Showing posts with label Middle East. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Middle East. Show all posts

Sunday, July 20, 2008

Waiting for a Messiah

If the views of the outgoing Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, Dan Gillerman, as expressed to the Times' Deborah Solomon are any indication, it's going to take a looooong time to achieve peace in the Middle East.

You recently called Jimmy Carter a “bigot” after he met with Khaled Meshal, the head of Hamas. Is it true you were reprimanded by the U.S. State Department?
--There was no complaint or reprimand. The only reaction I received was very positive.

The Bush administration, it seems, has not done much to advance the Mideast peace process. Would you agree?
--I think the key is in the Arab world. The Palestinians’ real tragedy is that they have not been able to produce a Nelson Mandela. Every single day, Muslims are killed by Muslims. You do not see a single Muslim leader get up and say, “Enough is enough.” It’s nearly as if we live in a world where if Christians kill Muslims, it’s a crusade. If Jews kill Muslims, it’s a massacre. And when Muslims kill Muslims, it’s the Weather Channel. Nobody cares.
Is he nuts? Yeah, calling a former American president a bigot brought him nothing by accolades--there's nothing like having a deaf and dumb person as your face to the world.

And sure, if there was a Palestinian Mandela, things would go much easier--but politics is the art of dealing with reality, not sitting around on your hands waiting for a saviour.

Besides which, the closest Israel's come to producing a Mandela was Yitzhak Rabin, whose policies were fought tooth-and-nail by a big chunk of the Israeli populace before he was assassinated by a countryman.

Thursday, March 27, 2008

Agency classifies U.S. military as terrorists

The Post has a startling article up, hidden behind a horrible headline. The gist is the terminally dysfunctional U.S immigration service has decided to temporarily stop enforcing nonsensical rules while it figures out what to do.

If this sort of thing were affecting anyone but immigrants, there'd have been a huge outcry years ago. But as is par for the course in this area, nobody seems to have cared until the Post found a particularly-embarrassing case.

U.S. to Hold Off On Green Card Denials Based On Terrorism, Karen DeYoung in the Washington Post: The U.S. immigration service said yesterday that it will temporarily stop denying green cards to refugees and other legal immigrants on terrorism grounds, placing their cases on hold while it determines more "logical, common-sense" rules for judging them.

The decision will potentially affect thousands of pending applications for permanent U.S. residence. The cases of hundreds of others who have been denied green cards since December will also be reexamined, said Jonathan "Jock" Scharfen, deputy director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. All the applicants are living in this country under refugee or other visa provisions or political asylum.

Most of the applications involve people linked to groups that U.S. immigration and counterterrorism laws have defined as "undesignated terrorist organizations" because they took armed action against a foreign government. The groups include U.S. allies that fought against former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and the Taliban government in Afghanistan, as well as Burma's military junta and Sudan's Islamic leaders.

Scharfen said that USCIS recognized the illogic of admitting immigrants under one provision of the law and then labeling them terrorists for green card purposes, calling it a "very good question." At the same time, he said, the restrictions are "written so that the definition of a terrorist organization and activity is very, very broad." Even groups that have been "closely associated with the United States," such as Montagnard tribesmen who fought with U.S. forces in Vietnam, "fall under the definitions."

In addition to the Immigration and Nationality Act, restrictions are contained in the 2001 USA Patriot Act and the 2005 Real ID Act. The laws, Scharfen said, "cover groups that are opposed to the government. Any government."

Although there are waiver provisions, they are cumbersome and rarely used. Denials and delays in processing applications -- with determinations made by the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department -- have been sharply criticized by many in Congress and by nongovernmental immigration groups.

"USCIS is right to review such cases, especially for people in Iraq and Afghanistan who have helped the U.S. and suffered persecution for doing so," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), who chairs the Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on immigration. "It would be tragic to prevent such people from receiving the full protection of our immigration laws because of a harsh interpretation of laws that should be used to go after true terrorists."

The catalyst for yesterday's decision, Scharfen and other officials said, was a Washington Post article last weekend about a translator for U.S. forces in Iraq. Saman Kareem Ahmad, 38, arrived in the United States under a special visa program for those assisting the nation's war effort, after his life was threatened in Iraq. He had received commendations from the secretary of the Navy and then-Maj. Gen. David H. Petraeus, now the top U.S. commander in Iraq, as well as strong support from Marine and Army officers with whom he had worked. Ahmad was later granted political asylum, but his application for permanent residence was denied last month on grounds he had once served with Kurdish military forces that fought against Hussein.

The USCIS letter denying Ahmad's petition said that the Kurdistan Democratic Party forces fit the definition of terrorist, based on information it had gleaned from public Web sites, because KDP forces "conducted full-scale armed attacks and helped incite rebellions against Hussein's regime, most notably during the Iran-Iraq war, Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom."

The KDP, a U.S. ally, is now part of the elected Iraqi government, and Ahmad teaches Arabic language and culture at the Marine Corps base in Quantico and other military facilities, working with Marines who are about to deploy to Iraq. Although the letter said the denial could not be appealed, Scharfen said yesterday that Ahmad's case is now "under review" and should be resolved "in a matter of days."

Friday, January 25, 2008

Mote in God's eye


Found an interesting list on About.com, based on a book by Tertius Chandler called Four Thousand Years of Urban Growth: An Historical Census. It's essentially a look at the largest city in the world throughout recorded history.

What caught my eye was how Memphis, Egypt was the world's largest for nearly 1,000 years, followed by the second-place city (Thebes, Egypt for nearly 800 years). Their reigns dwarf that of any other cities.

It's also interesting how over the 5,000 years covered by the list, Rome, London, and New York are the only Western cities that appear.

Year Became #1/City/Population Information

3100 BCE: Memphis, Egypt; Well over 30,000
2240, Akkad, Babylonia (Iraq)
2075, Lagash, Babylonia (Iraq)
2030, Ur, Babylonia (Iraq) 65,000
1980, Thebes, Egypt
1770, Babylon, Babylonia (Iraq)
1670, Avaris, Egypt
1557, Memphis, Egypt
1400, Thebes, Egypt
668, Nineveh, Assyria (Iraq)
612, Babylon, Babylonia (Iraq), First above 200,000
320, Alexandria
300, Pataliputra (Patna), India
195, Changan (Xi'an), China, 400,000
25, Rome, 450,000 (100 CE)
340 CE, Constantinople (Istanbul), Turkey, 400,000 (500)
570, Ctesiphon, Iraq
637, Changan (Xi'an), China, 400,000 (622); 600,000 (800)
775, Baghdad, Iraq, First over 1 million; 700,000 (800)
935, Cordova, Spain
1013, Kaifeng, China, 400,000 (1000); 442,000 (1100)
1127, Constantinople (Istanbul), Turkey
1145, Merv (Mary), Turkmenistan, 200,000 (1150)
1153, Constantinople (Istanbul), Turkey
1170, Fez (Fes), Morocco
1180, Hangzhou, China, 255,000 (1200); 320,000 (1250)
1315, Cairo, Egypt
1348, Hangzhou, China, 432,000 (1350)
1358, Nanking, China, 487,000 (1400)
1425, Beijing, China, 600,000 (1450); 672,000 (1500)
1650, Constantinople (Istanbul), Turkey, 700,000 (1650 & 1700)
1710, Beijing, China, 900,000 (1750); 1.1 million (1800)
1825, London, United Kingdom, First over 5 million; 1.35 million (1825); 2.32 million (1850); 4.241 million (1875); 6.480 million (1900)
1925, New York, First over 10 million; 7.774 million (1925), 12.463 million (1950)
1965, Tokyo, First over 20 million; 23 million (1975)

Uncredited photo of the Alabaster Sphynx at Memphis from Egypt a Perspective.

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Lost in non-translation

The Post has a slightly misleading piece up, Looking to Adopt A Foreign Tongue: Student Interest in Asian, Mideast Languages Surging.

Told through the story of an interesting student at Maryland who literally stumbled into studying Persian, the numbers, Susan Kinzie reports, are:

Interest in non-European languages, traditionally less commonly taught in the United States, has been surging, according to survey results released yesterday by the Modern Language Association.

More college students across the country are enrolling in language classes, and that is particularly true for Middle Eastern and Asian languages. Chinese language classes jumped 51 percent from 2002 to 2006 to nearly 52,000, and Korean grew 37 percent to more than 7,000. Arabic classes increased more than 126 percent to nearly 24,000.

And enrollments in Persian language classes nearly doubled nationally, although the total numbers, around 2,300, are still tiny, especially compared to popular languages such as Spanish.
Oddly, the article doesn't list the comparable numbers. Off the MLA website, we find:
The study of the most popular languages--Spanish, French, and German--continues to grow and represents more than 70% of language enrollments.
Inside, in the press release, we find the full list, with numbers of students enrolled/% of all enrollments/increase since 2002:
1) Spanish 822,985 52.2% + 10.3%

2) French 206,426 13.1% + 2.2%

3) German 94,264 6.0% + 3.5%

4) American Sign Language 78,829 5.0% + 29.7%

5) Italian 78,368 5.0% + 22.6%

6) Japanese 66,605 4.2% + 27.5%

7) Chinese 51,582 3.3% + 51.0%

8) Latin 32,191 2.0% + 7.9%

9) Russian 24,845 1.6% + 3.9%

10) Arabic 23,974 1.5% +126.5%

11) Ancient Greek 22,849 1.4% + 12.1%

12) Biblical Hebrew 14,140 0.9% - 0.3%

13) Portuguese 10,267 0.7% + 22.4%

14) Modern Hebrew 9,612 0.6% + 11.5%

15) Korean 7,145 0.5% + 37.1%
Hmm, "surging?" Heck, you could just as easily have written a piece about ASL, Italian, and Portuguese....

The headline's particularly egregious, since it presumes the traditional European trio of Spanish/French/German aren't 'foreign' the way these Asian and Middle Eastern tongues are.

In addition--when you start with such a small base, you'd think it'd be pretty critical to show the other languages for comparison so readers can understand how underwhelming the numbers overall are. And to note similar spikes were seen in other languages that can't be explained by geopolitics.

Maybe all that happened is we're in the middle of a surge in college enrollment, so with more kids around, more of them are taking pretty much all languages.

Or, since we know smaller schools can experience a spike in applications through such random things as one of their sports teams doing particularly well in football/basketball, or through placement on a big TV show/movie, maybe kids walking past TVs are just hearing these countries more, making them seem more relateable.

Really, I think the article should've been: Tripping Over A Foreign Tongue: Student Interest in Asian, Mideast Languages Lags Far Behind Where Reason Would Place It, Experts Probe Impact of Media Portrayal of Non-European Countries As 'FOREIGN'

Monday, May 21, 2007

Words from the Arab street

The BBC, as usual the most reliable conduit of non-Western views:

Arab youth revel in pop revolution: Rotana's marketing manager, Hady Hajjar, describes the company's vision from the top of a tower that looks across downtown Beirut - much of which is currently occupied by supporters of Hezbollah, who present a sharp contrast to the music videos' parade of flirtatious, scantily-clad singers.

"Let's not judge on terrorists, let's not judge on wars. Let's judge on cultural thinking. Let's judge on accomplishments," he says. ...

Rotana makes much of its money through the constant stream of mobile phone messages from its young viewers that runs along the bottom of the screen.

Habib Battah says the messages are much more than simply a way to make money.

"There's a real frustration in the Middle East among young people, and this is a way for them to kind of escape their family structure - of dating, of arranged marriages etc - and actually meet people in different countries - young people - and connect with them.

"And there is a big desire, a big thirst for that forum. And so right now that's what's happening with music in the Middle East - it's being used as a way to connect young people." ...

Looking at the apparent freedom and openness of the women in the latest videos, some in the West see them as a sign that the old Middle East of authoritarian leaders and ideological intransigence is changing.

But Mr Battah feels that this is going too far.

"There is a misconception in the West that reality TV and pop music means that the Middle East is becoming more democratic. But, you know, voting for a superstar is not the same as voting for an election."

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Eyes open



Between the end of World War II and the end of the Cold War, Americans got most of their information about the rest of the world via a handful of macro media sources--dominated by Walter Cronkite, Time magazine, and the Seven Sisters movie studios--and the micro personal experiences of servicemen returning from wars abroad.

And that was pretty much it. Which meant that while on the one hand people didn't know nearly a fraction about the rest of the world that we did today, on the other hand what Americans did know was really known.

The day in 1968 when Walter Cronkite, reporting on his recent trip to Vietnam, said the war was likely to end in a stalemate, prompted LBJ to famously say 'If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost America.'

It's a statement that was both figuratively and literally true--not just because Cronkite was influential in a way no journalist today will ever be, but because for lack of options everyone watched and trusted his newscast, so whatever conclusions he drew and communicated instantly became the gospel of the land. Not just because he was a great journalist who reported his findings honestly; but also because there wasn't much static--his voice was pretty much the only thing out there that night.

There are some virtues to this closed system, just as there are some virtues to a benevolent dictatorship when compared with messy democracy. Things are so much more efficient; and if the absolute ruler is or becomes enlightened--as some would say famously occurred with Constantine's conversion to Christianity--the 'good' that can result is just as swift and lasting as the bad that despots like Hitler and Stalin imprinted on history.

It is, of course, a classic debate--is it better to have change, even if it for the better, to be 'artificially' imposed upon a society; or is meaningful change on any sufficiently divisive and thus important issue only the result of societal evolution. We face it in this country all the time; if we go by the quintessential recent example of the civil rights struggle, very few people would argue they'd rather the famously liberal Warren court have taken its time desegregating schools and buses and lunch counters, waiting for the mood of the South to more 'naturally' evolve.

Thinking people don't say things like that because there are too many african americans alive today who'd respond, with unanswerable equanamity, so--you'd prolong my hell under Jim Crow so whites would have more time to become comfortable with ending their sinning?

Having said all that, if I could play king for a day and get all Americans to watch some specific television programming at some point this week, I'd surprisingly not pick American Idol (heck, no need to, everyone watches it anyway). I'd pick:

-Wide Angle's Pilgrimage to Karbalal: WIDE ANGLE travels with a busload of Shia pilgrims as they make their way from Iran to Iraq to visit Karbala, among the holiest sites in Shia Islam. Pilgrims travel to Karbala year-round to honor Hussein, the martyred grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, whose murder, in part, caused the schism between the Sunni and Shia. In the time of Saddam such observances were banned, but in wartime Iraq, marked by vicious sectarian violence, the pilgrimage is more dangerous than it has ever been. In PILGRIMAGE TO KARBALA we examine the roots of the Islamic schism, and see how an ancient murder affects the people of the Persian Gulf to this day.

-Frontline's War of Ideas: "In the fourth hour of News War, FRONTLINE/World reporter Greg Barker travels to the Middle East to examine the rise of Arab satellite TV channels and their impact on the "war of ideas" at a time of convulsive change and conflict in the region. His report focuses on the growing influence of Al Jazeera, and the controversy around the recent launch of Al Jazeera English, which U.S. satellite and cable companies have declined to carry. Barker also visits the "war room" of the State Department's Rapid Response Unit, which monitors Arab media 24 hours a day, and meets with U.S. military officers whose mission is to engage the Arab news channels in debate."
The two programs provide a good micro/macro balance, with Wide Angle's almost-cinematic look at a pilgrimage humanizing a country and religion that in the eyes of many Americans is all dark and bloody.

And Frontline's analytical examination of al-Jazeera and its censorship in the U.S. raising some uncomfortable questions about the closed mindset that George Bush has supposedly forced upon an otherwise liberal country.

In the end, if we indeed are to get the government we deserve, it's up to us to watch not just the programs of FOX but those on PBS as well. Now if only there were a way to combine the best attributes of both....

Uncredited photo of Karbala from Trekearth. Image of al-Jazeera logo found in various places online.

Monday, February 26, 2007

Our world


There's a tone many adults use when praising a child (or someone handicapped) for something they find noteworthy. Vowels are exaggerated and words stretched out, pitch rises; and behind what's often a genuine attempt to make the recipient feel good is a sense of, how great am I for noticing something others are ignorant of.

You see this tone pop up all the time in articles about the achievements of African Americans, or women. It's often ludicrous, as the writer bends over backwards to say positive things, to the point you wonder why they don't just tell it straight, we'll get it.

Sometimes, though, I sympathize with the reporter and shake my head at how screwed up our society is that Times readers need the reassuring superlatives to paper over their engrained bias.

John Noble Wilford has an interesting article in the Times,
In Medieval Architecture, Signs of Advanced Math. Comments in [brackets] are mine.

In the beauty and geometric complexity of tile mosaics on walls of medieval Islamic buildings, scientists have recognized patterns suggesting that the designers had made a conceptual breakthrough in mathematics beginning as early as the 13th century.

A new study shows that the Islamic pattern-making process, far more intricate than the laying of one’s bathroom floor, appears to have involved an advanced math of quasi crystals, which was not understood by modern scientists until three decades ago. [I wonder if the Times would've raised installing double panes in your kitchen in an article about the creation of stained glass windows in churches?]

The findings, reported in the current issue of the journal Science, are a reminder of the sophistication of art, architecture and science long ago in the Islamic culture. They also challenge the assumption that the designers somehow created these elaborate patterns with only a ruler and a compass. Instead, experts say, they may have had other tools and concepts. ['Sophistication' reads nicely on the surface, but underneath is the same feeling you get when Senator Biden calls Barack Obama 'articulate'.]

Two years ago, Peter J. Lu, a doctoral student in physics at Harvard University, was transfixed by the geometric pattern on a wall in Uzbekistan. It reminded him of what mathematicians call quasi-crystalline designs. These were demonstrated in the early 1970s by Roger Penrose, a mathematician and cosmologist at the University of Oxford.

Mr. Lu set about examining pictures of other tile mosaics from Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Turkey, working with Paul J. Steinhardt, a Princeton cosmologist who is an authority on quasi crystals and had been Mr. Lu’s undergraduate adviser. The research was a bit like trying to figure out the design principle of a jigsaw puzzle, Mr. Lu said in an interview.

In their journal report, Mr. Lu and Dr. Steinhardt concluded that by the 15th century, Islamic designers and artisans had developed techniques “to construct nearly perfect quasi-crystalline Penrose patterns, five centuries before discovery in the West.”

Some of the most complex patterns, called “girih” in Persian, consist of sets of contiguous polygons fitted together with little distortion and no gaps. Running through each polygon (a decagon, pentagon, diamond, bowtie or hexagon) is a decorative line. Mr. Lu found that the interlocking tiles were arranged in predictable ways to create a pattern that never repeats — that is, quasi crystals.

“Again and again, girih tiles provide logical explanations for complicated designs,” Mr. Lu said in a news release from Harvard.

He and Dr. Steinhardt recognized that the artisans in the 13th century had begun creating mosaic patterns in this way. The geometric star-and-polygon girihs, as quasi crystals, can be rotated a certain number of degrees, say one-fifth of a circle, to positions from which other tiles are fitted. As such, this makes possible a pattern that is infinitely big and yet the pattern never repeats itself, unlike the tiles on the typical floor.

This was, the scientists wrote, “an important breakthrough in Islamic mathematics and design.”

Dr. Steinhardt said in an interview that it was not clear how well the Islamic designers understood all the elements they were applying to the construction of these patterns. “I can just say what’s on the walls,” he said.

Mr. Lu said that it would be “incredible if it were all coincidence.”

“At the very least,” he said, “it shows us a culture that we often don’t credit enough was far more advanced than we ever thought before.”
Ah, the great we/them dichotomy, which the Times often uses without qualifying only when it relates to the non-Western world.

Let's say Mr. Lu was talking about recent American discoveries that point to the greatness of French culture; the Times would've run his quote as 'we [in the U.S.] often don't credit enough'--it'd have been ludicrous to run it straight.

So why don't they insert here 'we [in the West]', instead of using the universal 'we'? I mean, in the Middle East, if anything, they credit too much their past culture.

If the Times is gonna insist on using the universal 'we' when they really mean we in the West, they should at least stop pretending to be a universal source of news.

Maybe a disclaimer on their website?

Photo of a quasi-crystalline Penrose pattern at the Darb-i Imam shrine in Isfahan, Iran by K. Dudley and M. Elliff for the Times.

Saturday, December 30, 2006

Saddam should haunt us

The ususally insightful John F. Burns had an interesting piece in the Times about Saddam's death, headlined Feared and Pitiless; Fearful and Pitiable.

NOBODY who experienced Iraq under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein could imagine, at the height of the terror he imposed on his countrymen, ever pitying him. Pitiless himself, he sent hundreds of thousands of his countrymen to miserable deaths, in the wars he started against Iran and Kuwait, in the torture chambers of his secret police, or on the gallows that became an industry at Abu Ghraib and other charnel houses across Iraq. Iraqis who were caught in his spider’s web of evil, and survived, tell of countless tortures, of the psychopathic pleasure the former dictator appeared to take from inflicting suffering and death.

Yet there was a moment when I pitied him, and it came back to me after the nine Iraqi appeal judges upheld the death sentence against Saddam last week, setting off the countdown to his execution. As I write this, flying hurriedly back to Baghdad from an interrupted Christmas break, Saddam makes his own trip to the gallows with an indecent haste, without the mercy of family farewells and other spare acts of compassion that lend at least a pretense of civility to executions under law in kinder jurisdictions. From all we know of the preparations, Saddam’s death was to be a miserable and lonely one, as stark and undignified as Iraq’s new rulers can devise.

Many Iraqis, perhaps most, will spare no sympathies for him. However much he may have suffered in the end, they will say, it could never be enough to atone for a long dark night he imposed on his people. Still, there was that moment, on July 1, 2004, when Saddam became, for me, if only briefly, an object of compassion.

He had been brought to a makeshift courtroom in the grounds of a former presidential palace in Baghdad that became, as Camp Victory, the American military headquarters in Iraq. It was the first time he had appeared in public since his capture six months earlier in a coffin-like subterranean bolt-hole near his hometown of Tikrit when he emerged unkempt yet proclaiming himself to American soldiers who hauled him from his hiding place to be “Saddam Hussein, president of Iraq,” and ready to negotiate with his captors.

We know, from accounts given by his Iraqi and American interrogators, that the old Saddam quickly reasserted himself, heaping contempt on the new generation of Iraqi leaders who were taken out to a detention center near Baghdad International Airport the next day to verify for themselves, and for the world, that the man the Americans had seized was indeed their former tormentor.

So when the day arrived for his first court appearance, starting the process that led over the next 30 months to his two trials for crimes against humanity, there seemed little doubt to me which Saddam would show up to face the charges — Saddam the indignant, Saddam the self-proclaimed champion of Iraqi and Pan-Arab nationalism, Saddam the self-anointed figurehead of the insurgency that was already, then, beginning to look like a nightmare for the invaders.

His American captors had flown Saddam and 11 of his top henchmen to Camp Victory by helicopter, and led them hooded and shackled at the waist and ankles to the threshold of the mosque annex that served as a courtroom. Only at the door to the court were the hoods and shackles removed, clattering to the floor a moment or two before the door opened to show Defendant No. 1, Saddam Hussein al-Majid, standing clasped at the elbow between two Iraqi guards.

From 20 feet away on an observer’s bench, seated beside the late Peter Jennings of ABC News and Christiane Amanpour of CNN, I caught my first glimpse of the man who had become in my years of visiting Iraq under his rule, a figure of mythic brutality, a man so feared that the mention of his name would set the hard, unsmiling men assigned to visiting reporters as “minders” to shaking with fear, and on one occasion, in my experience, to abject weeping.

But this was not that Saddam. The man who stepped into the court had the demeanor of a condemned man, his eyes swiveling left, then right, his gait unsteady, his curious, lisping voice raised to a tenor that resonated fear. Quickly, he fixed his gaze on the handful of foreigners in the court, and I had my own moment of anxiety when it came to my mind that he was intent on remembering the faces of the non-Iraqis that were there to witness his humiliation, perhaps to get word through to his lawyers, and then on to the insurgents, that we were to be punished for our intrusion. It was only later, after I learned what he had been told before being taken from his cell to the court, that I understood that our presence meant something else to him entirely, that with foreigners present, he was not going to be summarily hanged or shot.
It's too bad that for the the Iraqi people, the presence of foreigners while Saddam was in power was not only no protection against their being summarily hanged or shot, but actually meant that the shooting and hangings would continue. The U.S. and France, along with the USSR, propped Saddam up.

It's shameful, and not something we should forget.

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Why we should get out of Iraq


Now that the Democrats are in power, it's worth heeding the words of a soldier and the stories of two kids that should tell us it's time for the U.S. to get out of Iraq.

The soldier is among the marines under investigation in the deaths in Haditha of "24 Iraqi civilians, including 10 women and children and an elderly man in a wheelchair", as the Times wrote in an article headlined Contradictions Cloud Inquiry Into 24 Iraqi Deaths

The marines have said they believed they were coming under small-arms fire from a house on the south side of the road. A four-man "stack" of marines, led by Sergeant Wuterich, who up to that point had no combat experience but was the senior enlisted man on the scene, broke into the house.

They found no one in the first room, but heard noises behind a door. A marine with experience in the deadly house-to-house fighting in Falluja a year earlier rolled in a grenade and another marine fired blind "clearing rounds" into the room, Mr. Puckett, Sergeant Wuterich's lawyer, said.

The technique is known as "clearing by fire," said a marine who was with a nearby squad that day but who asked not to be identified because his role in the events is under investigation. "You stick the weapon around and spray the room," he said. "It's called prepping the room."

He added: "You've got to do whatever it takes to get home. If it takes clearing by fire where there's civilians, that's it."
If American soldiers are at the point where they think the only way they can live is by killing Iraqi civilians, we need to get out of Iraq.

The marine's wrong; you don't ever do whatever it takes to get home, that's not the way Americans fight wars. That's not even the way the Nazis fought wars.

People who think otherwise are profoundly ignorant; anyone who adopts a cynical 'yeah dude, that's war for you attitude' knows nothing of military history and is spitting on the graves of literally millions of soldiers who have died over the course of human history because militaries go out of their way to seek out and kill other armed men rather than women, children and the elderly.

The few places and times in modern history where armed men have gone berzerk and deliberately killed civilians are shorn into our memories, generally because people confess--the names are infamous, spanning the gamut from My Lai to Rwanda to Nuremberg.

Anyone who's ever read Michael Walzer Just and Unjust Wars--or anyone with even a shred of moral understanding--knows that no culture holds the life of an armed soldier as being equivalent to the life of a little kid. The one with the gun always takes the risk of war upon himself, in order to spare the helpless.

And by and large, this code is enforced not by a fear of media investigations, the threat of court martial or even the drills of basic training--but from basic humanity. Soldiers are moms and dads too; being in a foreign land loaded down with heavy weaponry doesn't strip them of their decency.

They're not going to shoot an unarmed child running across the street, or a woman on her way to get water. Given a choice, I have no doubt most of the men and women in our military would take a bullet and trust to their flak jackets and helmets and medical evacuation to save their life, rather than have that same bullet fired at a defenseless Iraqi.

The problem increasingly in Iraq is that the nature of urban warfare makes clear-cut moral choices rare. Instead of seeing kids running around, you've got gunfire coming at you out of dark buildings. One building and Iraqi looks the same as another; and it's so much easier to roll a grenade in or poke the nose of your gun around the corner and hold down the trigger, then to step through a doorway into god knows what.

Add to the chaos of urban warfare the element of racism--the Bush administration's conflation of Muslim with terrorist, the growing attitude of many Americans of a pox on all their houses, a centuries-old view of Middle Easterners as barbaric savages, a thousands-year-old hatred of the dark, the dusty, the poor.

Throw in the distance and ease that technology can afford, add the egging on, bullying and lack of accountability of group dynamics among young, empowered, testosterone-fueled males, mix in some truly bad soldiers and their lusts, and it becomes a certainty that the murder of Iraqis by Americans didn't begin in Abu Ghraib and won't end in Haditha.

Indeed: G.I.'s Investigated in Slayings of 4 and Rape in Iraq
Edward Wong in the Times: The American military is investigating accusations that soldiers raped an Iraqi woman in her home and killed her and three family members, including a child, American officials said Friday.

The investigation is the fourth into suspected killings of unarmed Iraqis by American soldiers announced by the military in June. In May, it was disclosed that the military was conducting an inquiry into the deaths of 24 civilians in Haditha last November. ...

In June, the Army charged four American soldiers suspected of killing three detainees in Iraq and then threatening another American soldier with death if he reported the shootings.

Two days later, the Marine Corps said it had charged seven marines and one Navy corpsman with murder and kidnapping in the April killing of an Iraqi man in a village on the western outskirts of Baghdad. In that episode, the assailants are accused of planting a Kalashnikov rifle and shovel by the body of the victim to frame him as an insurgent after shooting him in the face four times.

Last Sunday, the military said two members of the Pennsylvania National Guard had been charged with involuntary manslaughter in the fatal shooting of an unarmed Iraqi man on Feb. 15.
You can argue after the fact whether the Bush administration is at fault on a strategic level for occupying Iraq with too few troops, not having a post-war plan.

Whether the administration is at fault on a moral level for dehumanizing Iraqis and allowing if not at times encouraging soldiers to treat Iraqis with contempt.

Whether the administration is at fault on a universal level for demonizing Muslims all over the world and nefariously using 9/11 to push through their own agenda.

Or you could argue it's just scared young men and women--some of them National Guard 'weekend warriors'--in over their heads and falling back on kill or be killed.

Because it doesn't matter. While well-meaning Americans sit here and argue and split hairs, all the while bending over backwards to not seem unpatriotic, it's our soldiers--yes, our heroic, wonderful men and women in arms--who in documented cases are murdering and torturing Iraqis.

Let's not forget it's thousands of Iraqis themselves, the cut-throat men under the sway of extremist leaders, who are directly responsible for almost all of the butchery and savagery in Iraq today.

But let's also not forget Iraq has no history of this insane behavior. No state does, really--and this brutality today is a direct result of a choice America made, to try and save the lives of American soldiers and minimize opposition on the home front by sending as few as possible to Iraq to fight this war and deal with the aftermath.

Even the Pentagon's own war games saw a need for 400,000 troops, not the 250,000 we actually sent.

In essence, the 'body gap' has been filled by Iraqi civilians.

It's not even just the basic decency of the undersized American force that's kept the number of atrocities low to this point. It's also Pentagon policy that avoids, whenever possible, letting soldiers come in contact with civilians. American troops stay barricaded in well-fortified compounds, venturing out only during daylight hours and only along well-traveled roads.

Hence, to the argument of some that if we pull out of Iraq, we leave the Iraqi women, children and elderly prey to mayehm, I say check out the death toll, which may be as high as 650,000 (the equivalent of 220 9/11s). In most Iraqi cities, it's already hell.

Nobody's seriously arguing for an overnight retreat--even though that's what the patron saint of conservatives, Ronald Reagan, might do were he still alive. After all, it's what in did in Lebanon after the death of 241 American troops (we're at more than 10 times that death toll in Iraq).

But we can at least start pulling out some soldiers immediately, beginning with the least-experienced and most-likely-to-crumble-units. We can replace them with Bush's American-trained Iraqi units, the ones he's been touting for three years. And we can mix in UN troops; I have no doubt John Bolton can bring the same zeal to getting the UN back in Iraq that he's brought to attacking the UN's bureaucracy.

As for the argument that this sends the wrong message to terrorists or whomever, I don't think it's possible to send a right message when our soldiers are murdering Iraqis. Our original reasons for getting into Iraq are all moot--and it's better that terrorists theoretically get emboldened than we continue preserving our 'honor' on the backs of civilians with this mess we're stubbornly perpetuating.

To borrow from Gandhi's philosophy, you cannot justify definite violence today by draping yourself in the cloak of laudable ends tomorrow.

All we know for sure is American troops are committing war crimes in Iraq, and that thousands of Iraqis are dying every month. I don't think it's realistic under this current administration for our troops to stop killing civilians, or to stop Iraqis from going after each other. All we can do is spare the Iraqi people from death at our hands directly or indirectly by getting out.

Even if you don't value the lives of Iraqis, think about all the American soldiers who are dying; and whose families are being ripped apart as a consquence of our out-of-control war in Iraq.

Even if you don't care about the lives of our disproportionately black and Hispanic military, think about yourself and what this war is doing to you.

Is it causing you to stick your head in the sand to avoid the endless depressing news, is it hardening your heart so that you can avoid turning on a president who deep down you fear is wrong wartime or no wartime, is it making you lash out against fellow Americans with words that demean their patriotism and ultimately yourself, does it have you feeling there's no good answer here let's just keep our heads down and hope muddle through?

If so, you're not alone. ABCNews, in a piece titledAmericans React to Soldiers' Arrests, made explicit what's happening to us.
Dean Reynolds, ABCNews: Several members of the military have been charged this week in connection with the deaths of Iraqi civilians. How are Americans at home responding to the charges?

The military is considered the most trusted institution in the nation; soldiers are repeatedly taught that when they put on their uniform, they represent more than themselves. But some Americans say different rules apply when soldiers are at war.

"War is brutal. It's going to be brutal and you have to expect that," said one Chicago resident.

Near Camp Pendleton in California today, where seven Marines and one sailor were charged with the death of an Iraqi civilian in Hamdaniyah, supporters closed ranks behind the accused soldiers.

One woman said, "These men, in my opinion, are heroes and they should have a parade held in their honor."

It seems that many Americans find reports of U.S. troops' transgressions at Abu Ghraib, Haditha or Hamdaniyah more understandable in a war where our men are kidnapped, tortured and executed.

"We can't win a war with these fanatics by babying them," said Korean War veteran Jerry Lyons in Houston. "Who cares what the rest of the world thinks?"

And in Chicago, another passerby said: "Soldiers in a situation that's untenable, in a war they cannot win, these types of things happen."

But military ethicists say the belief that "war is hell" and anything is permissible can do lasting damage to the nation.

"When you start talking about throwing the book out because we're under stress … You're making a dramatic alteration in … the cornerstone of American identity," said Eugene Fidell of the National Institute of Military Justice.
Seems like you can add Americans to the list of people being dehumanized.

Since when does being under stress, being scared, justify murdering another human? Where are the pro-lifers on this? No cute babies here for them to cling to?

Well, there are. Ultimately like always, it's the kids who suffer our hubris and evil. The documentary Winter in Baghdad lays it all bare.The Human Rights Watch International Film Festival describes it as:
Hitting just the right notes, filmmaker Javier Corcuera brings his gift of storytelling to this beautifully crafted film, allowing the viewer to integrate the political with the personal in the tragedy of Iraq that has unfolded since the war began in spring 2003.

Corcuera spent several months in Baghdad in the winter of 2004 getting to know Iraqi families who were trying to carry on with daily life despite the constant violence, black outs, and lack of basic necessities.

The filmmaker became especially close to a group of young, enterprising, and highly resilient teenage boys who despite the obstacles still managed to make it to school, hold down part-time jobs—which were not always strictly legal jobs due to constantly shifting U.S. regulations—and hang out with their friends in this forbidding environment.

Winter in Baghdad is as beautiful visually as it is deep emotionally—a rich tapestry of life in Baghdad today which counterbalances the simplistic and repetitive images of this once great city that are presented by the vast majority of mainstream news media.
The film makes clear while we pretend we're bringing democracy to the Middle East, the kids are growing up maimed by American bombs, killed by American bullets, terrified of American soldiers.

The kids are living in hell so that we can keep terrorists at arm's length, so, as President Bush keeps boasting, we can fight the terrorists there instead of here.

Well, 'there' isn't a desert--there are people underfoot. Iraqi kids and civilians are forced to scrounge for survival on a battleground so that we can paste bumper stickers and strut around patting ourselves on our back for how much we've helped the dark masses by giving them democracy.

And so we can pretend we're winning the war on terrorism because there hasn't been another attack on American soil.

In essence, we've traded the lives of 650,000 Iraqis to stave off attacks on America. If that's really the price our national policy post-9/11 will exact, I'd argue the terrorists already have won.

Even if it wasn't morally repugnant, surely pretending that it's not reality is costing us something.

Let's at the very least own up to it; tell the world you know, we simply value American life more. And then tell them what our calculus is--we're sorry, but we're willing that 200 die in Baghdad if think it might save 1 in New York.

So if we have to fire into your huddled masses and then withdraw to our isloated bases while marauding bands fill the power vacuum, we're fine with that choice.

That way, history can properly judge us, in the same way that God already is.

President Bush once memorably told the terrorists to 'bring it on.' What he didn't say was he wanted it brung on the backs of Iraqi civilians.

Photo on an Iraqi in Haditha and an American Marine via Voices UK. It's telling what images pop up when you do a Google images search on 'Iraqis'.

Sunday, November 05, 2006

Heartbeat of the world



The feistiest blogger I know came across a neat flash map that shows in 90 seconds who's controlled what in the Middle East over recorded history. It gives you a good feel for just how much history there's been; this, too shall pass has gotta be the motto of the region.

There are only a few other maps on the site at the moment, but I totally look forward to more. Kids in the future are totally going to be learning from visual representations like this, along with immersive video games. It's so much more clear than reading reams of text.

At the moment, trapped in 2006, I'm reading Tom Holland's Persian Fire, a look at the Persian-Greek wars that in addition to shaping the foundations of the Mideast for generations to come also, in Holland's view, hold lessons for today's East vs. West standoff.

I'll write more when I finish, but one thing he's already got me thinking about is how Babylon was the first multicultural city, in contrast to the Greek city-states, who were proudly xenophobic and labeled all non-Greeks barbarian.

It's interesting how we venerate those ancient Greeks; Holland has some interesting things to say about Sparta, in particular, that are at odds with the popular view of those clear-eyed ancients. Hitler didn't admire those Spartans for nothing, you know.

And if you take a look at this map of active U.S. hate groups, you'll see there are quite a few Americans today who'd fit right into that police state (as long as they got to do the 'policing').

In case you're interested, among the states with no hate groups are Rhode Island, Vermont, and Maine--perhaps because everyone in those states are white. The rest of the hate-group-less states are North Dakota and New Mexico, which may be a more meaningful standing since both have a significant minority Native American, and in NM's case Hispanic population. And Hawaii.

Which is probably too beautiful for people to wanna spend their time hating.

Friday, November 03, 2006

Erasing the line


What would a bad day for Israel look like?

What if they laid siege to a mosque. And then fired on a bunch of women?

All on live television.

Israel Opens Fire During Mosque Standoff

Greg Myre in The Times: Israeli troops fired at a large crowd of unarmed Palestinian women in the Gaza Strip today as the women approached a mosque to help Palestinian militants holed up inside. Two women were killed and about 10 were injured, according to hospital workers.

The shooting provoked widespread outrage among Palestinians.

The Israeli military said its fire was directed at Palestinian gunmen who were hiding among the women as they marched toward the Um al-Nasir mosque in Beit Hanun, the town in the northeastern Gaza Strip where Israeli troops and militants have been battling for the past three days. The Israelis said eight militants were shot, and that they were not aware that women were hit, but were investigating.

Ismail Haniya, the Palestinian prime minister, angrily called on the international community to “come here and witness the daily massacres that are being carried out against the Palestinian nation.”

Mr. Haniya also praised the women “who led the protest to break the siege of Beit Hanun.”

The shooting, which was captured by television cameras, was the most dramatic episode so far in the fighting in Beit Hanun.
By definition, no civilized army would allow its soldiers to fire on a bunch of women--what is happening to Israel?

Reuters photo of scene outside mosque by Suhaib Salem via the Times.

Sunday, July 23, 2006

Cease and dissent


Interesting cover from the British newspaper The Independent.

Seen via NewsDesigner.com

Friday, July 21, 2006

Our brother


As we hit the tenth day of Israel's offensive in Lebanon, the Times' Steven Erlanger and Jad Mouawad are reporting that Israel Calls Up Reserves, a Sign of Wider Ground Raids.

A quick check of the Jerusalem Post finds this:

The IDF was gearing up for a large-scale ground incursion into Lebanon on Friday. Thousands of reservists were being mobilized to the North throughout Friday to beef up forces stationed in the area in preparation for a possible operation.

In total, three to four ground divisions will be operating along the Lebanese front.

Defense Minister Amir Peretz said on Friday that the defense establishment was evaluating the size of the force needed to conduct a large-scale operation in Lebanon.
So much for this being a quick in, quick out pounding of Hezbollah. The Times article includes this ominous paragraph:
Lebanon’s defense minister, Elias Murr, said on Thursday that the Lebanese Army — which has so far remained on the sidelines — would go into battle if Israel invaded. “The Lebanese army will resist and defend the country and prove that it is an army worthy of respect,” he said.
So essentially, we're close to war; with the added element, ever-present in the Middle East, of emotion driving decisions.

Make no mistake, if Israel triggers a full war, the U.S. is going along for the ride. In many ways Israel is our 51st state--and for good reason. It's our only real ally in the Middle East, and for all the surreal situations they drag us into, if we're serious about democraticizing the world we should stand behind Israel and hold it up as a model that no matter how horrible your strategic situation, you can still be a democracy.

And that's the real problem with the situation in the Middle East. The U.S. tries to play this game where, less from geniune understanding--which always contains nuances and is hard to soundbite--and more out of domestic political considerations, our leading politicians tumble over each other to say things like Israel is 100% in the right, they can do no wrong, we stand strongly behind them.

Which is ridiculous, and patronizing, and makes us look naive and hopeless in the Arab world. Israel is not some golden nation--they make mistakes like any other, and it's no shame to point this out and second-guess, for those who are motivated by a true love for the country. Their political decision-making is just as likely to be driven by base motiviations as ours.

I do think, actually, that because of the stakes involved for them and the almost-familial size of the country in reality Israeli decisions are more carefully thought-out and nuanced than just about any other country's. But just because they're deliberate doesn't mean they're right.

Aside from those with religious ties, I think most ordinary Americans don't identify with Israel because of any sense that everything they do is correct. Heck, given our general paucity of knowledge of anything beyond our borders, we're not qualified from either an analytic or moral position to judge the 'rightness' of many of their actions.

We support Israel because they're like us--a functioning democracy that in many ways looks like and is modeled on the U.S., with a sizeable number of Americans living there and a dominant religion that we're familiar with. It's as if they're our little brother, with all the attendant emotional ties.

A little brother who had to grow up in a bad neighborhood, and hence who has an enormous chip on his shoulder, with a propensity to bristle and rightly or wrongly sees the way of the fist as the only way to get through day-to-day.

And I do think the way we look at Israel is very much is the sense of a 'little' brother. The diminution occurs in part because American Christians tend gaze at the 'Holy Land' through a haze of metaphors, with the odious Pat Robertson and his ilk all but saying that for them Israel matters only insofar as its existence and then destruction is necessary to bring about the Second Coming.

This kind of 'support' for Israel dehumanizes Israelis. And Americans who always totally and loudly support the actions of the Israeli government may be doing it out of good intentions, often driven by religious kinship, but the effect is to treat Israel as if it's one of its neighbors--a dictatorship where the government line is the only line.

I think one reason why so many American Jewish supporters of Israel are so tone-deaf and strident in their position is because they fear that unless they go to the barricades every time, Israel may be wiped out. There's the lingering memory of the 1973 surprise attack that nearly led to disaster for Israel; and behind it all, of course, the pitch-darkness of the Holocaust, which many mistakenly read as equating meekness with death (everyone wound up dead, those who 'fought back' were just tortured rather than gassed).

The pro-Israel lobby also has (realistically) feels that given the always-present undercurrent of anti-semitism in this country, they need to shout that much louder to 'get through' to and counter-balance a sleepy populace that otherwise might be fine just staying out of it and letting the parties in the Mideast fight it out for themselves.

So a lot of Americans wind up supporting Israel out of what seems sometimes like grim duty... when really, they should let themselves support Israelis out of clear-eyed love, which also happens to be much more sustainable.

Let's also have the maturity to see in Israeli society the same level of complexity and nuance that ours has, which means supporting 'Israel' can mean very different things at very different times and can't equate with just backing up whatever comes out of the prime minister's office in Tel Aviv.

It's not anti-Semitic or self-hating to say politics is driving much of the current offensive, and there are a lot of serious problems with what the Israelis are doing in Lebanon--they've killed mostly civilians so far, and are essentially lashing out at a neighbor for being too weak to control its own country, thus weakening it even more.

What Israel is calling a 'kidnapping'--of soldiers, no less!--it calls 'capturing' when it go after Palestinians, who are usually civilian. Plus it's all totally destroyed what was a promising move by the Palestinians toward long-term negotiations.

Even the right-wing Jerusalem Post has linked this soon-to-be-war to newly-elected Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's need to 'prove' his toughness to critics and supporters at home and foes abroad, made especially necessary in the eyes of some because of his lack of defense or military experience, in contrast to Israel's long tradition of warrior princes.

Let's not forget that Israel ended its previous adventures in Lebanon because public opinion turned against its version of Vietnam. There's an interesting 1991 Israeli film, Cup Final, about a reservist with tickets to the 1982 World Cup in Spain who's instead called up to duty during the war. He gets captured by the PLO, and the film follows their journey through wartime Lebanon to Beirut--it's an interesting portrait of what happens to people who, although enemies, really know each other; with an ending that few Hollywood directors would dare to make.

It is ironic that a lot of misguided Americans kept supporting that pointless war long after the Israelis who were doing the dying did. Just as many Americans support the very same settlements in Palestine that most Israelis see as sapping political payoffs to the far-right.

Indeed, Israeli left-wing director David Benchetrit's Dear Father, Quiet, We're Shooting profiles how some of even the most alpha of Israeli males, its fighter jets pilots, wound up refusing to bomb cities and civilians in Lebanon and Palestine.

But by the logic of the knee-jerk pro-Israel lobby, those soldiers are traitors just because they don't conform to the cartoon image of Mideast politics we project onto Israel. Yet it's the most patriotic who are usually the first to say hey, I love this country too much to stand by silent while it does what I see as wrong, I have a moral duty to speak up even, and sometimes especially, if by doing so I frustrate my government's actions.

Paired with our vocal vapid public support of Israel's government, the U.S. tries to pretend that we can also play the role of honest broker in the region, pushing Israel to the bargaining table after we've deemed they've fought long enough, and hashing something out that works for everyone.

Our insane close ties to what are essentially dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, our friendship with moderate Jordan, and the dictates of big oil complicate our position and 'balance' us in the sense that a news story with a rabid pro-lifer and pro-choicer is good journalism.

It's all further muddled by the Europeans, with their anti-semitic history, status as ex-colonial masters of the area, and overriding economic considerations, tilting toward the Arab states. Add in that Russia/the Soviet Union, which funneled huge amounts of aid to Syria and at one point Egypt as part of its fond hopes of world domination, historically opposes whatever the U.S. position is.

Which leaves the UN, even with all its historical baggage in the creation of Israel and present-day problems with anti-semitism, feeling like surely if any region needs it it's the Middle East, and trying to carve out an appropriate role for itself. Hence, this in the Times article:
On Thursday in New York, Kofi Annan, the secretary general of the United Nations, called for an immediate ceasefire and spoke of the human suffering caused by the offensive, which has displaced hundreds of thousands of Lebanese from their homes.

He proposed that Hezbollah release the two soldiers, that attacks by both sides be halted and that an international peacekeeping force be deployed. And he condemned the Israeli operation as an “excessive use of force.”

Russia, which reduced parts of Chechnya to rubble in its fight against rebels there, also sharply criticized Israel: the Russian Foreign Ministry called Israel’s actions in Lebanon “far beyond the boundaries of an antiterrorist operation” and urged a cease-fire.

At the White House, President Bush’s press secretary, Tony Snow, said, “I’m not sure at this juncture we’re going to step in and put up a stop sign,” although he called on Israel to “practice restraint” and said Mr. Bush was “very much concerned” about a growing human crisis in southern Lebanon.
Yeah, as if holding up our hand would be enough to get Israel to stop. Historically, we can force Israel to do things that it doesn't want to do, but only at great political and often monetary costs.

And on the political level there are those purse strings that irrecovably tie Israel to us, and are a significant factor for why America does share in the moral responsibility for Israeli actions. The Jewish Virtual Library has these interesting facts about U.S. aid to Israel, a country of 6 million which has received more money from us since WWII than anyone else:
In 2005, Israel received $360 million in economic aid and $2.22 billion in military aid. In 2006, economic aid is scheduled to be reduced to $240 million and military aid will increase to $2.28 billion. ...

Altogether, since 1949, Israel has received nearly than $100 billion in assistance. ...

Though the totals are impressive, the value of assistance to Israel has been eroded by inflation. While aid levels remained constant in total dollars from 1987 until 1999, the real value steadily declined. On the other side of the coin, Israel does receive aid on more favorable terms than other nations.

For example, all economic aid is given directly to the Israeli government rather than allocated under a specific program. Also, starting in 1982, Israel began to receive all its economic aid in a lump sum early in the fiscal year instead of in quarterly installments as is done for other countries. Israel is not required to provide an accounting of how the funds are used.
Heck, I wonder how many states have netted $100B from the federal government in the last six decades.

But at least we get something for our aid--Israel has always been there for us, and I have no doubt that if aliens invaded earth to target only America, Israel would be the first (and maybe only) country to jump in on our side.

And to put it in comparison, a 2004 Christian Science Monitor article headlined $50 billion later, taking stock of US aid to Egypt details how much we've given to the country of 79 million:
Aid is central to Washington's relationship with Cairo. The US has provided Egypt with $1.3 billion a year in military aid since 1979, and an average of $815 million a year in economic assistance. All told, Egypt has received over $50 billion in US largesse since 1975.
Egypt is historically the second-largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid (Iraq has temporarily pushed both Israel and Egypt down a notch), with pretty much all of it coming after the 1979 Sinai accords.

The CSM article essentially contends much of our money has been wasted in a Soviet-style economy, a claim which is echoed in a 2001 article in Egypt's respected al-Alhram paper headlined What have we done with US aid?, with the subtitle, Why has substantial US aid to Egypt failed where it has succeeded elsewhere? We have mainly ourselves to blame, writes Mustafa Kamel El-Sayed. But the issue of utter Arab dysfunction is another post.

At the end of the day, what's going on in Lebanon is not a tragedy--that pushes it from the realm of real life into the dusty bins of metaphor.

It's a horrible, man-made situation, with blood and blame on both sides, that is absolutely representative of Israel's life-long dilemma: How much provocation can it endure beset on all sides, before striking back hard, drawing the attention of the world, which tut-tuts and then at some point intervenes--only to have it all start up again as stiff-necked Israel keeps operating as if it's an oasis in a desert?

If Israel is ever to become a 'normal' nation, they need to solve this problem. The policies of the last six decades are not sustainable, even if they were desirable. Israel is a small, concentrated country that at its narrowest isn't even 10 miles across; even if it wins 99.9% of its battles, at some point--10 years, 20, 50--terrorists will obtain nuclear devices and strike.

Its only hope is to persuade its neighbors before then to live in peace. It can be done--look at the U.S. and Germany and Japan.

Maybe Israel, with our help, can set up its own Marshall Plan.

Uncredited photo of American F-16 sold to Israel via The Electronic Intifada.

Monday, July 17, 2006

Why we're in Babylon


The war in Iraq wasn't stupid, or irrational, or evil. It'd be a lot easier of a situation if it were--and it would let us as the American people off the hook. We could then just pin the blame on Bush.

But we can't, not if we're being honest with ourselves and with our increasingly-frustrated elected leader. It's not his fault; it really isn't. Even as we near the fifth anniversary of 9/11, we've pushed to the backs of our mind how scared most people in this country were in the days after those planes flew into our buildings.

The war in Iraq was a direct and inevitable outgrowth of who we have become as a people post-9/11. It is the ultimate manifestation of the us against them mentality that has come to define our society--the only thing that changes is the increasingly harsh definition of 'them,' on issue after disparate issue, from abortion to gay rights to economic disparity to free trade to religion to immigration.

We've in essence chosen to become a zero-sum society, suspicious of and resistant to arguments that aim for a middle ground, convinced of our ultimate righteousness despite our muddled positions. It's why liberals demonize President Bush, and why conservatives lionize him.

We're all acting like America is at the end of her rope, that the lunatic right's Armageddon is indeed nigh and we better fight for what we can get in these precious days before it all (literally) goes to hell.

But put it all aside for a minute, if you can. Take a deep breath, admit that we live in the greatest country in the history of humanity, and that there is much more good than bad in America--and that the good is growing because our society as a whole is changing, whether we like it or not and whether our 'side' will profit from it all.

Let's take a hard look at why we're in Iraq, so we can figure out what to do now. We, in this case, meaning the U.S.; in Iraq meaning occupying the country with thousands of troops; what to do now meaning how do we get out of this mess.

Are we in Iraq for oil? I don't think so; if we are, why did we so quickly hand the oil industry back to Iraqis to run? All the top decision-makers are Iraqis, many of whom have moved to quickly distance themselves from the U.S.

And as Iraq feels their way down the path to democracy they're going to go through all sorts of wild fluctation in policy. Oil markets value stability and predictability over everything else; and the big oil companies uniformly would and did prefer an Iraq run by a clearly-in-charge dictator dependent on oil revenue to fund his murderous treasury, to one run by an independent democracy for whom the dollar is not always going to be the bottom line.

Historically, when commercial interests hold sway the U.S. intervenes to throw out democracies and installs dictators and shahs so they can pump more oil for their protectors. We've never, at the behest of corporations, fought a war to give more natives more say over a country's policy.

So unless you belive that oil interests were just strong enough to drag the U.S. into a war but suddenly weren't smart or strong enough to dictate the peace, the oil for war argument is just liberal pablum.

Are we in Iraq to spread democracy there and through the Middle East? There's no way; first, explain to me how a conservative Christian would suddenly halfway through his first term decide bringing democracy to Muslims was his life's calling card, worth any amount of hatred from his brethren, and scorn from the entire world?

Besides, why didn't the administration spend more time on a post-war plan, so that other countries would have a blueprint to follow? Why did Iraq get to turn to a liberal professor to help draw up a constitution instead of the administration providing a fellow traveler?

Why haven't we in any way, shape or form tried to get the Saudis or Egyptians to start moving toward democracy? Wouldn't the examples of Algeria and Turkey, where both times the country's military took over after Islamic parties won the first-ever free and fair elections, serve as more of a cautionary tale?

Democracy wasn't mentioned in the build-up to the war in Iraq; it was a feel-good after-thought, thrown in after all else failed. Even were this our motivation, at this point it's a moot point, since nobody's going to be persuaded to go democratic based on our track record in Iraq (hey, we, too want civil war and mass bloodshed! Where do we sign up?!)

Are we in Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction? Not mainly; it seems to me that was more a stick to get us into the war, the bogeyman waved--along with are you a patriot or a terrorist-lover?--in the face of those on the fence and to try and get other nations to help foot the bill.

The argument has been made a millions time, but the essential point is by the time the war drew near the adminstration knew there were no active WMDs in Iraq, yet it didn't pause their movement toward war one bit--if anything, they rushed the war along before more people could find out what they knew. At any rate, there aren't any WMDs in Iraq today, so this also is a moot point.

Are we in Iraq because of the war on terror? I actually do think this was one of two main reasons why we invaded Iraq... but not in the way the Bush administration has tried to spin it. Iraq wasn't involved with al-Qaeda before the war; that was all rhetoric, and the Bushites know it.

The neo-conservatives and our co-opted president essentially snuck the war in Iraq past a scared and shell-shocked post-9/11 America. We feel in our gut that we failed at the time to stand up and be courageous, which is why so many are so angry now. In psychological terms we feel guilty and mad at ourselves, with a twist of Monday morning everybody hates a loser thrown in to enoble us now to displace our feelings outward toward the sitting president.

Because modern American culture has no mechanism for societal confession and penance (and because in our private lives our dominant religion has been hijacked by fanatics who have perverted Jesus' humble message into 'America right or wrong'), many of us have externalized our feelings of having been suckered, and spun them into anger at 'them,' holding them responsible for what weighs on our soul.

Which is neither right, nor productive. What the Bush adminstration did after 9/11 was to make a hard decision on behalf of a temporarily-infantilized society. They decided it's better to fight terrorists on their 'home turf'--the Middle East--then on ours--New York City.

In essence, they decided to send Americans over there to spare the terrorists the trip here. At least in the Middle East, the administration figured, we'd be able to fight them with soldiers; on the home front it would be cops and civilians.

They counted on al-Qaeda et al, like any other organization, to do the cost-benefit analysis and then travel a few dozen or hundred miles to kill highly visible Americans, instead of traveling thousands of miles past beefed-up border security to try and murder again in a strange land. They counted on al-Qaeda realizing that whatever their previous level of support in the Mideast, fighting 'infidel' warriors come to despoil their holy lands was gonna fly a lot better with public opinion than killing women and children, especially when a significant portion of those killed on 9/11 were actually Muslim (it wasn't called the World Trade Center for nothing).

Iraq was chosen by the administration because Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, it was near our bases in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf, it was a flat easy terrain for our tanks and guided missiles, there was at least the possibility the enemy had WMDs but he didn't have a very good army, it didn't seem like the populace would be particularly hostile to us, and above all it was easy for terrorists to get to.

I actually don't have any problems with the underpinnings of this policy, from the point of view of the Bush administration. If you're gonna assume after 9/11 that for whatever reason there's a critical mass of Muslims who hate us and want to destroy us at all costs, it makes sense to use the best defense is a good offense strategy, and not just go after them but stick around afterwards so any future terrorist attacks will be against professionals wearing body armor.

I don't agree with any of the administration's assumptions; for one thing the war in Iraq probably created as many terrorists as it has killed. But given that it's what the administration--and lest we forget, the majority of Americans in those heady days post-9/11--thought, they actually made a logical decision.

I do wish the administration had thought fit to share their reasoning publicly, and the fact they didn't says a lot about how they view their fellow Americans, and the world. I guess it's kind of hard to stand up in front of the UN and tell the people of Iraq essentially that you are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time--that too many strategic goals are served by a war in your home, besides which, frankly we'd rather innocent Iraqi civilians die than American civilians.

It's a bit hard to say that--but if you're going to do exactly that, you ought to bear the full brunt of your decision. If the rest of the world calls you cold-hearted, Machiavellian, uncivilized, selfish, and self-righteous, you should be willing to take the justified abuse, look them square in the eye, and say you're right, but we're willing to have this on our soul.

And make no mistake--in this post-9/11 world if we held a national vote with the question, Would you rather a large number of Middle Eastern civilians and smaller number of American soldiers die, or a smaller number of American civilians die, most Americans would in the privacy of the ballot booth pull the lever to kill the foreigners and the poor troops, God bless their souls.

So let's not pretend this is an evil Republican regime dragging us kicking and screaming down the road to hell. It explains in part why Bush looks so peevish all the time--he must be dying to scream out you idiots and hypocrites, I made the hard decision because it's what all of us wanted, you're like teens who whine about animal cruelty while wolfing down hamburgers.

Aside from wanting to do what we thought would save our own skin, I do think there is a second reason why we're in Iraq--because we owed Israel.

During the first Persian Gulf War, Saddam launched missiles at and hit Israel. In an event unique in Israeli history, they didn't retaliate. This has never happened before--Israel's sine qua non is that if you hit me, I hit you back times ten.

But the U.S. was justifiably worried that the Arab members of its coalition would never fight on the same side of Israel, and so President George H. W. Bush was able to prevail on Israel to let America punish Saddam in its stead.

Problem is, even in light of Saddam having invaded and burned Kuwait we couldn't make up our mind whether he was a bigger threat or the Iranians. We didn't dare risk taking him out altogether for fear Iraq would disintegrate into civil war (hmmmm) and Iran would be left without a 'balancing' power.

So we deliberately stopped short and left Saddam in Baghdad, where until 9/11 the Israelis fretted. For logical and psychological reasons relating to the first war, and strategic reasons related to Iraq's proximity, size and unpredictability, many Israelis temporarily replaced their hatred of Iran with a fear and loathing of Saddam.

Even before Bush II took office Richard Perle and the rest of the neo-conservatives started sounding the drums about Iraq; they're part of the line of American policy which has always held that what's good for Israel is good for America. And even if it isn't... we're so big and strong that we can go out of our way a little to help our little brother, and if necessary take punishment on their behalf.

The counterbalancing wing in American foreign policy, which like liberals has had an inaccurate and limiting label--'Arabists'--pinned on them, has traditionally argued for a broader examination of American and world interest in the Middle East. They argue that as a honest broker America could more effectively promote macro goals like democracy and stability in the region, which are in our interests and, in the long run, Israel's as well.

This wing, of course, lost any power they had after 9/11. At which point the neo-cons saw a chance to push through their plan to remove Saddam as a threat to Israel primarily, and America secondarily. Those hypothetical weapons of mass destruction could've be loaded onto missiles and wiped out Tel Aviv; there was never any evidence that Saddam would suddenly turn on his old American allies.

Part of the American public's hypocrisy and ignorance is how quickly we've erased from our public discourse the fact that the only time Saddam used weapons of mass destruction against another country was when we supplied him with the latest in satellite imagery so he could drop thousands of chemical shells on Iranian troops and civilians.

The war between the two neighbors was started by Iraq, with the encouragement of the U.S. (not that Saddam needed much of a push--more important was the American assurance that they would back him militarily, which we did).

The Iraq war, in the end, is really a perfect storm for Americans. It says so much more about us as a people than we'd like to admit; even the fact that we gaze regularly on the news at the bodies of slain Iraqis but profess shock and outrage when al-Jazeera shows our dead speaks volumes about how we literally see the world.

Image from William Blake's 1808 edition of John Milton's Paradise Lost found online.

Monday, July 03, 2006

Turkey, darkly


If it's Sunday it must be time for another great Times photo--and another application of the word 'exotic' to something that's merely non-Western.

Taylor Holliday's article, In Turkey, Sailing Into the Exotic on a Blue Cruise, about a trip around the coast via sailboat, is actually cringe-inducing, on multiple levels.

By the time we'd spent one full morning swabbing the deck and cleaning the head — which, by the way, had to be pumped for every flush — and by the time my eyes had swollen up from an overnight bug bite, Oytun's face had broken out in a rash and Carla had banged up her nose on the metal contraption that held the solar panel, we girls weren't so sure we wanted to be real sailors.
Wow, amazing that the Times is turning to 12-year-olds for their articles.
Another irresistible temptation was a mysterious cafe at the end of the quay. A seriously exotic place, apparently owned by Turkish communists (check out the bookshelves), it was literally a nomad's tent perched on the dock above the sea. "There's not many places sailors can experience desert culture," said Carla, as we removed our shoes and settled into the cushions and carpets on the floor.
'Seriously' exotic... versus like totally exotic, dude?
The next morning, Oytun and I took the dinghy to the next cove for a swim in the pristine waters, the pebbly beach all ours save for a village family on a picnic. Covered head to toe, they were nonetheless seemingly unbothered by our bikinis.
Yes, how surprising; cause you know, Orthodox Jews walk around New York scowling and all shook up by the attire of non-Jews. How surprising these Turks, even to the author's eagle eye, didn't seem focused on the girls' swimsuits--didn't they get the memo that it's all about Taylor? What are they doing at their own beach if not to howl at the dress of tourists?
Some days, the wind was weak and we'd have to motor. Cengiz taught us how to read the nautical chart, map the coordinates of where we were headed and load them in the G.P.S. system. Most often, though, we navigated by sight and by the sailing bible for this area, Rod Heikell's "Turkish Waters and Cyprus Pilot."
Ah, yes, many a Turk mentions that their sailing bible (or is that Koran?) was written by that well-known Brit, Rod. They even learn English so as to be able to have their waters explained to them.

Plus that way they can read Taylor's articles about exotic! places!

Photo of an unspecified Turkish cove by Yoray Liberman for the Times.

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Imposing thy will

Israelis Batter Gaza and Seize Hamas Officials

The Times:
Israel stepped up its confrontation on Wednesday with Palestinian militants over the capture of an Israeli soldier, battering northern Gazan towns with artillery and sending warplanes over the house of the Syrian president, who is influential with the Palestinian leader believed to have ordered the kidnapping.

In the West Bank early on Thursday, Israeli forces detained the Palestinian deputy prime minister, Nasser Shaer, two other cabinet ministers and four lawmakers in Ramallah, The Associated Press reported, citing security officials. Labor Minister Mohammed Barghouti was detained earlier, they said.

As Israeli tanks hunkered down inside southern Gaza at the airport on Wednesday, after warplanes knocked out half of Gaza's electricity and pounded sonic booms over houses, the crisis seemed to be tipping toward wider violence.

The Israeli defense minister, Amir Peretz, approved an extension of the incursion into northern Gaza, where Palestinian militants have been firing crude Qassam rockets into Israel. As of early Thursday, though, Israel denied reports that it was moving tanks into northern Gaza. About 9 p.m. Wednesday, after saying they would drop leaflets urging citizens of Beit Hanoun and Beit Lahiya to leave their homes, Israeli artillery batteries began to shell.

On Thursday, an Israeli warplane fired a missile in Gaza City that an Israel spokeswoman said hit a soccer field near the pro-Hamas Islamic University. Reuters reported that the missile hit inside the university.

Political leaders of Hamas on Wednesday joined the militants to demand the release of Palestinian women and minors from Israeli jails in exchange for the soldier — a condition that the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, vowed would not be considered. The choice, Israeli officials said, was the soldier's unconditional release or an escalation that could widen the conflict regionally: Haim Ramon, Israel's justice minister, raised the possibility of a strike in Syria to kill Khaled Meshal, the exiled political leader of Hamas; the men who hold the Israeli soldier, Cpl. Gilad Shalit, 19, are believed to be following his orders.

"We won't hesitate to carry out extreme action to bring Gilad back to his family," Mr. Olmert said of the soldier captured in an attack near Gaza on Sunday led by Hamas.

In what the Israelis said was a message to the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, on Wednesday four Israeli warplanes flew over his residence in Latakia, in northwest Syria, where he was believed to be staying. Syrian state television said Syrian air-defense systems fired on the planes and forced them to flee. ...

And there remains widespread approval for the capture of Corporal Shalit and Hamas's demand for an exchange, given that there are nearly 9,000 Palestinians in Israeli jails.

"There is support for this because I am not safe when I walk on the street," said Mustafa Raghib, the director of Gaza's largest flour mill, forced to shut for several hours after the electricity was cut. "I don't live a good life. I am not safe in my country. Give me a good life and I will not support actions like this." ...

Israeli leaders said Wednesday they had ordered the military forward after seeing little progress on diplomatic efforts — including by Egypt and France — to end the crisis. Amid sonic booms that shattered windows, Israeli military planes hit the three bridges, as Apache helicopters attacked all six of the transformers at the power plant — an attack that Israeli officials said was necessary to make it harder to move around Corporal Shalit .

"Nobody understands the logic," Rafik Maliha, the plant's manager, said. "They want to keep people in the dark so kidnappers don't move? What's the relationship?

"If there is no electricity, there is no water," he added. "It is more than collective punishment."

The plant provided some 42 percent of the power to Gaza's 1.3 million residents, and now Gaza is completely dependent on Israel for its power. Mr. Maliha said it would take as long as a year to replace the transformers.
Has Israel gone mad?

One of their soldiers--not a civilian, a soldier--is taken prisoner; negotiations commence, the Palestinians say they want to exchange him for some of their own prisoners. This is an event that has happened literally thousands if not millions of times in human history.

Israel responds by 1) launching a massive invasion of Gaza; 2) destroying the water and electricity infrastructure that thousands of civilians depend on to stay alive; 3) kidnapping senior Palestinian leaders; 4) threatening to kill a Palestinian leader in Syria; 5) threatening to kill the Syrian president.

If the Palestinians had done any of the above, they'd have been justifiably accused of terrorism. Israel does it all, President Bush comes out and--again condemns the initial Palestinian action.

It's very odd; something's afoot. Maybe Israel thinks with the World Cup going on, nobody's paying attention? And they wonder why nobody likes them at the United Nation....

The craziest thing? As the Times reported last week in A Gaza Political Figure Says He's Become a Scapegoat
[Fatah's leader] Mr. [Muhammad] Dahlan described a meeting on Wednesday with the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, known as Abu Mazen, of Fatah, and the prime minister, Ismail Haniya, of Hamas. "Abu Mazen asked him, 'What's your program? How will you get out of this crisis? What can you tell us?' And Hamas always says, 'God will help us.' Fine. We all believe in God, but politics requires an answer."

Mr. Abbas, with the encouragement of Mr. Dahlan, has seized on a document prepared by prisoners, led by a jailed Fatah leader, Marwan Barghouti, that calls for a unified Palestinian government and program that would support a Palestinian state within the boundaries before the 1967 war, thus implicitly recognizing Israel. If Hamas does not come to an agreement with him to accept the principles set out in the document, Mr. Abbas has declared a July 26 referendum on the proposal, a vote that Hamas says is illegal.

"Marwan did a great job in the jail on the document," Mr. Dahlan said of Mr. Barghouti, getting a senior Hamas prisoner to sign what "is the first document in our lives" that all Palestinian factions managed to negotiate. "I told Abu Mazen, 'Don't even read the document, just accept it.' And Abu Mazen used the document in a good way," he said, presenting Hamas with a political conundrum.

Ghazi Hamad, the Hamas government spokesman, said in an interview that he was optimistic that the Abbas-Hamas talks would lead to a political agreement without a referendum, allowing Mr. Abbas, as head of the Palestine Liberation Organization, full authority to negotiate with Israel on the basis of the 1967 boundaries.
Yup, just as the Palestinians are finally getting their act together, with the most-respected hard-liners challenging Hamas with a political maneuver to reopen negotiations with Israel, the Israelis decide to invade Gaza.

What are they playing at? Are they hoping to provoke the Palestinians into a return to suicide bombings, so they can then point with outrage and wail about how can they be expected to negotiate with terrorists?

It seems like they certainly don't want to sit down at the negotiating table with the Palestinians. The Times article continues:
On Tuesday, Palestinian negotiators from Fatah, Hamas and other factions rushed to finish a draft of a unified political program, based on a document issued in May by Palestinian prisoners. It contains new language that senior Israeli officials said represented a defeat for Mr. Abbas. They said they hoped he would walk away from it because, one official said, "It takes him out of the game" and "further alienates him from Israel." The document now represents, the official said, "The basis for future negotiations with Israel, and for us, this is a total nonstarter."

The Israeli analysis, made by the Foreign Ministry, focuses on new language, inserted in negotiations with Hamas, that insists on the right of return, "without discrimination," for all Palestinian refugees "to their homes and properties from which they were evicted and to compensate them." The Israelis argue that this stronger language gives the lie to any claim that Hamas has recognized the right of Israel to exist, implicitly or otherwise, because such an interpretation of refugee rights would eliminate Israel as a Jewish state by flooding it with Palestinians.

The document has always been silent on the statehood of Israel, but has been interpreted to give it an implicit recognition because it calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital, "on all territories occupied in 1967," presumably with Israel next door.

But a senior official, who has also briefed European diplomats, argued that the failure to mention Israel's right to exist speaks more loudly. "We don't see any implicit recognition of Israel by Hamas," the official said. "The most significant reason is that this right of return takes out the two-state solution."

Israel, the official said, is concerned that the document is being praised by European officials, without having yet been read. The document, Israel says, accepts previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements only in so far as they do not "affect the rights of our people," which Israel says means "cherry-picking" previous agreements.
My gosh, the Palestians are de facto recognizing your right to exist, which is the Holy Grail Israeli policymakers have been seeking for decades. So sit down with them and fight it out over the details--the fact that Hamas of all groups was rushing to finish a negotiating document should be cause for celebration.

Don't negotiate via the media; don't worry about what Europe thinks; and certainly don't try to impose your will and force the other side to bow to your superior force. Maybe it's a ploy, so they can negotiate 'from strength'--if so, it's outright damnable and small to try to improve upon a theoretical position at the expense of the lives of women and children.

Not to mention why would you then expect anyone to show up at the other end of the table? Well, except the Palestinian leaders Israel kidnapped... maybe they'll be brought to the negotiating table with guns at their back?

It makes me wonder if Israel doesn't think the status quo, where their (American-subsidized) military might in combination with international sanctions is slowly suffocating the Palestinians, is a 'solution.' It puzzles me--any nation that's okay with having millions of people who hate you as neighbors is stupid at best, masochistic at worst.

Certainly stiff-necked in any case; yes, it's a bad thing that some rogue Palestinian faction that does not want to see negotiations kidnapped an Israeli soldier. Swallow your pride; or if taking an eye for an eye is too deeply entwined in your DNA, go kidnap a Palestinian soldier.

Don't whip yourself up into an orgy of destruction out of an unprofessed unwillingness to sit at the same table as your adversaries, where you'd actually be forced to respond to them as fellow human beings.

Not to mention forced to explain in front of the world why Palestinians families who had their property seized and were run out of Israel at the point of a gun shouldn't at least be compensated. Nor allowed to come back to visit graveyards and remaining relatives--let alone return to their homes. (Odd that the Republicans are so incensed that Fidel Castro kicked people out of Cuba and took their property, but have never said word one about the situation in Israel).

In any case Israel's actions are especially strange since it won't be in a position of strength for much longer. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz explored Israel's demographic problem in an article headlined The demographics point to a binational state
At the end of the War of Independence, after the expulsion and flight of some 700,000 Arabs, the population of Israel consisted of 82 percent Jews and 18 percent Arabs. In 2003, 54 years and almost 3 million immigrants later, the Central Bureau of Statistics' official figures indicated a similar Jewish-Arab ratio (81 percent Jews, 19 percent Arabs), with the figure for Jews including non-Jewish immigrants.

In other words, the great immigration effort, including the dramatic influxes of immigrants in the early fifties and in the 1990s, served only to "balance out" the growth of the Arab population (most of it due to natural increase, and the rest achieved through family unification, the marriage of Arab citizens to foreign nationals and the annexation of East Jerusalem). The result was that the Jewish-Arab ratio remained the same.

If we assume that the proportion of Jews in the population is, in fact, even lower (because the figures do not reflect Palestinians residing in Israel illegally) and that massive immigration is no longer very likely, it becomes clear why more and more demographic experts and Jewish politicians see the question of a "Jewish majority" in Israel as a central issue, even within the 1967 borders.

Professor Sergio DellaPergola, a demographer from the Hebrew University's Institute of Contemporary Jewry, is among the more moderate members of his profession. His style is not apocalyptic, and his predictions tend to be highly cautious (some experts, as will be shown later, consider them too cautious). And yet even he is worried. As he explains, a demographic balance is made up of three components: immigration, mortality and birth. ...

Even DellaPergola, given to low-key predictions, estimates that by 2050 Israel's Arab sector may grow to nearly 30 percent of the population, "and although the Jewish majority remains stable with such a ratio, such numbers are more typical of a binational state, with all that the term implies. When those are the numbers, the minority no longer settles for individual civil rights, but demands a collective expression. Cyprus, for example, broke up when the Turks amounted to only 18 percent of the population."
AFP photo of an Israeli soldier directing a tank outside Gaza by David Furst