Tag Archives: government

Mar14

A Circle Has No Beginning in MidEast Politics

Posted on by
A Circle Has No Beginning in MidEast Politics
“Calm will be reciprocated with calm, fire will be reciprocated by fire,”
commented IDF Chief of the General Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz. The idea of reciprocation–otherwise known as that ages-old “eye for an eye” rule that was established in ancient Babylonia-remains a popular concept in the Middle East, no matter one’s religion. Lt. General Benny Gantz, an Israeli, was referring to the recent rocket-launching between Israel and Palestine, a situation which classically reproduces the whole “she said, he said” theme and has one pondering the question “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?”

Problematic, isn't it? Or is there a beginning? Sourced from resistanceisfruitful.com

The answer is that a circle has no begining. There seem to be an awful lot of circles in the Middle East right now: cycles of violence, poverty and oppression that we see repeating themselves in the same fashion, over and over again. Time and again Palestinian militant groups like Hamas will set off terrorist attacks against Israel; Israel will likewise respond with it’s military prowess. Time and again innocent people across the Middle East die because of retaliation measures taken up by their governments/the people in charge. I think it’s time for us to look closer at the circle. Are those really circles we see, with no true beginings or ends, or do they actually start somewhere?
“Circle arguments,” to coin a new phrase, are those arguments in which both sides will forever point the blame at each other, forever unwilling to back down or admit wrongdoing. (Perhaps you are saying to yourself right now, that sounds like most arguments! To me, politics is nothing but circle arguments). Circle arguments deny any traces of a true begining, as neither side will agree to a common starting point, and they certainly prevent any end point from ever being reached. Although admirable in other aspects of society, circle arguments–or the “eye for an eye” rule–have no place or bearing in government and politics.
Essentially, following reciprocitiy or “an eye for an eye” basically eliminates the chance to forgive; it only enhances the competitition. And do the governments of the world really need any more competition than they already have? Competition eliminates any possibility of peace, and even if world peace will never be acheived for a multitude of reasons to lengthy to discuss here and now, it is still imperative and honorable to aim for it. Many Americans would probably say that invading Iraq and Afghanistan was an “eye for an eye” measure, a proper retaliation for the events of 9/11. But was it really neccessary to subject entire countries to years of struggle, poverty, and terror based on the events of that one day? 9/11 was a tragic moment in history, a moment that should have humbled the entire human race; but it did not merit an eye for an eye approach. Did the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan really help America, apart from ridding the world of Saddam Hussein? Did they really make Americans feel more comfortable and et ease with our worldly image? If anything, retaliation only hurt America more.
The “relationship” (if one could call it that) between Israel and Palestine is a never-ending circle of retaliation and finger-pointing, as both sides try to prove their righteousness. Both sides have acted inhumanely, disgustingly. Both sides have every reason to be angry–but, one must consider: is there a start to their circle? The creation of Israel seems like an obvious start to a circle of hatred and violence, but it is of course a tricky begining, for no one alive today was around at the time of the takeover of the Palestinian state and, therefore, one cannot blame any Israeli today; in fact, if anyone was to blame for the start of violence in this little, ancient corner of the Old World, it would be Britain and those who brought the state into being.
Most recently in the news, an American soldier went on a killing spree and gunned down 16 Afghanis, among them women and children. Immediately, Afghanis declared “retaliation” against the Americans for this act of supreme cruelty. Aha, here we have the “circle argument,” the “eye for an eye” motif again, and again we must ask is it really worth it? Will the Afghanis truly be satisfied by killing American soldiers in afghanistan? No, they will not; this act will not bring back the dead, The act of one deranged man should not be cause to attack his fellow countrymen; by declaring retaliation against Americans/America, the Afghani’s are only weilding the stereotyping and racism paintbrush (so very popular in society) which deems that one person is responsible for all those of the same nation/ethnicity. One man does not represent the whole of America; nor did the terrorists of 9/11 or any other day represent the whole of Middle Eastern Muslim populations. Rather than learn to forgive (or at least recognize the difference between one person and his brothers) the Afghani rebels would rather bring about more violence and fire.
The conclusion? Fight fire with fire in your own private battles, but when it comes to the security and prosperity of an entire nationhood of people, let the people keep their eyes, even if you feel differently. For if the whole world is blind, who can we turn to?
Links:
Feb21

Grab Your Parasol, ‘Cause it Might Rain in Europe’s Banlieus

Posted on by
Grab Your Parasol, ‘Cause it Might Rain in Europe’s Banlieus

From the Tunisienne Faculte Facebook page

“A burka?! You’re going to take that off for me right now!”

“Uh, by the way, you do know that you’re talking to an umbrella…”

The above bande dessinee was found shared on the Facebook page “Tunisienne Faculte,” which is actually a treasure trove of political cartoons and inspirational images if you check out their “wall photos” album. Although I am not sure whether the illustrator was French or Tunisian (or perhaps both), it pretty accurately sums up one viewpoint of the French towards Islam and, more specificially, the burka.

The man in the cartoon is shocked (and somewhat terrified, a mon avis) of the burka and want’s it removed immediately, which reflects France’s action against la voile integrale (the niqab, which covers all but the eyes, is also banned from public). The woman’s snide reaction–”Oh, the person under there is not a human being, it’s a beach umbrella”– is in effect dehumanizing women who wear full coverings. It shows how little the French care that women do choose to put these on-at least, in some places/cases-and that the veil is, for them, a symbol of their religion and faith, not something as silly as a parasol.

Whether or not your a fan of la voile integrale, France is wrong to ban it. The women aren’t walking around nude, for God’s sake-and I suspect that France would have less of a problem if there was a herd of women strolling around in their undies than their burkas. Although I am certainly not a fan of it, and understand that in some cases it can even pose a safety threat (how do you know who’s really under there?) the outrageousness of passing a “fashion law” seems a bit…..well, similar to the actions the Taliban took against Western fashion.

Europe’s queasiness concerning their expanding Muslim population was highlighted by Hishaam Aidi in an Al-Jazeera article (see below), which discusses the alienation of Muslims in their new homelands, particularly in France where they are often relegated to the banlieus. The U.S. government, apparently, is queasy about Europe’s cold shoulder towards their ‘new’ immigrants and has been trying to improve Muslim integration and participation in France and the U.K. The title of the article caught my eye for it hearkened back to the image of the U.S. as supreme “Big Stick” policeman: “Are Europe’s Muslims America’s Problem?” To answer: No, I don’t believe that they are America’s problem, but I do feel that they will be a very grande problem in Europe if these countries don’t open their hearts.

Put it this way: France, the U.K., Holland, Sweden and other European states have already opened their doors to Muslim immigrants. Now, they don’t like the results; but it’s too late to shut the door. It’s time for these governments to ‘open their hearts’ and find compassion and understanding for their new countrymen. If the United States can survive as a nation of immigrants, why can’t Europe be a mixed-bag, culture-wise, as well? The most recent edition of National Geographic describes France’s melting-pot port of Marseille as a place not only teeming with traditional Muslims, but also Moroccans, Algerians and Tunisians who go to the plage just like everyone else, strip down to their bathing suits and enjoy the sun. Clearly, not all of France’s Muslims are against integrating and enjoying traditional French pleasures, so why paint them all with the same brush?

Quite frankly, the “backlash” that Europe had to America’s “soft-power programs”-a.k.a. outreach programs run mostly by the American embassy and aimed at youth-is embarassing. The U.S. was just trying to help a bad situation which they recognized from experience: after going through the Civil Rights Movement in the 50s and 60s, it’s pretty easy for an American to see that what’s happening in the banlieus and slums of Britain is quite similar to the treatment of African Americans in the past.

To quote the author: ”Sarkozy a few years ago threatened to clean up a cité with a Kärcher, a high-pressure hose.” Not only is this reminiscent of the fire hoses used on African Americans back in the 60s, it’s also a disgusting and cruel thing to say, as though the citizens of the projects were not citizens but garbage: used and broken invisible umbrellas. What did he think that would do? Did he think he could wash all the non-white French people away? Did he think he could cleanse them of their foreign attitudes, wash away the “dirt” of their religions and traditions?

The article mentions the fear of a “loss of cultural identity” as these newcomers hold fast to their traditions. But no one is telling the French to become Muslim, attend Friday prayer, slaughter a sheep: let everyone do what they want, I say. What makes us countrymen is not if we both share the same love of baguettes or pita, wine or the a la menthe, lamb or ham: what makes people countrymen is their shared values, the love of inalienable rights such as the ability to choose to do whatever you want, even if that means donning your own personal parasol to go to the beach.

S-L-M

Links:

1.   Are Europe’s Muslims America’s problem? By Hisaam Aidi, 26 Jan 2012. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/01/201212110539569620.htmlvalentines

Oct21

The End of Gaddafi, the Start of a New Libya

Posted on by
The End of Gaddafi, the Start of a New Libya

Being away from the computer for a mere 24 hours shows that a lot can happen! I returned home from NYC to find out that Colonel Muammar Gaddafi had been killed, thus punctuating the end of over-long era.

The fate of Gaddafi–the first of the Arab Spring dictators to be killed- is one that all dictators who rule with an iron fist (are there any who don’t??) must know is always a possibility down the line. True, Ben Ali of Tunisia managed to escape whatever fate the Tunisians had in store for him by fleeing to Saudi Arabia. Hosny Mubarak of Egypt was arrested, stripped of his millions and his dignity as he was wheeled into court. Will he be punished by death, like Gaddafi? Gaddafi’s fate might seem like the worst punishment, but in a sense it isn’t. Mubarak certainly has it worse as he is forced to sit chained in the grille box that criminals sit in in court: that level of humility is high. Ben Ali, although “free,” is exiled from the country of his birth and everything that implies–certainly not a light sentence. It makes one wonder: how does it feel to be a former leader removed from power by the citizens you once ruled who came to loathe you?

Alas, little sympathy can be spared for such figures, as they have run their countries into the ground economically, had dissenters silenced and/or murdered and basically used their power for corruption. These are people who appear to have little empathy. Wasn’t Saddam Hussein still cursing the Americans just before he was hanged, saying we’d all go to hell? You would think that he might have felt a bit of remorse for what he had done, seeing that if he hadn’t been so greedy in the first place he wouldn’t have become reviled, captured and executed. I don’t suppose there’s ever been a dictator who actually did good for their country.

The downfall of a dictator does not automatically mean that a country is “saved” and liberated. Egypt is struggling with it’s military rule. Iraq is a country still engaged in war, and torn apart. Did Libya “win it’s revolution,” as President Obama said? Yes, they might have gotten rid of their eccentric dictator  but the battle has really only begun. Now is their chance to create the Libya that they have been waiting for.
Good luck!
S-L-M
Oct17

Terrorism: Synonymous with Islam?

Posted on by
Terrorism: Synonymous with Islam?
  A recent CNN article lists the names of American citizens who have tried to take America down via terrorism and atrocious acts. Focusing on recent times, every single person listed on that article was a devotee of Islam. As I read the article, I began to question: were there other notable acts of homecountry sabotage that had occured in recent years that were NOT perpetrated by a Muslim? If so, was there a reason why they were not included in the article? Or perhaps the author just wanted to be biased?
    However, it is not just one CNN author who seems to agree that to be a terrorist means also to be a Muslim: the two words are nearly synonymous, it seems, in many people’s opinion. Ask anyone what a terrorist is, and they will probably throw in the word “Islam” or “Muslim” somewhere at some point. This is disturbing. I know that here, in America, many (even most) terroists have been Muslims hell-bent on teaching our country a lesson as they decry our lack of morality (a tad ironic, a mon avis) but the two words should not be synonymous.
     I made a google search by typing in the word “terrorist.” What did I find?
  • Wikipedia listed “Definitions of terrorism”-History of Terrorism-Islamic Terrorism and Jewish (!) on it’s link blurb
  • Merriam-Webster’s definition of terrorism: “the systematic use of terror especially as a means for coercion” (Islam is not mentioned!)
  • Many images for terrorism mostly showing Osama bin Laden and the Twin towers
  • A link to an article from Boston.com about two young men of Middle Eastern descent, who were falsely accused of terrorism and accosted by the FBI why? Because they drove a car with alternative fuel tanks inside.

This last find (along with the many images) only enhanced the CNN article’s take that “all terrorists are Muslims.” Perhaps the police were right to investigate, but if these men had not been Arab they would most likely not have bothered. The same goes for the Muslim woman who is suing Southwest Airlines for being removed from her flight for allegedly saying the words “It’s a go.” If a stewardess had heard me, a white American, say those words, they would not have blinked twice.

    Unfortunately, it takes just a few people to give a bad name to any group, organization, religion, etc. However, we must combat this. If we teach the younger generation that “All terrorists are Muslims” what will that do for our world? It will spread prejudice as these children believe that anyone believing in Allah also hates the USA and wants to bring it down. It will spread fear–just what the terrorists want.

Cartoon from India Talkies.com website

        The photo above, taken from the India Talkies website (link below), sums it up best. A terrorist can be anybody from any religion. As is the case with many countries in Europe (look at the people who tried to blow up the embassies in Greece) a terrorist can be someone fighting against their very nation, their very neighbors. Thus, it is time to stop associating the word “Islam” with “terrorism”!
S-L-M
Links: