New blog

I've moved my blog to Wordpress!

Check out:
http://rozinali.wordpress.com/
for more of my musings on the Middle East, South Asia, U.S. Foreign Policy, etc. And please bear with me as I slowly build the blog.

I haven't decided if I'm going to continue to write here, but I may come back to it for personal reflections. Thanks for reading!

Action, reaction and race

For the past year, I've been thinking about how we perceive and talk about race and racism under Obama's presidency. Well, more than a year. I explored the issue in an article I wrote for The Daily Star in Beirut, where I asked Lebanese from around the city what they thought of this African-American candidate.

Although gathering opinions on the world's perception of Obama was enlightening, it wasn't quite the amorphous hurdle I was grasping to understand. Like most others in the States, I'm more curious about how we, as individuals and as a society, think of, react to, and mold the idea of race. Of course, it's more than an idea. Race is a reality that is deeply confused with and embedded with a violent and contentious political history, class disparity, stigmas, and now a confused and often unreadable "black" president. And like most others in the States, I'm clawing my way through the hubbub for an answer.

I don't think we've become particularly enlightened about race, or come to a higher understanding of it. But I do think that politicians, the media, and fringes of our society have become obsessed with it in an almost damaging way.

The Shirley Sherrod mess is only evidence of this. Granted, the accusations that led to Sherrod's firing from her job came from a questionable and unethical source (I'm being nice to Breitbart here with my choice of words), but the fact that it was her views on race that caused her to be fired should raise some eyebrows. Five years ago, Sherrod would probably not have made it in the news for her opinions (even if she had incendiary ones), let alone have been fired for them. Now, a heavily edited video attempting to claim racism causes a scandal lasting days.

Racism is important to acknowledge, and anyone who perpetuates it in violent and negative ways should be held accountable. But the sensationalist manner in which topics of race and racism have overtaken this country is counterproductive, and it masks the actual human and civil rights violations our country perpetuates. What does it say about our society that we are willing to act upon and react to a comments on race with such expediency, and yet have been largely silent (in terms of action) regarding the contentious Wikileaks video on Iraq, reports of use of torture in Guantanamo Bay, and the obscene waste in financial and human resources on ineffective U.S. counter-terrorism institutions. Why has not anyone been held accountable for such atrocities?

Ultimately, this discrepancy in "promoting social justice" leads to one rather alarming question: why are we really obsessed with race?

Matters of politics and prose

Some high school students taking the Advanced Placement English Literature and Composition test are protesting the College Board's decision to include a statement regarding exile by Edward Said. They take offense at Said being described as a "Palestinian American", when other authors' nationalities were not indicated. According to these students, the mention of Said's background is political and anti-Israel, and they won't stand for it.

They feel so strongly, that they haven't gone to the College Board with their complaint, but instead have formed a Facebook Group to impress upon the Board how many people agree with them.

The Said quote in question reads: “Exile is strangely compelling to think about but terrible to experience. It is the unhealable rift forced between a human being and its native place, between the self and its true home: its essential sadness can never be surmounted.”

I couldn't find the group page on Facebook, and I'm not sure if it was eventually taken down. I really hope so, for the sake of the high school seniors who started it. If speaking the term "Palestine" in the American education system is considered anti-Israel, then we are operating with a huge blind spot that refuses to acknowledge the reality of Israel's past and present. Props to the College Board for taking initiative and challenging high school students with questions and prompts that aren't "safe topics." I hope it, too, doesn't cave to the ludicrous victimization card pro-Israelis in the U.S. overplay.

But really, such protest speaks a lot to how one-sided discourse regarding the situation has limited our ability to critically think about state-hood, nation, homeland, and especially, exile. Ironically enough, exile is a language that both Israelis and Palestinians can understand. Actually, it's one that people around the world can relate to, one that has inspired brilliant, tragic and beautiful poetry.

Does the nationality of these writers matter? Of course it does. Nationhood is that very thing that has shaped them as poets and activists, and it's the one thing they cannot attain. To ignore that is to wipe out an entire people - once again - from the pages of history.

-------

"In October 2000 the world was tuned in to the Sydney Olympics. In the hostel, on D-day we were all glued to the TV set eager for the opening ceremony to begin. Halfway into the event I realized that I couldn't see clearly anymore and my face felt wet. I was crying. No, it wasn't the fact that I clearly wished I was in Sydney or the splendour of the atmosphere or the spirit of the games, I tried hard to explain to those around me. Bu they couldn't understand, couldn't even begin to understand....how could they? They belong to a nation. They have never had to conceive of its loss, they have never had to cry for their country. They belonged and had a space of their own not only on the world map but also in the Olympic Games. Their countrymen could march proudly, confident of their nationality, in their national dress and with their national flag flying high. I was so happy for them."

-- Tenzin Tsundue, Tibetan freedom activist




"Bicentennial Poem #21,000,000"

I know
the boundaries of my nation lie
within myself
but when I see old movies
of the final liberation of Paris
with French tanks rumbling over land
that is their own again
and old French men weeping
hats over hearts
singing a triumphant national anthem.

My eyes fill up with muddy tears
that have no earth to fall upon.

-- Audre Lorde "Black Unicorn", a Caribbean-American writer and poet




"...as a writer or artist, even though I run no state and command no
power, I am entitled to feel that I am my brother's keeper and my
brother is the whole of mankind. And this is the relevance to me of
Peace, of freedom, of detente and the elimination of the nuclear menace.
But out of this vast brotherhood, the nearest to me and the dearest are
the insulted and the humiliated, the homeless and the disinherited, the
poor, the hungry and the sick at heart. And this is the relevance to me of
Palestine, of South Africa, of Namibia, of Chile, of my own people and
people like mine."
-- Faiz Ahmed Faiz, Pakistani poet, self-exiled in Beirut

Trial without rule of law?

As Omar Khadr's pre-trial hearings wear on, it's becoming increasingly obvious that law and conventional rules of war take a back seat to the U.S.'s do-as-we-please policy - and it’s met by only silence from the international community. 



Khadr, a Canadian citizen, is the 23-year old Guantanamo inmate who was taken into custody when he was 15 for allegedly killing a U.S. Special Forces medic in Afghanistan with a grenade. Khadr will be tried this summer under a military court, a relatively new and flawed system.

How new? Robert Gates signed off on the revised Manual for Military Commissions, which details the rules and procedures of a military trial, on Tuesday night. The manual was given to prosecution and defense lawyers hours before the hearings began, and the judge reportedly received it 15 minutes prior to the start of the hearing. [http://www.aclu.org/blog/human-rights-national-security/making-it-we-go-along]

But that’s just only one of the most incredible parts of this entire case. From his custody in 2002 to the current hearings, Khadr’s case has been fraught with instances of U.S. bending international rules of war and punishment in order to accommodate its own agenda.

In 2002, the U.S. ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, under which the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child told the U.S. to:

“Conduct investigations of accusations against detained children in a prompt and impartial manner, in accordance with minimum fair trial standards. The conduct of criminal proceedings against children within the military justice system should be avoided.”

The U.S. didn’t react to the recommendation. Khadr has been in custody since 2002, and despite efforts by his lawyers to dismiss charges against him, or at least grant him a civilian trial, he is looking at a military trial with prosecution aiming for a 25-40 year sentence.

But Guantanamo Bay Prison is enough of a slap in the face of international law. Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits torture of prisoners of war while they are in custody, but the base has become notorious for acts of torture against inmates. Khadr alleges that any statement he gave to interrogators was taken under similar circumstances in which he was sleep-deprived and received threats of rape. Khadr's interrogator, FBI Special Agent Robert Fuller, isn't denying that he heard rumors about torture in Guantanamo Bay in 2002.

Fast forward through the years of keeping a juvenile in a detention center that tortures inmates, to the military hearings this week. David Frakt, Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Air Force Reserve JAG Corps argued yesterday in Huffington Post that the revised manual for Military Commissions allows the government to broaden the scope of what is considered a war crime and who is considered an unlawful enemy combatant:

"Unfortunately, in enacting the Military Commissions Act of 2009, Congress did not strictly limit the jurisdiction of the military commissions to law of war violations and included non-war crimes like "Providing Material Support to Terrorism," a crime which even the Justice Department was forced to admit was not a traditional law of war offense. The Secretary of Defense, in publishing the new Manual for Military Commissions, has done Congress one better, attempting by regulation to broaden the scope of a real war crime to include conduct that does not violate the law of war in order to ensure convictions where they would otherwise be doubtful."

The U.S. doesn’t make it a secret of not always adhering to international norms of law. Under the section of Murder in Violation of the Law of War, the Manual claims: "an accused may be convicted in a military commission. . . if the commission finds that the accused engaged in conduct traditionally triable by military commission (e.g., spying; murder committed while the accused did not meet the requirements of privileged belligerency) even if such conduct does not violate the international law of war."

It should be clear by now that the U.S. will continue to follow its own standards of engagement in war and law. But why has the rest of the world decided that this is acceptable? Why hasn't the Canadian government stepped in to protect one of its citizens, especially one who was arrested when he was 15? After the U.S.’s decision to invade Iraq, despite UN’s opinion, and after 8 years of Guantanamo, the U.S. should not set the precedent of acceptable law for rules of engagement and prisoners of war. But for whatever reason, the international community has given the U.S. a moral green card, when it clearly doesn’t deserve one.

From Arizona to Afghanistan

Ta-Nehisi Coates published a couple of fantastic passages from Macbeth on his blog. Read his entire post if you get a chance:

Second Murderer

I am one, my liege,

Whom the vile blows and buffets of the world

Have so incensed that I am reckless what

I do to spite the world.

First Murderer

And I another

So weary with disasters, tugg'd with fortune,

That I would set my life on any chance,

To mend it, or be rid on't.

Flawed arguments, on repeat

Bret Stephens just reminded me there's a reason why I usually don't read opinion articles from mainstream media: they pretend to postulate theses against the Beltway conventional wisdom, but really only reiterate the ignorant crap that hinders productive conversation.

Today in the Wall Street Journal, Stephens writes the reason "they" [the Jihadists/Arabs/Muslims...which he conflates into one] really hate us [Americans] is because of scandalous temptresses such as Lady Gaga, and not the Israeli settlements on Palestinian property. I'm serious.

His source is Sayyid Qutb, the radical Islamist Egyptian thinker whose written philosophies in the 1950s influence the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda. Stephens sites from Qutb's relatively less popular essay "The America I have seen," which was written after his stay in conservative Greeley, Colorado, and most likely as a response to a changing and "modernizing" Egypt (points that Stephens forgets to mention):

"The American girl," he noted, "knows seductiveness lies in the round breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely thighs, sleek legs and she shows all this and does not hide it." Nor did he approve of Jazz—"this music the savage bushmen created to satisfy their primitive desires"—or of American films, or clothes, or haircuts, or food. It was all, in his eyes, equally wretched.

...

Bear in mind, too, that the America Qutb found so offensive had yet to discover Elvis, Playboy, the pill, women's lib, acid tabs, gay rights, Studio 54, Jersey Shore and, of course, Lady Gaga. In other words, even in some dystopic hypothetical world in which hyper-conservatives were to seize power in the U.S. and turn the cultural clock back to 1948, America would still remain a swamp of degeneracy in the eyes of Qutb's latter-day disciples.

This, then, is the core complaint that the Islamists from Waziristan to Tehran to Gaza have lodged against the West. It explains why jihadists remain aggrieved even after the U.S. addressed their previous casus belli by removing troops from Saudi Arabia, and why they will continue to remain aggrieved long after we've decamped from Iraq, Afghanistan and even the Persian Gulf. As for Israel, its offenses are literally inextricable: as a democracy, as a Jewish homeland, as a country in which liberalism in all its forms, including cultural, prevails.

Not sure what to tackle first. Let's start with geography. Stephens is absurd in assuming that Qutb, who encouraged Sharia Law, shaped Jihadists' ideology across the Middle East, when the role of religion and politics developed quite differently and distinctly from Gaza to Saudi Arabia to Iran. If Stephens needs any reminding (sad that he would), Iran is a Shia state - with an Islamic government, yes, but one that is quite distinct from a state with Sharia Law. Shia and Sunni political ideology has manifested throughout history, which is why constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran is unprecedented - not Sharia, but an experiment.

A quick note about his timeline: it's incredible that Stephens believes there was no push for "modernism" or any influence of American and/or foreign culture in the Middle East before Elvis or birth control pills. The 1950s and 1960s was a vulnerable and formative period in Middle East history. Not only were countries and socieities struggling to balance modernism with religion, but also a new nation-state system with forces of monarchy and foreign governments that were willing to "buy" out ME states for their support in the Cold War. It wasn't the American temptress that citizens were worried about, but their ownership of land and identity being stripped away from them.

Flawed history: Stephens must be zoned into an obscure news source, because in the real world, the U.S. has in fact NOT left Iraq, Afghanistan or the Persian Gulf. And if not militarily, then it certainly holds influence in countries monetarily and through the CIA. The U.S. presence in the Middle East hasn't been doubted for the past 50 years.

What's disgusting of all, is that by claiming that Jihadists are obsessed with the "American temptress" image, Stephens dismisses the legitimate arguments of those Jihadists, Muslims, Palestinians, and others, who do find fault in Israel's settlement activity. Just because Jihadists use a simplistic "down with Americanization" argument does not mean that Israel's hostile tactics are not a legitimate concern. The fact that Biden's and Patraeus' remarks were in fact met with hostility means that the settlement issue is not readily accepted in conventional wisdom as a reason why "they hate us" - as Stephens states. [As a side note, using the "modernism" argument to theorize "why they hate us" was used 9 years ago and thrown out as flawed over the course of several years...not only is there nothing original in this article, but the argument is incredibly archaic]

Just a final point, trying to use the Israel/ME issue to censor Lady Gaga because she makes you uncomfortable is pathetic. Here, 1st amendment rights should ring a bell. Besides, I'm not even sure if Qutb would actually call her the "American temptress." Hell, even Americans can't figure her out. Btw, Bret Stephens: have you even seen Arab music videos? Next time you insinuate that there is no sexuality or seduction in the Middle East, you may want to look one up on Youtube.

The only thing that makes me feel slightly better about WSJ having printed this worthless article is the hope that they were following the new media business model: clickability.

When accountability is a sham

On November 19, 2005, a group of Marines was attacked in Haditha, Iraq by a roadside bomb that killed one soldier. The squad leader, Sgt. Wuterich, started shooting at Iraqis fleeing the scene. His team followed suit. By the end of the episode, 24 Iraqi civilians - including women and children - were dead. Wuterich later claimed that he believed his squad was in danger and does not regret shooting at the Iraqis.

The "Haditha massacre" became a humiliating blotch for the U.S. military during the Iraq War. But five years and a long court process later, it may not amount to much of anything. A military judge tomorrow may clear Wuterich - the only defendant left - of the charges against him.

Let me just simplify how this ruling speaks to me: the U.S. is willing to try terrorist suspects in military tribunals, and are willing to allow them to undergo torture and the death penalty for possible ties to Al Qaeda, but are not willing to apply the rule of justice to cases of U.S. soldiers unfairly killing Iraqi civilians.

Is this because American civilians are more valuable than Iraqi civilians? In a war, unjustified killings of civilians on either side is considered a crime. Not only is Iraq in war, but the U.S. is as well. Sadly ironic is that while Iraqis get the battleground, Americans get to maneuver the "rules of war," which apparently allows them to kill Iraqi civilians, and illegally imprison suspects for years.

I've heard the argument that in a war, there is no justice. I find it weak, and frankly disgusting. If the U.S. plans on ending this war soon, it needs to return back to a state of normalcy, which requires that criminals be held accountable for their actions. U.S. troops are already leaving Iraq, but where is the rule of law?

KSM trial suggests the GOP is the party with power

They may be incessantly trying to obstruct any measure of progress in Washington this year, but one can’t help but admire the GOP for discussing national security as if it was still 2002 - the year when fear tactics were enough to convince an entire Congress to invade Iraq (despite public protests), to pass the Patriot Act, and to violate the civil rights of potential “suspects”.

Eight years later, mounting evidence suggests that such actions led the U.S. to violate several international laws and human rights, not to mention be responsible for rising monetary and human costs of war. Such evidence has been surfacing throughout the years: the 9/11 Commission Report pointed out security and intelligence failures on the part of the U.S., almost immediately into the Iraq War it was confirmed that the alleged WMDs and Al-Qaeda connection was a farce, President Bush revealed the country had been housing suspects without charges for years in Guantanamo Bay, which may have caused the deaths of three inmates (the official line claimed they were suicides), and that water-boarding was not just a “dunk in the water” as Dick Cheney once suggested but actually a meticulous and lengthy torture process.

But such gaping flaws in national security procedures didn’t weaken or silence the party that spearheaded them. Instead, Republicans are still taking the lead on how to deal with “terrorist threats” in the post-9/11 U.S. Although Democrats gained control of the Executive and House in 2008, they are struggling to take control of the national security discussion.

But eight years later, it is difficult to believe that the GOP, that wants more of the same flawed procedures from the past decade, isn’t more concerned with gaining political points rather than actually protecting the country. The debate over Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trials suggests enough.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of 9/11, has been under U.S. custody for seven years, under which he has been regularly waterboarded – as many as 183 times in one month. In February 2008, he was charged with murder for September 11 attacks, and in October 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the U.S. would try KSM in a civilian court. The loud outcry from the GOP and conservative leaders broke out in February 2010, spurring a heated debate in the political sphere about where his trial should be held and causing the White House to seriously consider a military tribunal for KSM – with a suspect military legal framework that was created in 2006 alongside Guantanamo Bay.

While some did protest Holder’s announcement in October, it wasn’t until a couple of months ago that the debate entered the fray. Incidentally, around the time when GOP poster boy Scott Brown was elected to the Massachusetts Senate seat and voiced his disapproval of civilian trials, when Liz Cheney helped organize families of 9/11 victims in rallies against the Attorney General, and after midterm elections came into the fore of national politics. It isn't difficult to imagine that Republicans are playing a political game.

Let’s assume Republicans are really invested in the KSM trial because they are genuinely concerned about how his trial would affect national security. Even then, their arguments don’t make much sense:

1. Argument: A civilian trial for KSM would provide him a public platform to recruit other terrorists.
There isn’t exactly a lack of incentives for terrorists or potential radicals to turn against the U.S.: Israel’s recent announcement of new settlements, drone attacks in Pakistan (besides Al Qaeda, LeT is probably the biggest threat from South Asia), and obviously the continuous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are enough to anger even moderate citizens in those countries. If the goal is to keep people freom becoming terrorists, it is U.S. foreign policy rather than a public trial that may need to be reconsidered.

2. Argument: A civilian trial tells the world that Obama is “soft on terror”
The President increased troop levels in Afghanistan, drastically increased the number of drone attacks in Pakistan as well as weapons and military aid to the country in order to fight terrorists. Obama is not quitting the war on terror anytime soon.

3. Argument: An enemy combatant should be tried in a military court
The military court system in Guantanamo was created recently and there is no guarantee that it would provide due justice. Such claims suggest Republicans doubt the effectiveness of the civilian court system in the country, a system that has tried and convicted 150 terrorists in the past decade. More terrifying, “enemy combatant” is a vague term that can be applied loosely to try suspects in a military court who may not be guilty. This isn’t such a stretch of imagination – many detainees housed in Guantanamo are not guilty or even charged with crimes.

While many Republicans have been quick to criticize the Obama administration’s handling of the KSM trial, not many are concerned with real national security risks: the recent arrest of “Jihad Jane” indicates that terrorists do not dress or look the same, as our current airport security system believes. Yet, there is no debate on how to resolve security flaws that overlook such threats.

It’s not hard to believe, then, that Republicans are using the KSM debate to paint the Obama administration and Democrats as weak and apathetic towards national security. The tactic worked successfully in 2002 when it helped push Democrats to support the Iraq War, and it may prove effective this year to help Republicans win key seats during midterm elections. After carrying the burden of the tarnished reputation of George W. Bush, the Republicans are expertly trying to reclaim the glory days of the past, when they were the ones seen as the aggressive protectors of the country.

The tactic is universal: tea partiers are protecting the constitution, conservative media is protecting values, the recent Texas Education decision is protecting "real history." This is no different. KSM military trials will protect national security. They are all ludicrous notions, but Democrats haven't dismissed them as such. Instead, these notions have put the majority party on the defensive.

Being brown on bad TV

You know, after all those Metro PCS commercials (rant below), desi cameos in TV sitcoms, and Russel Peters jokes, I've come to accept that brown people are going to be ridiculed in this country for a good laugh. And ok, I laugh too. But there's an art to all the racially-regressive crap they spew out that at least makes the jokes bearable. If you're going to stereotype groups of people, at least make it funny. SNL didn't get that memo.

So here's a breakdown: young Indian boy (who is played by a girl) has started his own talk show due to his father's encouragement (read: orders). Alright, that's an entertaining premise. The Indian boy also seems to be very knowledgeable about everything (registered: the model minority stereotype). But then it just goes haywire.

Enter Jude Law with a clumsy and pointless role as the talk show's guest. The camera randomly turns to a sardar-ji uncle wearing a messy turban and drinking alcohol. The skit fails, miserably. The humor is lost (the audience didn't laugh), the American-raised desi boys has a heavy and painful Indian accent, the dad and uncle are both played by non-South Asian actors that don't add anything except to try to fill the role of an overly-zealous father and alcoholic uncle (as a side point: why is the uncle a sardarji when no one in the family is?). There was nothing to laugh about. Not even a "that's racist but so hilarious" moment. And just to make me cringe some more, in the last 10 seconds, three desi people entered the scene for a family portrait. Oh, and the Indian woman was carrying a baby.

I appreciate the effort, but really, couldn't SNL have at least TRIED for some humor? I'm not even sure whether to call it racist or just really really bad comedy.

________________________

Rant about Metro PCS:

Somewhere, some teenage boy is sitting on his couch, laughing hysterically at the Metro PCS commercial that has just come on TV. The commercial itself isn’t particularly funny, but the two Indian men enunciating every word with thick accents are comical. And it manages to provide enough sound bites to mimic later: “There is always a penalty” and “Cold…like an ice lolli.”

But because they are lacking in creativity, what Metro PCS really has going for them is mocking Indian men who accent every syllable of their 30-second script and reference stereotypes of Indian culture (for no obvious reason that I can find). In other words, Metro PCS tries to create humor by racially stereotyping Indians.

The cell-phone company features Ranjit and Chad in multiple commercials, and the scenarios are similar: the duo hosts “Tech and Talk” and informs their callers that Metro PCS is the best and most affordable cell phone plan on the market. That’s about 10 seconds of the commercial. The rest is a bizarre blend of exaggerated music and attempted humor that relies on making fools of the two hosts.

All of these commercials include stereotypes associated with a rural India: a snake charmer, heightened shame (over choosing the wrong cell phone plan), and even calling a newspaper “hot and spicy.” At one point, Ranjit admonishes a consumer by telling him, “You’re like my uncle’s goat, tied to the post, milking at regular intervals.” (What does that even mean?)

Just to create a further bizarre world, which starts to look more like a circus after about 15 seconds, one commercial concludes with two Indian women, clad in elaborate clothes, dancing around a white customer. [Check out the videos below]. Sure, some of it is funny, but the rest is completely unnecessary and offensive. Why does Metro PCS think it’s OK to exploit the stereotypes imposed on a certain group for comedic effect?

But if that wasn’t enough, Metro PCS goes one step further. It creates humor that relies not just on Ranjit and Chad making jokes, but also on the two humiliating themselves. In one commercial, for example, Chad displays his “dancing skills” that are purposefully abominable, and in another, both men are donning large sunglasses and feminine hats (quite randomly), which just ups the ridicule factor.

The portrayal of Indian men as socially awkward and heavily accented, with thick mustaches and who are completely oblivious of people laughing at them is…well, it’s racist. It further perpetuates an almost circus-like persona to a group of people, most of whom look and sound little like Ranjit and Chad.

I love diversity on TV, and wouldn’t mind seeing more South Asians on screen, but I find it hard to believe Metro PCS couldn’t think of a better storyline that used brown people in their commercials without requiring them to make fools of themselves and their culture. How about a bit more creativity than that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPuSI0WSFok&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFytHoXdG3E&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CErb461jHA&feature=related

Education protestors are whiners, while tea partiers are a movement

This country, at times, seems like it’s teeming with barrels of monkeys who are more inclined to spout nonsense than engage in productive dialogue. Take Peter Robinson, a fellow at Stanford University, a former White House speechwriter, and a regular columnist for Forbes.

On March 5, a day after thousands nationwide marched to protest funding cuts in education, Robinson wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal that only indicated just how out of touch he is with reality. Labeling the protesters as the “Me generation,” he argued that these students were selfish and self-absorbed for demanding money when so many families have been hit badly by the recession. In short, they carry a false sense of entitlement.

Never mind the irony that Robinson himself received a top-notch education from prestigious institutions: Dartmouth College and then Oxford University, and that he also works for an elite university where many enrolled are a product of privileged legacies. But wait, according to Robinson’s logic, it is those students protesting for a fair chance at a public education that are entitled.

There are many glaring flaws with Robinson’s piece. First, the generation he calls entitled made up only a portion of the protesters last Thursday. The rest were an equally frustrated group of parents concerned about their children’s futures and teachers who have been fired due to cuts.

Second, his definition of “entitlement” is skewed. Not only because Robinson overlooks his own privileged background, but he also doesn’t acknowledge that the idealism that these students espouse is not an aberration from the idealism they have vigilantly and regularly fought for. It is this generation who strongly opposed the Iraq War in 2003, and who just recently began a series of protests against racist incidents at UC campuses. Indeed, the generation he calls “self-absorbed” is very likely to work in developing countries, raise funds for natural disasters and engage with their local communities.

Most glaring of all, though, is that Robinson seems to find all the faults in these young protestors who are fighting for an affordable public education as they have been promised, but tea partiers, who claim they are trying to save their country, are heroes.

In a Forbes article in January, Robinson fought for the little guy – the tea partiers who have led the front in protesting Obama’s stimulus package and healthcare reform that would unfairly penalize these Americans, and who are due credit for their efforts while supine GOP counterparts merely observed. Unlike the students, when tea-partiers protest against health care reform that would benefit millions n the U.S., they are not self-absorbed, just patriotic.

The sentimental end is what really drives Robinson’s point home (cue in blaring trumpets): “But I do know this – and by now Obama knows it, too: The most potent political force in America is still an ordinary citizen who has finally had enough.”

Here, Robinson makes the most interesting point in his writing – one he probably did not mean to: the ordinary citizen who has had enough is a label only reserved for a select few. More specifically, the political force in America who should be heard is a small group of Americans afraid of an imagined monster – socialist in the White House, not a generation across the country who has tangible reasons to be upset. So, who really is the entitled one?

Regardless of one’s position on education funds and whether demands of these education protestors should be met, it is difficult to argue that hundreds of thousands of people are frustrated, upset at the lack of resources distributed to them, and probably at the lack people listening to them as they attempt to hold their government accountable.

Yet, the idiocy that Robinson argues is a shared sentiment among many – both Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives – who have been quick to recognize the Tea Party as a legitimate movement and yet disregard the education protests (among others) as a product of either entitlement or banal whining. While Tea Partiers are running as third candidates in many states, an entire group of citizens is being ignored in the national political discourse.

The recession has not just hit middle America, and certainly not just a group of conservatives who still question where our President was born. It has also severely jostled job and health care security for a younger generation who now has to worry about completing their education because of rising tuition costs. And if anyone needs a reminder, it is this generation whose endless campaigning hours and efforts helped lead the Obama movement into the White House. Not only are they citizens, but they are effective citizens.

The March 4th protest was not the first education protest, and it certainly is not the last. California has already scheduled another round for later this month. And yet, there is an invisible barrier that somehow separates these frustrated citizens from the political discussion about the nation’s priorities amid mid-term elections. Perhaps those like Robinson, so concerned about the rights of the ordinary citizen, should listen to their own arguments for including the American public in the larger national discourse. At least I’d like him, the man who once wrote the famous Berlin Wall speech, hear his own words: “tear down this wall!”

Calling Israel an apartheid system just fuels our imagination

As college campuses across the country recognized Israeli Apartheid week this week, they sparked debates in the media on whether the term is used fairly to describe the situation in Israel. In a recent Washington Post article, Roger Cohen argues that Jimmy Carter label of Israel as an apartheid system was an exaggeration, especially given that the situation in the West Bank is not reflective of how the rest of the Israeli state functions.

Thankfully, Salon’s Glenn Greenwald had a fantastic comeback, in which he sites one of Cohen’s glaring omissions: that Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert have both attributed the term apartheid to Israel.

But does the racial segregation that shaped South Africa’s political system effectively explain how Palestinians and Israelis are living?

Not exactly.

As a system, apartheid does reflect what is taking place in Israel now: the forced segregation of Israelis and Palestinians, and systematic practices that separate a group of people and limit their civil and political rights.

What Greenwald and others overlook, though, is that the term “apartheid” has inherited a weighty historical context. Many, including Nelson Mandela, liken the Palestinians’ plight in Israel to apartheid in the South African context, claiming it is similar to – if not worse than – the systematic racial segregation in South Africa.

But the racial dynamics between the oppressors and victims that were real in South Africa are imagined in the context of Israel. Israelis do not consist of one racial group, and the majority of the Israelis – those who did not migrate to the state – have inherited the same racial features as Palestinians.

According to the 2009 Israeli Census, the country’s Jewish population by continent of origin is as follows:

Israel: 37.5%
Asia: 12.2%
Africa: 15.5%
Europe-America: 34.8%

Although the number of Europe-Americans Jews migrating to Israel is consistently increasing, they still make up a minority of all the Jews living in Israel – a white minority. And yet, they have come to symbolize the identity of the Israeli population in the minds of most Americans, and sometimes even shape how locals perceive the conflict.

In March 2009, Swiss artist Oliver Suter published an advertisement in Haaretz newspaper that called for lookalikes to the 8 people featured in the advertisement. The eight were Palestinians. Among the photos that Suter received, he matched up an Israeli girl to a Palestinian boy, surprising both families by their impressive similarity and prompting the girl’s father to say: “[David] Ben-Gurion was right when he said ‘The Palestinians are not our cousins, they’re our brothers. Turns out, they could be twins.’”

Incredibly, amid the tensions between Palestinians and Israelis, the racism that occurs among Israelis is often neglected in U.S. media. According to the Israeli Census, Mizrahi Jews (those of Arab origins) and Jews from Africa often fall behind Ashkanazi Jews in education and employment. This is in addition to the racist backlash against Ethiopian and Asian Jews [here I wish I could provide data or first-hand accounts, but I am deferring to stories of friends who have visited Israel].

But racism is not a taboo topic in Israel. Haaretz, among other publications, and Israelis have discussed the growing racial tensions within the country. However, when it comes to the U.S., Americans have imagined a different Israel altogether, one in which the Israelis do not look or act like the other – the Palestinians.

The term “apartheid” perpetuates this imagined identity, and I myself doubt if we can use such a loaded term without framing it according to the South African context from which it originated. Yet, the debate about the term poses a rather interesting question about not what Israel is, but how we perceive this conflict, and who Israel belongs to. Who really owns Israel?

Well, here's a different take

Republican Senator Gary Nodler from Missouri has his own reasons for why Don't Ask, Don't Tell should not be repealed. According to him, doing so "would offend the terrorists" and would also be a "cultuaral [sic] affront to the Muslim in who's [sic] country we are opening."

He tried to make sense of his argument later when a blogger told him that U.S. allies do not have similar policies. Nodler's responded by implying that the UK has a high casualty rate in Afghanistan and Iraq because gays serve openly in the British military.

I may have respected Nodler a bit more if he had just come out and said he disagreed with repealing DADT because he doesn't want gays serving openly. At least, I hope he has a better argument than "I don't want to offend the terrorists and Muslims," because I'm pretty sure what's offensive to them are the bombs dropped on them.

Personally, what I find an affront are Nodler's weak spelling skills.

Pakistan: Obama's War

http://boomgen.tv/2010/02/pakistan-obamas-war/

When reality fails to reach, use fantasy

Palestinian protestors who dressed up like the Na’vi from Avatar last week almost looked like they belonged at a costume party. In fact, it may have even been a moment of humor in an intense and emotionally charged conflict. But I found it rather sad.

I should start by saying that I did find the entire episode quite brilliant. Palestinians have been protesting against this particular separation barrier in the West Bank for the past years, even after an Israeli court found the wall unlawful, and the annual ritual has become somewhat humdrum. Cleverly, they incited interest (however small) by evoking images of something that was talked about, Avatar: a worldwide phenomenon. And I imagine it caught the eye of a younger generation for whom the Israel/Palestinian conflict is an ongoing saga consistently playing in the background of world politics. (At least that was my view when I was in high school).

That said, here is why I found it sad: by posing as movie characters, these Palestinian protestors had to create a distance for the spectator from their actual conflict. Because the reality of the Israel-Palestine conflict is so emotionally charged, it required fantasy to provide some perspective, to be recognized as an “oppressed” group. No one is going to argue that the Na’vi in Avatar were treated unjustly, but when considering Palestinians, the concept of justice and victimization is blurry and questionable.

I doubt these Palestinians are looking for a “savior” – that ideology is both regressive and demeaning, because it assumes Palestinians cannot help themselves. But perhaps what these Palestinian protestors are calling for is a sense of perspective from the international community; different ways of understanding a conflict that is hardly straightforward.

For the record, few American publications reprinted pictures of the Palestinian protestors, which at some level indicates how taboo a topic the Palestinian viewpoint of the conflict is in this country. But this conflict is not localized to a strip of land in the Middle East; the United States is very much invested in the outcome of any peace process, which is exactly why actual discussion representing both sides needs to take place in this country. And I don’t mean news events that splash cable networks every now and then, but a dialogue that challenges our old perceptions of the situation.

Regardless of your position on the Israel-Palestine conflict, it is hard to argue that Americans have ignored the struggles of Palestinians. If drawing parallels between fantasy and reality is going to help people recognize this, then perhaps Palestinians have found a new tactic to employ. I, however, am glad they decided against posing as the aliens from District 9.

SOTU

President Obama may have vowed not to quit when it comes to battling the politics of the Hill in his State of the Union address last night, but his talk of foreign policy sounded more fatigued.

Outlining the ways in which he plans to protect and advance the country in the context of foreign policy, Obama seemed to have changed his tone towards the Muslim world from one of dialogue to one of control:

That's the leadership that we are providing –- engagement that advances the common security and prosperity of all people. We're working through the G20 to sustain a lasting global recovery. We're working with Muslim communities around the world to promote science and education and innovation. We have gone from a bystander to a leader in the fight against climate change. We're helping developing countries to feed themselves, and continuing the fight against HIV/AIDS. And we are launching a new initiative that will give us the capacity to respond faster and more effectively to bioterrorism or an infectious disease -– a plan that will counter threats at home and strengthen public health abroad. [emphasis added]

Compare that tidbit about the need to enlighten Muslim societies to his famous Cairo speech given last summer to the Muslim world in which he acknowledges the innovation Muslim communities have already provided and pushes for more dialogue:

As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam - at places like Al-Azhar University - that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

What the Cairo speech had done so well was recognize the complexities of the Muslim world that could help lead to prosperity. Obama essentially acknowledged that while some communities may foster fanaticism, others are pushing the limits of science, philosophy and politics. But after last night, it seemed as if Obama had reduced foreign policy towards the Middle East to one-sided action rather than two-sided engagement: Iran got an ultimatum, the discussion of Iraq mainly focused on getting the troops out, Afghanistan was spoken of in the context of terrorists rather than state-building, democracy and civil society.

It’s clear that Obama is desperately trying to regain control and leadership as his poll numbers plunge and the situation in Af-Pak grows increasingly dire. I can’t blame him. With a tough year of failures at home and abroad, Obama needs to remind others he is a leader. But like he said, leaders must do what is difficult, not what is easy. It’s difficult to engage in dialogue that test our assumptions and challenge our limits, but all I’m saying is, don’t quit.

Pakistan news by Juan Cole

Thanks to R. for sending the most comprehensive and analytical piece on Pakistan I've read in a while, written by Juan Cole:

http://www.juancole.com/2010/01/gates-strikes-out-in-pakistan.html

Is it just me or has coverage on Pakistan been slipping almost parallel to the White House's failing policies in Af-Pak?

One year later, the same story

Glenn Greenwald’s wrote a perceptive piece in today’s Salon about what the Supreme Court did right in the Citizens United case. Although I’m still mulling over whether or not I completely agree with his arguments, I’m concerned here with a sentence tucked away in his article:

“And one can't help but note the vile irony that Muslim "War on Terror" detainees have been essentially declared by some courts not to be "persons" under the Constitution, whereas corporations are.”

One year after Obama declared that he would close down Guantanamo, detainees are still being held without trial – indefinitely. Here’s the real kicker: Obama has decided to continue detention without due process for these detainees.

Almost sounds like one of the many failed policies employed by our last president. In his defense (if one can be made), when President Bush opened Guantanamo, he was faced with a terrified and vulnerable nation, and an uncertain global political environment. In short, given US’s history and actions towards Italians, Jews, and Japanese (among others), racism and racial profiling against Muslims was inevitable.

But it has been nine years. And I am, once again, left to question how, after countless debates over war and foreign policy, after actually fighting two wars, we can still ignore racial politics and blatant injustice? The least that needs to happen here is an actual trial for each of the detainees.

As a side note, a few people on Facebook did not deem today’s story about Gitmo detainees held without trial worthy, since there are so many other issues to worry about (unemployed, health care, bad economy). I hate to say it, but civil liberties is still a right reserved for only some groups in the U.S.