيا.

تتميز هذه المعاهدة بقوانين غريبة في أعداد الأسلحة، وتبقى الولايات المتحدة وطناً لأكبر ترسانة نووية في العالم، والدولة الوحيدة التي استخدمت فعلياً القنابل الذرية في حروبها. إلا أن التزام واشنطن بترتيب بيتها الداخلي كان وراء النجاح النسبي لقمة الأمن النووي هذا الشهر، والذي حضره قادة من أكثر من 47 دولة.

وقد لوحظ غياب إيران، التي عقدت اجتماعاً بديلاً خاصاً بها حول نزع السلاح. ورغم أن هذا اللقاء أبرز نفاق القوى النووية في عدم رغبتها الالتزام بوضوح بنزع الأسلحة النووية، إلا أن التجمع لم يفعل سوى القليل لإزالة مخاوف واشنطن فيما يتعلق بطموحات إيران النووية. ورغم أن طهران تدّعي أن برنامجها النووي هو للاستخدامات المدنية فقط، إلا أن الطروحات العدائية للنظام الإيراني، وبالذات باتجاه إسرائيل، شجعت مخاوف بعض ذوي العلاقة من أن إيران تنوي سراً صنع قنبلة نووية.

كان غياب رئيس وزراء إسرائيل أمراً ملحوظاً آخر في قمة أوباما. كان بنيامين نتنياهو قد رفض الحضور، مشيراً إلى مخاوف من أن تتعرض بلده لانتقادات الدول العربية والإسلامية، وبالذات تركيا ومصر. إضافة إلى ذلك، قاوم وزير الدفاع إيهود باراك نداءات متجددة لإسرائيل بالانضمام إلى معاهدة منع انتشار الأسلحة النووية. وهي الدولة الوحيدة في الشرق الأوسط التي لم توقع على المعاهدة.

لم تذكر لا مصر ولا تركيا إسرائيل، رغم أن الوفد السعودي وصف الترسانة النووية الإسرائيلية على أنها “عائق أساسي أمام تحقيق الأمن والاستقرار في الشرق الأوسط”.

وهو على حق. فرغم أن إسرائيل ما زالت مصرة على تبني سياسة الغموض الرسمية، يقدّر الخبراء أن الدولة حصلت على قدرات نووية بعد حرب عام 1967 بفترة وجيزة، وأنها تملك اليوم حوالي 200 رأس نووي حربي، مما يضعها بين الدول النووية الستة الأولى، بعد المملكة المتحدة.

تشكل ترسانة إسرائيل النووية فيلاً مشعّاً في الغرفة، وتؤخّر جهود تحويل الشرق الأوسط الملتهب إلى منطقة منزوعة السلاح النووي، وتوفر لجيرانها حافزاً للحصول على قدرات خاصة بهم.

لا يحتاج الأمر لذكاء خارق لإدراك أن ترسانة إسرائيل النووية تجعل من الشرق الأوسط مكاناً أكثر خطورة وقابلية للانفجار. ويدرك حتى أصدقاء إسرائيل ذلك. على سبيل المثال توقَّع تقرير لوكالة الاستخبارات الأمريكية عام 1963 بأن إسرائيل نووية سوف تستقطب المنطقة وتزعزع الاستقرار فيها، وتجعل على الأرجح “سياسة إسرائيل مع جيرانها … أكثر صعوبة”.

كذلك تطرّق التقرير لمخاطر حاضرة، مثل سعي عربي محتمل لقوة “ردع” خاصة بهم. ومن الأمثلة على ذلك برنامج ليبيا النووي السري، الذي وافقت طرابلس على تفكيكه في كانون الأول/ديسمبر 2003. وكان الرئيس الليبي معمر القذافي قد أعرب منذ سبعينات القرن الماضي عن رغبته في الحصول على قدرات نووية، جزئياً بهدف مجابهة إسرائيل.

وطالما تتمسك إسرائيل بترسانتها النووية فلن يذهب شبح انتشار الأسلحة النووية بعيداً. تدفع الحكومات العربية ومعها إيران منذ ثلاثين سنة على الأقل باتجاه شرق أوسط خالٍ من الأسلحة النووية. لا يمكن بالطبع تناسي أن بعض الحكومات تحفزها على ذلك عدم القدرة وليس المبادئ، أو قد تجد القضية النووية أداة دبلوماسية مفيدة ضد إسرائيل.

رغم ذلك، إذا كانت إسرائيل قلقة من إيران نووية، أو احتمالات حصول أنظمة أخرى في الشرق الأوسط على القنبلة الذريّة، فإن أفضل طريقة لتجنب ذلك هو إطلاق دائرة فعّالة بأن تعرض التخلي تدريجياً عن ترسانتها النووية وتوقيع معاهدة شرق أوسط خالٍ من أسلحة الدمار الشامل، مثلها مثل بقية الدول في المنطقة، مقابل تأكيدات إيرانية راسخة تحت إشراف دولي.

ولتحقيق ذلك، يمكن إنشاء منبر إقليمي يسبق المعاهدة، برعاية الوكالة الدولية للطاقة النووية والأمم المتحدة، وربما الاتحاد الأوروبي والولايات المتحدة للاتفاق على آلية شفافة ثابتة عادلة لفتح المرافق النووية في المنطقة أمام إشراف دولي محايد. تقوم هذه المبادرة بالتفاوض على برنامج زمني للإلغاء التدريجي للترسانة الإسرائيلية وأي برنامج ثنائي الاستخدام مشكوك فيه، وفي الوقت نفسه توفير دعم دبلوماسي وأمني لإزالة مخاوف الإسرائيليين وغيرهم من اللاعبين الإقليميين.

This article was written for the Common Ground News Service and was published on 29 April 2010.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

A way out of the Middle East’s critical mess

 
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (2 votes cast)

By Khaled Diab

As Barack Obama seeks to tackle the proliferation of nuclear weapons, it is high time for Israel to dismantle its nuclear arsenal.

5 May 2010

Arabic version

It is a welcome change that US President Barack Obama is not only committed to halting the spread of nuclear weapons but realises that non-proliferation begins at home. In contrast with his predecessor, George W Bush – whose administration tore up many of the treaties Washington signed on the subject and announced, in 2003, that the US would start developing a new generation of small ‘tactical’ nuclear weapons which could actually be used during battle – Obama has already signed a landmark nuclear arms treaty with Russia.

This treaty has peculiar counting rules and the United States does remain home to the world’s largest nuclear arsenal and is the only country to have actually used atom bombs in warfare. Yet Washington’s renewed commitment to get its own house in order were behind the relative success of the Nuclear Security Summit earlier this month, which was attended by leaders from more than 47 countries.

Noticeably absent was Iran, which held its own alternative meeting on disarmament. Although this meeting highlighted the hypocrisy of the nuclear powers in their unwillingness to commit clearly to nuclear disarmament, the gathering did little to alleviate Western fears regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Though Tehran claims that its nuclear programme is exclusively for civilian use, the strident rhetoric of the regime, particularly towards Israel, has fuelled fears among some actors that Iran is clandestinely trying to build a bomb.

Israel’s leader was another noticeable absentee from Obama’s summit. The Israeli premier Binyamin Netanyahu had refused to attend citing fears that his country would be singled out for criticism by Arab and Muslim nations, especially Turkey and Egypt. In addition, Defence Minister Ehud Barak resisted renewed calls for Israel to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is the only country in the Middle East that is not a signatory.

In the event, neither Egypt nor Turkey mentioned Israel, although the Saudi delegate did describe the Israeli nuclear arsenal as “a fundamental obstacle to achieving security and stability in the Middle East”.

And he has a point. Although Israel still maintains an official policy of ambiguity, experts estimate that the country acquired a nuclear capability shortly after its 1967 war and today possesses up to 200 nuclear warheads, putting it among the top six nuclear nations, just behind the UK.

Israel’s nuclear arsenal stands like the radioactive elephant in the room, hindering efforts to transform the potentially explosive Middle East into a nuclear weapons-free region, and provides its neighbours with a motive to acquire their own capabilities.

In fact, it’s not exactly rocket science figuring out that Israel’s nuclear arsenal makes the Middle East a more dangerous and explosive place – even Israel’s friends recognise this. For example, a 1963 CIA report predicted that a nuclear Israel would polarise and destabilise the region and would probably make “Israel’s policy with its neighbours … more, rather than less, tough”.

The report also touched on the attendant dangers, such as a possible Arab quest for their own “deterrent”. An example of this dynamic in action is Libya’s clandestine nuclear programme, which Tripoli agreed to dismantle in December 2003. As early as the 1970s, Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi expressed his desire to obtain a nuclear capability partly in order to counteract Israel’s.

And, as long as Israel holds on to its nuclear arsenal, the shadow of proliferation will not go away. For at least 30 years, Arab governments, as well as Iran, have been pushing for a nuclear weapons-free Middle East. Of course, it cannot be dismissed that some governments are motivated by a lack of ability rather than principle,  or may find the nuclear question a useful diplomatic tool against Israel.

Nevertheless, if Israel is concerned about a nuclear Iran, or the possibility that other regimes in the region will acquire the bomb, the best way it can avert this is to set in motion a virtuous circle by offering to phase out its nuclear arsenal and to sign up, along with all the other countries in the region, to a WMD-free Middle East Treaty, in return for cast-iron Iranian assurances under international supervision.

Towards this end, a pre-treaty regional platform – under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN, and possibly the EU and the US – could be set up to agree a transparent, consistent and fair mechanism for opening up the region’s nuclear facilities to impartial international supervision. This initiative would  negotiate a timetable for the phasing out of the Israeli arsenal and any other suspect dual use programmes, while providing diplomatic and security support to assuage the fears of Israelis and other regional actors.

This article was written for the Common Ground News Service and was published on 29 April 2010.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (2 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

What about the Western warlords?

 
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

By Khaled Diab

Cherie Blair’s chastisement of the African Union for not co-operating with the International Criminal Court is pretty rich coming from the wife of a man many believe is a war criminal.

18 July 2009

Cherie Blair's article

Cherie Blair's article

Lightly disguised under her maiden name which she uses for professional purposes, Cherie Booth, the wife of former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, took the African Union to task on Saturday in The Guardian over its decision not to co-operate with the International Criminal Court (ICC) – and, by implication, not to assist in executing the indictment of Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir. She wrote:

 The truly disheartening part of this resolution is that it is backed not just by those countries who have opposed the ICC from the start but also by those – the majority on the African continent – who have signed the Rome treaty [establishing the ICC].

Yes, I too find it a terrible shame that African – and Arab – countries have shown solidarity with a war criminal. I even wrote a column about it for The Guardian in April. I concluded:

There is a widespread belief that, in the ugly balance of reality, African and Arab lives are worth less than Western ones. But by expressing solidarity with a known mass murderer, Arabs and Africans are also cheapening the value of their own lives.

Booth expresses a similar frustration: “It is disheartening to see politicians showing their solidarity with the Bashirs of the world rather than with the victims of mass rapes, murders and mutilations.”

Had this article come from someone else, I would’ve found it easier to swallow. But this person expressing how “depressing” and “disheartening” those benighted Africans are just happens to be the wife of a man widely perceived as a war criminal, one of the worst living warlords in the West (I’ve outlined before the powerful case for indicting both George W Bush and Tony Blair for war crimes and crimes against humanity).

 Well, Cherie, how do you suggest we should feel towards people who not only show “solidarity” but actually share a house with an alleged war criminal? Should we find that equally “depressing” and “disheartening”?

Naturally, no wife is her husband’s keeper nor vice versa; and I don’t hold Cherie responsible for Tony’s war-mongering. But surely a woman of as much conscience as she professes should take a moral stand against injustice wherever it is perpetrated. After all, as a barrister, Cherie Booth QC should be aware that justice is blind.

If she feels unable to speak up for justice at home, then I would advise Ms Booth to keep her opinion on this matter to herself because Africans will undoubtedly find it pretty cheeky that the wife of the co-author of the Afghan and Iraq catastrophes should condemn their inaction.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

Shock and awe on a shoestring

 
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

By Khaled Diab

An Iraqi journalist expressed his contempt for President Bush in a manner familiar in the Arab world: by throwing his shoes.

December 2008

Muntadar al-Zeidi will go down in the annals of popular protest as the man who kissed the Bush presidency goodbye by hurling his shoes at the outgoing president. On Sunday, the Iraqi journalist who works for al-Baghdadia television, an Iraqi-owned station based in Cairo, stood up during a joint press conference with Iraqi premier Nuri al-Malaki, and threw his shoes at Bush on behalf of the “the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq”.

 While throwing your shoes at someone would be considered insulting in any culture, in the Arab world, the gesture has a special potency: footwear is commonly used to deliver both verbal and physical insult. In Egypt, for example, many popular and colourful insults include the mention of shoes: “You son of a shoe”, “You have shoes for brains”, “You’ll follow me like an old shoe”, etc.

 Although their offensiveness is largely lost in translation, delivered in Arabic they are a sure-fire way of getting people’s backs up. But why this obsession with shoes? Does it reflect a weird foot fetish? One shoe-lover I know found the whole episode a terrible waste of a pair of perfectly good shoes.

 Their offensive power probably has something to do with the lowly status of the shoe, which resides, downtrodden with its face in the dirt, all the way at the bottom of the clothing hierarchy. That’s why worshippers leave their shoes outside mosques.

 That is probably why hot-blooded working class Egyptian women sometimes take off their shoes or slippers to hit men who harass them on the street: to show that the man belongs in the gutter and is not worthy of contempt. Bizarrely and inexplicably, slapping someone on the back of the neck and calling them a “nape” (‘afa) is also a huge insult.

 “This is your farewell kiss, you dog!” al-Zeidi yelled, delivering a second insult, popular in Arabic. In English, there is a gender distinction, while “bitch”, for some reason, is an insult, dog is often a term of endearment, such as “son of a dog”. But English speakers should beware that the same does not hold in the Arab world. If you call someone “Ibn kalb”, you’re insulting both the person and his forebears.

 The reason could be a difference in cultural perceptions, while dogs in the Anglo-Saxon world are widely seen as “man’s best friend”, in the Muslim world, dogs are regarded as impure animals and usually not kept as pets, except for security purposes. Other popular insults involve mothers and fathers, genitalia and graphic sexual acts, as in many other languages, and, as the word ‘swearing’ in English implies, religion, such as “Curse the religion of your father”.

 While this ‘shoe incident’ is little consolation for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have suffered under the crush of the Bush administration’s boots, many Arabs are applauding al-Zeidi’s audacity. Let’s just hope that journos will not, as a consequence of this isolated act, be forced, under new Homeland Security regulations, to remove their shoes before entering White House briefings and other presidential media events.

 Al-Zeidi has been arrested for his act. Of course, had he caused Bush physical injury, he could’ve been charged for that. But his action was essentially one of freedom of expression, which includes the freedom to cause offence. If President Bush believes in any of his own rhetoric, he should join the chorus of voices calling for the journalist’s immediate release.

 

This column appeared in The Guardian Unlimited’s Comment is Free section on 15 December 2008. Read the related discussion.

This is an archive piece that was migrated to this website from Diabolic Digest

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Tags: , , , ,

Related posts

Justice, the American way

 
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

By Khaled Diab

Is there any chance that George W Bush will ever face indictment for his alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity?

January 2009

In the court of popular global opinion, George Bush and the other architects of the invasion and occupation of Iraq – including the vice-president, Dick Cheney, and the former defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld – are widely viewed as war criminals. That is one reason why last month’s famous shoe-throwing incident was greeted as a heroic act of defiance by millions. But will this symbolic booting-out be the only consequence Bush will face for his dire actions, or is there hope that justice can be served for the many victims of his war-mongering?

All indications point to the probability that when Bush hands over the reins to Barack Obama on 20 January, he will not only get off scot-free, but he will also thrive. Like his father before him, and despite his own dismal business track record and allegations of murky dealings, he may well pursue a lucrative career in the influence-pedalling industry as a “consultant” for investment and oil companies.

But wouldn’t it be great if, rather than spending his post-presidential silver years cashing in on his stint in the White House, he would be made to pay for the crimes against humanity he instigated?

Before we consider the possible avenues to justice, let’s briefly recount the various charges against him. Most fundamentally, the Bush administration’s decision to invade two sovereign nations unprovoked should be enough to indict him under international law, although the situation is a little more blurred in the case of Afghanistan under the Taliban. And protestations of ‘pre-emptive’ defence hold no legal water.

Benjamin Ferencz, a Nuremburg chief prosecutor, expressed his opinion that Bush’s 2003 war of aggression against Iraq constituted “the supreme international crime“. This is what has been known since the Nuremberg trials as a crime against peace.

Then there’s the charge of crimes against humanity, another pillar of international law. In this instance, legal experts argue that the war’s opening ‘shock and awe‘ campaign alone – with its thousands of civilian casualties, wholesale destruction of civilian installation, and severe traumatising and terrorising of an entire population – counted as a serious crime against humanity.

Principle VI of the Nuremberg conventions outlaws the “wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages”, while Article 48 of the Geneva conventions demands that parties to a war “shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives”, which clearly did not happen during shock and awe. Torture – including waterboarding, sensory deprivation and complete isolation – which has been controversially endorsed by the Bush administration at Guantanamo Bay, also counts as a serious war crime.

Now that we have established a powerful case against Bush and the other architects of the Iraq war, what are the possible avenues for prosecution?

With no prosecution on the horizon in the United States, jurisdiction should automatically shift to the International Criminal Court. However, the US is one of only seven countries that has refused to sign up to the ICC, despite its support of the court’s indictment of the Sudanese president, Omar al-Bashir.

With this international avenue blocked off, another possible avenue would be to take advantage of the Geneva conventions’s ‘universal jurisdiction‘ to bring a case against Bush in another country.

Belgium, before it watered down and then effectively abolished its own courageous and controversial war crimes law, could have been a good place to take legal action. In fact, there had been attempts in Belgium to prosecute George Bush, as well as other leaders, including Israel’s Ariel Sharon, Palestine’s Yasser Arafat and Cuba’s Fidel Castro.

Spain and Canada also have universal jurisdiction laws on their books, but I doubt that courts there will hear a case against the Bush administration after the diplomatic fury Washington unleashed against Belgium.

Although no American president has ever been convicted of war crimes, the US legal system may actually provide the most promising avenue for pursuing legal action. US law prohibits American nationals from committing any “grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party”.

Now what we need is a few brave lawyers to throw down the legal gauntlet. If justice is done, it will send a powerful message that it is not just the defeated and weak who face punishment for their crimes. It will also dissuade future US leaders from believing they can launch wars of aggression with impunity and go a step towards repairing confidence in American justice.

This column appeared in The Guardian Unlimited’s Comment is Free section on 14 January 2009. Read the related discussion.

This is an archive piece that was migrated to this website from Diabolic Digest

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Tags: , , , , ,

Related posts