Past Blog Posts
- July 14, 2007
American soldier testimonials…and then what?
It's becoming fashionable for young Iraq war veterans to confess how they brutalized people under occupation-- in this case, Iraqis. (Doubtless similar violations by Israeli occupiers of Palestinians occur; but Israel is not so foolish --or democratic--to allow testimonials by ex-military to reach the press.)
Confessions by these American brutes, it is suggested, are acts of atonement. These men are cleansing themselves of the awful things they did to Iraqi women and men. By giving these public testimonials detailing their killings and other atrocities, they are somehow absolved. Yes, they are. Think about it.
These interviews amount to a kind of confession where these 'basically good American boys' seeks redemption. Some authors of these reports along with the perpetrators themselves-- now veterans-- suggest moreover that these admissions are an expression of anti-war sentiment. They expose resistance inside the military. Thus these confessors are accorded a status something close heroism. "How brave they are to divulge these wrongs"; "they do this for a greater good--to stop further war atrocities." This is how the progressive press interprets the men's disclosures, in my opinion. We are made to listen sympathetically to their gruesome tales; we take in the grim details. Somehow we do not associate these horrible details of torture and murder with the young American voices, calmly, dispassionately telling these stories.
I guess the point of these exposes is to reaffirm the basic decency of these Americans: "Yes, war is bad". But "I love America; military service is an honorable profession". "I never expected to behave like that"; "they made us do it". "It was the system"; "I did not engage in these things but I saw others doing them".
In other words, America is still good, as shown by these conscientious youngsters; so is service in the American military a noble action. And American patriotism remains sacred, beyond question.
We are led to the conclusion that what is BAD is losing control, doing things against 'our American values' and national pride, against a 'hostile' although sometimes innocent population. Implicit in some of these confessions is the culpability of superior officers, and ultimately, American politicians. According to these accounts, officials must bear responsibility for the occupation and military actions.
The anti-war movement in the US seems thrilled to have these testimonials; they provide yet further proof that the Republicans and their leaders, especially the disagreeable and 'stupid' Bush, are the true scoundrels. Oust them. and all will be well. American values themselves are solid and we do not need to search our souls.
To be continued… in our next blog: "What have these atrocities to do with American culture and history?"
- March 19, 2007
Iraq and the US. More than a four-year war
I often wonder, when I hear the morning's headlines, why US news give the numbers of those Iraqi women and men dead in bombings in Iraq before they mention that four, six or one American soldier died that day. I often wonder why our national papers and American TV networks splash picture after picture of crying men staggering among the ruins of their homes and streets. Why do they broadcast Iraqis carrying their corpses and not Americans?
Is it because Americans care more about the Iraqi dead?
Do these images really impact readers and viewers here? Do they arouse in the US public, an abhorrence for war, and the loss of Iraq to the world? Do they inform our citizens what Iraqis really experience?
Some soldiers are writing blogs and books about what army life is like. These may provide anecdotes for Americans at home funding the war, and the families of those boys defending their country. I doubt if they inform. They make no more of an impact than memoirs by retired US generals and viceroys in Iraq.
The anti-war movement here is growing, they say. If this is true, the rising ire of Americans still lags behind the demands of people worldwide. In Asia and Europe and South America, the antagonism is furious. Given the increase of security across the US, publicly protesting Washington policies is increasingly hazardous. We are kept farther from the earshot of politicians. So the anti-war protests underway, especially in the USA, is somewhat encouraging.
Yet, the prisons in Iraq, in Israel, and in Guantanamo along with the secret dungeons brim with women and men accused of threatening democracy--Israeli or American. (Let us not forget that Iraq and Iraqi nationalism is viewed as a threat to Israel.)
To mark the beginning of the fifth year of the military occupation and destruction of Iraq, I don't know where to rest my attention. Shall I pray for the souls of those friends long dead--Mustafa, Umaya, Khalaf, Nuha--somehow gratified that they did not live to witness this. Or for those who persist--teaching, repairing torn bodies, caring for aged parents, planting a few acres of wheat, transmitting news--because they will not abandon Iraq. Some believe that their very endurance inside the country can help forestall a total calamity.
This fourth anniversary means little to many of us who understood that the American and Zionist assaults began a generation ago. Iraq was "contained" in a US supported war with Iran for 8 years. Then came the 1991 Gulf War followed by the 12-year embargo war. The plan may not have gone as smoothly as was hoped. But, like the Zionist agenda on Palestine, this aggression on Iraq is a complex and long-term plan. We would do well to keep this in mind when searching for solutions.
- March 01, 2007
March 8, 2003, I was in Mosul, North Iraq. With friends, we awoke each morning to wait for the American attack on our country. It was a sad, hard time. We were nervous. We were helpless. We did not know from which directions the assault would come. There was nowhere to run, no one to turn to.
A bare three weeks before, many Europeans and citizens of other democratic countries had been somehow moved by fear or compassion or some celebrity call, --we did not understand its sudden appearance--to go into the streets of their cities and call back their governments from war. It may have seemed noble at the time; it was an expression of their democratic exercises, expression restrained for too long. But it made no difference to us inside Iraq, waiting for the bombing to begin. We knew it was far too late, and the numbers, although many million, were too pitiful.
I would not return to Mosul. But a few weeks later, a friend there managed to get a message to me: "Was Saddam so precious that all Iraq was the price?" she wrote.
For many of her people who somehow survive the months of chaos and slaughter, Iraq hardly has an identity anymore. And the idea of democracy is a bitter joke.
We now enter International Women's Day, 2007, and coincidentally, an appeal is being circulated about our sisters in Iraq. My copy comes from that same correspondent asking about "the price of Iraq". This time, she passes on details of the imminent execution by Iraqi authorities (sic) of three convicted 'terrorists', all women. Their names are Wassam Talib, Zainab Fadhil and Liqa Omar Mohammad. They have not had anything approaching a fair trial; they were not allowed to have legal representation at trial. Talib (31), Fadhil (25), and Mohammed (26) are three of more than 2000 Iraqi women classified as "security detainees" in Iraq at present. All are held under the supervision of both the US occupation and the Iraqi puppet regime, in prisons, camps and detention centers across the country.
How an Iraqi is permitted to raise her voice in protest and on which side, is completely arbitrary under the current administration. Resistance to US occupation is a crime punishable by death; advocating support for resistance is also a serious crime.
In the case of these 3 women, they are convicted of complicity in the murder of Iraqi police and participation in what the court considered "terrorism". Wassan Talib is charged with killing 5 police officers, participating with gunmen in an attack on a police post. Zainab Fadhil is charged with attacking a joint army patrol of Iraqis and Americans with her husband and her cousin in Baghdad. Liqa Omar Muhammad is charged with participating with her husband and brother in the killing of a Green Zone official and sentenced to hang. She gave birth in prison and is still nursing her year old child. Talib has a three-year-old daughter.
All three women, along with a fourth, Samar Sa’ad ‘Abdullah charged in family homicide, deny they had been involved in any of the crimes. No appeals of their sentences have been permitted so the women, like most detainees, have no legal representation in the court.
The first execution is to take place Saturday, March 3.
Recall the almost fanatic calls five years ago from western women on behalf of oppressed Afghan sisters. We were bombarded by TV talkers, articles, lectures and petitions during the last months of the Taliban rule. Recall the replayed video clip of a shrouded Afghan woman being put to death in a stadium. American women's energy in the defense of the victims of Taliban attacks seemed limitless. They may have helped shape US policy on Afghanistan. Because of that publicity, the US government won easy endorsement for is military agenda against Afghanistan.
And today? Afghan women live in fear not only from their former ideologues but from their 'democracy' occupiers.
In Iraq, Washington has created a government with a new justice minister and new courts to help dispense democracy to the public. As Iraqi commentators point out: "This is the signal of the opening of an era of legal executions in Iraq", following the standard set with the hanging of the former Iraqi president. "It is a horrible proof that the illegal executions of Saddam Hussein and other Baath leaders were not isolated or exceptional incidents, but that they laid the ground for unquestioned ongoing executions by the Iraqi ruling clique working hand in hand with the US occupiers.
Almost unnoticed an appeal for the Iraqi women is being circulated. Officials at The BRussels Tribunal are trying to reach the Iraqi Minister of Justice but wide public action is essential.[ Women's Fashions in Human Rights--Here are Three Women in Iraq ]
- February 10, 2007
I wonder how the planners of the Little Mosque, a new TV comedy series, decided to locate Mercy, the mythical inter-faith community where this story takes place, out on the Canadian prairies? Did they know that Regina, Saskatchewan is said to be home to the oldest mosque in North America, built 150 years ago. (This record applies to modern times; we often forget about the much earlier African Muslim immigration of up to 700 years earlier.)
In any case, now as then, few of us associate the Canadian prairies with Arabs and other immigrants, especially Muslims. But of course, the inhabitants of Canada's prairies have heard about 9/11. And, like Americans, they are nervous about newcomers.
It is this anxiety combined with the personalities of a community of Muslims in this small prairie town that furnish the lines and laughs for this new comedy series. Anything and anyone is game for a laugh. Why not Muslims? Especially when interfaith dialogue and scholarship seem to be failing.
This comedy series appears to be an outgrowth of standup comedy routines, mainly by a new generation of young Arab and Muslim entertainers on the comedy scene in recent years, and the talent of Muslim-Canadian writers like its creator, Zarqa Nawaz.
Even so, I was a bit apprehensive when I first learned about Little Mosque. Viewing clips of the weekly program on YouTube, I immediately liked it. It is tasteful, well acted, and funny. Some of the lines seem to come straight out of the Arab American Comedy Festival.
Little Mosque on the Prairie has the requisite characters: Fatima, a Black Canadian who waitresses at the local deli; the blustering but harmless Baber, a new immigrant critical of anything and anyone White, Sara, a convert to Islam who works for the town's lady mayor and is married to Yasir, the community leader. They have a hip, pretty daughter, Rayyan. (Of the women, some cover their heads and some don't.) Into their midst comes the handsome bachelor Amaar; he's been hired as the Imam of the new mosque. Then we have a benevolent Christian, Rev. McGee, always ready to step in as mediator between the sometimes-bumbling Muslims and the suspicious white folks and incompetent police. It helps, I think, that many of the actors seem to be of Asian origin if not Muslims themselves. (Director Nawaz, born in the UK, moved to the Canadian prairies after her marriage.) They play characters who are cute and flirtatious, naive, conciliatory, aggressive, isolationist, provocative, and angry.
I guess Little Mosque falls into the genre of sitcom, 'situation' or 'family' comedy. It plays on misconceptions--not only those about Muslims-- and fears that we all recognize. The closest we have in fictional writing to 'Little Mosque' is the new novel Girl in the Tangerine Scarf, by Mohja Kahf where we find some of the same absurdities created by being Muslim in America. The humor in Kahf's novel has not yet hit home with American readers, although I could easily see it as a screenplay.
Political satire, although little recognized beyond its borders, has become a hallmark of modern Canadian culture. Perhaps the development of Little Mosque is an extension of Canada's deep-rooted quality satire. Yet, Little Mosque unquestionably is a breakthrough in political terms. It speaks to the universal, not only in its humor but also through its characters and the events they encounter. From the clips I reviewed, the foibles and fears that Little Mosque on the Prairie builds on are as American as they are Canadian, British and European.
The series, although widely reviewed in the US media, did not emerge from that culture where, we are told, American networks and administrators are desperately trying to win the Muslim public. I doubt if an American network will pick it up. Somehow Americans seem too attached to violence to work with something like this.
What about the rest of the clash-of-civilization world? I am particularly curious to see how viewers in Arab and Muslim countries will react. Having lived in many of those lands, I cannot imagine Islam associated with comedy entertainment. TV in the Gulf States, Syria, Algeria, Egypt address Islam in their abundant educational and spiritual programs. If they should care about difficulties Muslims face in the West, they can watch deadly serious US (propaganda) documentaries--some State Dept-funded --laden with measured opinions and professorial conclusions--almost all by non-Muslims--along with predictable testimonies by US Muslim citizens, all predicated on the myth that our life began on 9/11.
We wait to see how, after a score of weekly episodes, if Little Mosque can reach beyond the clichéd sources of tension and conflict offered in the early episodes. What will be left to learn about these folks in Mercy, Saskatchewan, after we have run through the stereotypical airport scene, the gay swimming instructor, hijab shopping, and abundant 'explosives' metaphors? Surely there is a limit to the terrorism-related metaphors the series' producers are currently building on. Then the show's charm and talent will be put to the test. I hope they succeed.
You can view dozens on clips from the series on YouTube. Or you can go to CBC TV Little Mosque.[ Little Mosque on the Prairie, a Canadian TV Comedy ]
- January 15, 2007
With our thoughts turning to Martin Luther King's legacy today, I can't help wonder where King would stand on the need for popular protest in 2007.
As far as US foreign policy goes, surely this is a time for massive protests to demand change. Can we really leave it to our politicians to make a radical change in line with new public knowledge and sentiment about Iraq and other adventures?
The recent election wasn't enough, it seems. If this democracy works at all, we have to find other ways to implement it. The majority view on Iraq seems to be that American occupation of Iraq must end.
Many say that the election in November of more Democratic Party candidates to Congress and the Senate was the people's way to telling their leaders what they wanted, namely 'The occupation had to end and the troops had to come home'. With a majority in both the Senate and the House, in charge of key committees, our Democratic reps now have their chance. "Cut off war funds. Find a political solution. Let Iraqis rule themselves." In theory the Democrats could insist on a new policy.
To support a new direction we were handed a well-articulated formula--The Iraq Study Group Report. Compiled by a bi-partisan committee of experts and politicians, it spelled out necessary steps to address the deep problems the US finds itself in over Iraq. If you read the report, you may have felt as surprised as I was at its intelligent approach. The recommendations seemed reasonable and doable. Bring Iraq's neighbors into the dialogue, it advocated; get the Israelis and Palestinians sitting down to hammer out a real solution, it stressed; find bipartisan Iraqi leaders to bridge differences among themselves, it demanded; set a clear date for US troop withdrawal, it advised. The report appeared to have the stamp of a wiser Bush (the elder) as well as very experienced leaders, including members of the US military.
For two weeks, our press debated some of the report's main points. Then discussion came to a halt. With that, my own hopes for an intelligent new foreign policy and some respite for all the Middle East peoples evaporated. The much-lauded report was, in the end, a mere 'show' of democracy. The 'experts' debating its merits were not the same men who held the cards. They could only offer us an appearance of democracy.
Last week, the reality was exposed. The press had leaked most of the details well before the White House, announced America's new Iraq policy. There would be more troops. Israel would not engage with the Palestinians. And the US would not seek assistance though dialogue with Syria and Iran. There would be mo timetable. Democrats responded with anger and mild threats.
The entire nation dutifully tuned in on Jan 10th to hear the US head of state read his pplan for Iraq. It was as if that high level list of recommendations had been a myth. It seemed the election of dozens of anti-war legislators never happened. What was the basis for Bush's policy proposal? Who really had crafted it? And does the president expect he can implement it without Congress's approval?
This seemingly foolish, doomed plan did not garner the same degree of debate in the media that the Study Group's proposals did. Has the opposition in Congress melted away? Are the Democrats in a huddle quietly devising their strategy to thwart the plan? Or is Congress--and therefore our democracy--actually impotent on an issue of this magnitude?
What alternative recourse does a democracy have, especially if the newly elected opponents of continued engagement in Iraq will not be able to stop this plan? Martin Luther King Jr. was able to join his civil rights agenda and mobilize his forces with those of the opposition to the Vietnam war. There are many parallels between the quagmire in Iraq and the failure in Vietnam.
Can the protests be repeated today, without King?[ That Democracy Problem… Again ]
"There are those made invisible. The struggle is to overcome this and become visible"
poet Suheir Hammad
- a poem.. a song..
- "Comply" by Zaid Shlah
"Comply" from Taqsim, read by Zaid Shlah Flash
- Algeria: Qur'an Recitation
Algerian Sahara , by Sufi brothers
- Book review
- Diana Abu Jaber's
Life without A Recipe
reviewed by BN Aziz.
- Tahrir Team
- Read about Jad Abumrad in the team page.