As a response for those who have compared Israel's "necessary" offensive on Gaza to a potential attack on the US from Canada or Mexico:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/14/when-israel-expelled-palestinians/
Friday, January 16, 2009
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
question, revisited
I remember in the two or three years after 2001, one of the biggest debates policy makers and academics were trying to answer was "why do they hate us?" At the time, theories ranged from hatred of US's freedom to US's questionable and secretive involvement in Middle East affairs. It is a question that needs to be approached once again, but with revised answers and lessons learned.
In the absence of action from the US or UN on Israel's offensive on Gaza, the rhetoric of war is threatening to change, from a political question of Israel and Palestine to a religious issue of Muslims' victimization. Osama bin Laden's recently released tape calling for a jihad against Gaza aggression will not be taken seriously in terms of action. Indeed, Gordon Johndroe, Whitehouse spokesperson, called the tape a part of an Al-Qaeda "propaganda campaign". However, if not for the jihad, bin Laden's message about moral responsibility does and probably will resonate across the Muslim world.
The problem with this should be clear: questioning morality blurs political complexities of a highly-emotional conflict such as this. Already, the vacuum created in the lack of action against Israel is becoming filled by others - namely Iran, also, ironically, the biggest threat Israel and US deem as the reason for this offensive. And surprise, surprise, rather than a cease-fire and peace negotiations, Iran's tactics have tended more towards encouraging Hamas to stand the fight. Meanwhile, Hezbollah is leading the offensive against Israel with rocket fires that will probably worsen the situation than alleviate it. The last thing the US needs, or can afford, is to justify the existence of Hamas and Hezbollah. But right now, they are the only groups who are actively opposing the killing of more than a thousand Palestinians. And, I imagine, promoting another cycle of political activism in the ME led by groups of questionable Islamic interpretations, and consequently blurring the real problems in many ME states. If not for humanitarian reasons, then the US should act against Israel's current offensive for its own future security. It is at a time like this when the US should be concerned with understanding where it has gone wrong and why "they" hate us.
In the absence of action from the US or UN on Israel's offensive on Gaza, the rhetoric of war is threatening to change, from a political question of Israel and Palestine to a religious issue of Muslims' victimization. Osama bin Laden's recently released tape calling for a jihad against Gaza aggression will not be taken seriously in terms of action. Indeed, Gordon Johndroe, Whitehouse spokesperson, called the tape a part of an Al-Qaeda "propaganda campaign". However, if not for the jihad, bin Laden's message about moral responsibility does and probably will resonate across the Muslim world.
The problem with this should be clear: questioning morality blurs political complexities of a highly-emotional conflict such as this. Already, the vacuum created in the lack of action against Israel is becoming filled by others - namely Iran, also, ironically, the biggest threat Israel and US deem as the reason for this offensive. And surprise, surprise, rather than a cease-fire and peace negotiations, Iran's tactics have tended more towards encouraging Hamas to stand the fight. Meanwhile, Hezbollah is leading the offensive against Israel with rocket fires that will probably worsen the situation than alleviate it. The last thing the US needs, or can afford, is to justify the existence of Hamas and Hezbollah. But right now, they are the only groups who are actively opposing the killing of more than a thousand Palestinians. And, I imagine, promoting another cycle of political activism in the ME led by groups of questionable Islamic interpretations, and consequently blurring the real problems in many ME states. If not for humanitarian reasons, then the US should act against Israel's current offensive for its own future security. It is at a time like this when the US should be concerned with understanding where it has gone wrong and why "they" hate us.
Friday, January 9, 2009
read all about it, but not in our papers
So far, have not read or heard anything about this in US media. Please let me know if I've missed it.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5480440.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5480440.ece
Thursday, January 8, 2009
100 percent
One of the major discussions for the past couple of days on a south asian journalists list serv, whose name I will not mention here, was a sentence in the preliminary coverage of Sanjay Gupta's possible appointment as Surgeon General:
"The Michigan-born son of Indian and Pakistani parents, Gupta has always been drawn to health policy." - WP
It seems that many members on the list serv were concerned with Gupta's origins. One member spoke to Gupta's mother and received confirmation that he is "100 percent Indian, no Pakistani." Thank God! Imagine if this "common but unfortunate error", as one member put it, were actually true!
"The Michigan-born son of Indian and Pakistani parents, Gupta has always been drawn to health policy." - WP
It seems that many members on the list serv were concerned with Gupta's origins. One member spoke to Gupta's mother and received confirmation that he is "100 percent Indian, no Pakistani." Thank God! Imagine if this "common but unfortunate error", as one member put it, were actually true!
Ethnic, religious and national origins matter in this country. And the immigrant success story relies on not being tied to origins that are questionable. 100 percent Indian indeed!
Monday, January 5, 2009
in the haze
Hours after his resignation last September, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehuld Olmert gave an interview to a leading newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth, parts of which were re-published in the December 2008 edition of the New York Review. "In a few years, my grandchildren will ask what their grandfather did, what kind of country we have bequeathed them."
Well, Mr. Olmert, you at least had some idea when you said that peace can only take place in the absence of war. So what kind of peace is Israel trying to create when inevitably, a few more rockets that kill Palestinian civilians will give birth to another generation of suicide bombers? Israel's threat is real: a militant government such as Hamas and suicide bombers certainly have and do threaten Israeli citizens and the existence of the Israeli state.
But let us differentiate between waging a war to defend citizens and a war to defend a state. The Bush Administration has laid the blame on Hamas, saying that its hostile attacks on Israel have necessitated heavy attacks on Gaza. So in effect, the lives of 7 Israeli solider is worth equal to, if not more than, 600 Palestinians, mostly civilians. The cost of the Israeli state has been to disregard Palestinians' human and civil rights. This is not only a fault of Israel's but also of surrounding states that house large Palestinian populations. Hamas and Palestinian suicide bombers are a danger to Israel, and for U.S. leaders, Israel is justified in its quest to protect its state. It is, plainly, a response to continuous threats to its existence. But thus far, no US media coverage to my knowledge has acknowledged that the Palestinian response to Israel has been reactionary as well; it has been an attempt to defend civilian rights that been continuously suffocated.
The US media has been become obsessed with providing both sides of the Gaza situation. But math isn't so difficult that we cannot look at the straight facts:
- Israel: seven soldiers killed
- Palestine: 683 dead; 3,085 injured.
I am not going to comment, nor can I, on the tragedy and hurt both sides experience. The war is an outcome of 60 years of deep emotions. But I do not agree that the level of loss on both sides is the same. The loss of human lives, of infrastructure, homes, food, and safety is clearly weighing heavily on one side over another. So while Washington Post and New York Times strain to provide both sides of the equation, they miss the real news: policy-makers are silent about a humanitarian crisis.
If no action is going to be taken, why is the Gaza situation getting more coverage than the Christmas Day massacre in Congo, or the current humanitarian crisis in Sudan? I can take a stab: sensationalism. The word 'terrorism' isn't just lingering in commentary on Gaza, it's plain to see. "The terrorist organization, Hamas", " the real terrorist threat, Iran". The inaccuracy is appalling. The US, after determing that elections in Iraq and Afghanistan were evidence of US victory, should recognize that Hamas is a legitimate government that won an election. Hostile, yes, but it is not a terrorist organization. To label Hamas as terrorists cannot and should not be taken as a fact in the media; it is the opinion of the US, Israel, Egypt and other countries who deem it as terrorist for various reasons. For Palestinians, Israel is not defending its state, it is waging war against them and their government. By this definition, the attacks on Gaza have not been on militants, but on civil servants. Let's say Israel does succeed in overthrowing, weeding out and killing Hamas. What next? It is not difficult to imagine that Palestinians will elect another hostile government that will defend them against Israel who has obviously shown no qualms in targetting schools, hospitals and homes. Isn't it obvious? It's all reactionary.
Media stories have also been focused upon "the Middle East view" of Gaza. Projecting the ME response as united against Israel misses the entire complexity of the region. Egypt is considered the "reject" among certain ME states not because it supports Israel but because the leadership gains great political and financial security from doing so. Second, if the ME is united against Israel, where are ME leaders? How have they responded to the Palestinians?
Finally, ultimately the problem most leaders have been pointing to is Iran. If we are really concerned that Iran's leadership has and will threaten the existence of Israel and will continue to support terrorism, then maybe we should take more precarious steps towards solving the Gaza conflict rather than giving Iranians another reason to vote in a president who will rally people in foreign policy against Israel. Presidential elections are in June - what type of message will the US and the rest of the world send to Iranians before then?
As of today, Israel has agreed to principles of a cease fire. I am amazed, though, that it took as long as it did. The moral authority the world has granted Israel is incredible; it is something that neither Palestinians nor Israelis should hold. But unfortunately, Israel does. Serious action by the US wasn't taken until a UN school was bombed yesterday. It was then that the US decided that Israel was being destructive. Before then, it was justified. By what standards are Palestinian lives measured, I wonder? International norms have been vague. Not only norms of human rights, where Israel has not allowed food and medical aid to pass through to Gaza, but also norms of war. Israel took 11 days to open Gaza to media coverage.
So besides another cycle of war to defend the state and a war to defend citizens, what has this Israeli offensive on Gaza gained? Perhaps it is time to condemn humanitarian atrocities and clear violations of international norms in both Israel and Palestine if another Israeli and Palestinian leader can answer his grandchildren what type of country has he bequeathed them.
Well, Mr. Olmert, you at least had some idea when you said that peace can only take place in the absence of war. So what kind of peace is Israel trying to create when inevitably, a few more rockets that kill Palestinian civilians will give birth to another generation of suicide bombers? Israel's threat is real: a militant government such as Hamas and suicide bombers certainly have and do threaten Israeli citizens and the existence of the Israeli state.
But let us differentiate between waging a war to defend citizens and a war to defend a state. The Bush Administration has laid the blame on Hamas, saying that its hostile attacks on Israel have necessitated heavy attacks on Gaza. So in effect, the lives of 7 Israeli solider is worth equal to, if not more than, 600 Palestinians, mostly civilians. The cost of the Israeli state has been to disregard Palestinians' human and civil rights. This is not only a fault of Israel's but also of surrounding states that house large Palestinian populations. Hamas and Palestinian suicide bombers are a danger to Israel, and for U.S. leaders, Israel is justified in its quest to protect its state. It is, plainly, a response to continuous threats to its existence. But thus far, no US media coverage to my knowledge has acknowledged that the Palestinian response to Israel has been reactionary as well; it has been an attempt to defend civilian rights that been continuously suffocated.
The US media has been become obsessed with providing both sides of the Gaza situation. But math isn't so difficult that we cannot look at the straight facts:
- Israel: seven soldiers killed
- Palestine: 683 dead; 3,085 injured.
I am not going to comment, nor can I, on the tragedy and hurt both sides experience. The war is an outcome of 60 years of deep emotions. But I do not agree that the level of loss on both sides is the same. The loss of human lives, of infrastructure, homes, food, and safety is clearly weighing heavily on one side over another. So while Washington Post and New York Times strain to provide both sides of the equation, they miss the real news: policy-makers are silent about a humanitarian crisis.
If no action is going to be taken, why is the Gaza situation getting more coverage than the Christmas Day massacre in Congo, or the current humanitarian crisis in Sudan? I can take a stab: sensationalism. The word 'terrorism' isn't just lingering in commentary on Gaza, it's plain to see. "The terrorist organization, Hamas", " the real terrorist threat, Iran". The inaccuracy is appalling. The US, after determing that elections in Iraq and Afghanistan were evidence of US victory, should recognize that Hamas is a legitimate government that won an election. Hostile, yes, but it is not a terrorist organization. To label Hamas as terrorists cannot and should not be taken as a fact in the media; it is the opinion of the US, Israel, Egypt and other countries who deem it as terrorist for various reasons. For Palestinians, Israel is not defending its state, it is waging war against them and their government. By this definition, the attacks on Gaza have not been on militants, but on civil servants. Let's say Israel does succeed in overthrowing, weeding out and killing Hamas. What next? It is not difficult to imagine that Palestinians will elect another hostile government that will defend them against Israel who has obviously shown no qualms in targetting schools, hospitals and homes. Isn't it obvious? It's all reactionary.
Media stories have also been focused upon "the Middle East view" of Gaza. Projecting the ME response as united against Israel misses the entire complexity of the region. Egypt is considered the "reject" among certain ME states not because it supports Israel but because the leadership gains great political and financial security from doing so. Second, if the ME is united against Israel, where are ME leaders? How have they responded to the Palestinians?
Finally, ultimately the problem most leaders have been pointing to is Iran. If we are really concerned that Iran's leadership has and will threaten the existence of Israel and will continue to support terrorism, then maybe we should take more precarious steps towards solving the Gaza conflict rather than giving Iranians another reason to vote in a president who will rally people in foreign policy against Israel. Presidential elections are in June - what type of message will the US and the rest of the world send to Iranians before then?
As of today, Israel has agreed to principles of a cease fire. I am amazed, though, that it took as long as it did. The moral authority the world has granted Israel is incredible; it is something that neither Palestinians nor Israelis should hold. But unfortunately, Israel does. Serious action by the US wasn't taken until a UN school was bombed yesterday. It was then that the US decided that Israel was being destructive. Before then, it was justified. By what standards are Palestinian lives measured, I wonder? International norms have been vague. Not only norms of human rights, where Israel has not allowed food and medical aid to pass through to Gaza, but also norms of war. Israel took 11 days to open Gaza to media coverage.
So besides another cycle of war to defend the state and a war to defend citizens, what has this Israeli offensive on Gaza gained? Perhaps it is time to condemn humanitarian atrocities and clear violations of international norms in both Israel and Palestine if another Israeli and Palestinian leader can answer his grandchildren what type of country has he bequeathed them.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
It's the news, stupid.
If you’re going to blame poverty on anyone, blame it on everyone.
That’s what Palgummi Sainath seemed to say at a talk he gave at Columbia University three weeks ago. A reporter on agriculture and poverty in India, Sainath had a lot to say – and a lot to be angry about.
For one, he didn’t hide his exasperation at the ambiguity of an already elusive definition of poverty. The ABCs of development study teach us precisely that there is no ruling definition of poverty, something to keep in mind when reading about the latest statistics on poverty. The official poverty line in India is 24 cents a day, but 77 per cent of the Indian population lives on less than 20 rupees a day. This large discrepancy between statistics and reality is exactly what drove Sainath’s animated talk. The headlines in India are not growth or a booming IT market. It’s poverty, and everything else that comes with it, such as the farmers’ suicide that have been taking over the country.
It is perhaps the limits of journalists that we can only talk, and not really implement policy. But according to Sainath, that’s all it takes to start change. As much as he is frustrated with India’s policies to alleviate poverty, his gripe is as much with journalists as with policy-makers.
“There is more energy in journalism than ever but there is also the most moral bankruptcy in leadership ever,” Sainath said. What he means is that while fashion, murder, caste, religion, and the booming economy makes for popular reading, newspapers in India have failed to provide full time beats on poverty, housing or primary education. Furthermore, no major newspaper in India has a full-time labor correspondent on board.
According to Sainath, this sends a clear message: “it says we are not interested in talking to 70 per cent of the population.”
The point finally sunk in when Sainath animatedly relayed the crux of this argument to his completely engrossed audience. While 512 journalists were covering fashion week in India last spring, only six journalists were covering farmers’ suicide a one-hour flight away. These suicides would have been creating headlines on their own – they were occurring one every six hours. But the final irony was this: the models at fashion week were showing off cotton garments.
This does not only point to a flaw in policy-making in India, but also a flaw in character. Sainath is perhaps one of the few reporters who actively criticize India for more than the growing inequality that accompanies the growing economy. Beyond the commercials of “I love India” laden in “traditional values”, mom’s never-forgotten home-cooked food, and unbreakable family bonds, lies a country that systematically and institutionally ignores 70 per cent of its population that is struggling to survive. There is, essentially, a moral vacuum when it comes to economic policies.
India is experiencing the largest sustained suicide trend, but as Sainath tells us, no system or higher order is working for these farmers. Instead, everything has become privatized. And government and aid policies help insofar as they encourage farmers to diversify their crops. The problem: globalization has raised cultivation costs. Whereas the cost of cultivating vanilla used to be $1.00/kg, it has increased to an appalling $100/kg. In India, Sainath says, “there is privatization of everything, including intellect and soul.”
Journalists wait for news to happen, for democracy to shine and people to rise up to injustice. But Sainath says this is not possible – don’t wait for a social revolution from the farmers when their primary concern is survival. News does not have to be larger than life to be written. It just has to be someone’s life, like the suicide farmers now who, probably unprecedented in India’s history, address their suicide notes to the PM and Chief Minister.
While Sainath may have had his own notions about what policies India’s government could enact to address rural poverty and the growing number of farmers’ suicides, he ultimately addressed the group that he can really influence: journalists. It is not enough to debate the trend of the journalism industry in India, or discuss how it fares compared to the rest of the world. Indian journalists have a duty to cover the biggest, and most often ignored, issue in the country. However, because this has failed to happen, Sainath says, “India has failed in democracy.”
That’s what Palgummi Sainath seemed to say at a talk he gave at Columbia University three weeks ago. A reporter on agriculture and poverty in India, Sainath had a lot to say – and a lot to be angry about.
For one, he didn’t hide his exasperation at the ambiguity of an already elusive definition of poverty. The ABCs of development study teach us precisely that there is no ruling definition of poverty, something to keep in mind when reading about the latest statistics on poverty. The official poverty line in India is 24 cents a day, but 77 per cent of the Indian population lives on less than 20 rupees a day. This large discrepancy between statistics and reality is exactly what drove Sainath’s animated talk. The headlines in India are not growth or a booming IT market. It’s poverty, and everything else that comes with it, such as the farmers’ suicide that have been taking over the country.
It is perhaps the limits of journalists that we can only talk, and not really implement policy. But according to Sainath, that’s all it takes to start change. As much as he is frustrated with India’s policies to alleviate poverty, his gripe is as much with journalists as with policy-makers.
“There is more energy in journalism than ever but there is also the most moral bankruptcy in leadership ever,” Sainath said. What he means is that while fashion, murder, caste, religion, and the booming economy makes for popular reading, newspapers in India have failed to provide full time beats on poverty, housing or primary education. Furthermore, no major newspaper in India has a full-time labor correspondent on board.
According to Sainath, this sends a clear message: “it says we are not interested in talking to 70 per cent of the population.”
The point finally sunk in when Sainath animatedly relayed the crux of this argument to his completely engrossed audience. While 512 journalists were covering fashion week in India last spring, only six journalists were covering farmers’ suicide a one-hour flight away. These suicides would have been creating headlines on their own – they were occurring one every six hours. But the final irony was this: the models at fashion week were showing off cotton garments.
This does not only point to a flaw in policy-making in India, but also a flaw in character. Sainath is perhaps one of the few reporters who actively criticize India for more than the growing inequality that accompanies the growing economy. Beyond the commercials of “I love India” laden in “traditional values”, mom’s never-forgotten home-cooked food, and unbreakable family bonds, lies a country that systematically and institutionally ignores 70 per cent of its population that is struggling to survive. There is, essentially, a moral vacuum when it comes to economic policies.
India is experiencing the largest sustained suicide trend, but as Sainath tells us, no system or higher order is working for these farmers. Instead, everything has become privatized. And government and aid policies help insofar as they encourage farmers to diversify their crops. The problem: globalization has raised cultivation costs. Whereas the cost of cultivating vanilla used to be $1.00/kg, it has increased to an appalling $100/kg. In India, Sainath says, “there is privatization of everything, including intellect and soul.”
Journalists wait for news to happen, for democracy to shine and people to rise up to injustice. But Sainath says this is not possible – don’t wait for a social revolution from the farmers when their primary concern is survival. News does not have to be larger than life to be written. It just has to be someone’s life, like the suicide farmers now who, probably unprecedented in India’s history, address their suicide notes to the PM and Chief Minister.
While Sainath may have had his own notions about what policies India’s government could enact to address rural poverty and the growing number of farmers’ suicides, he ultimately addressed the group that he can really influence: journalists. It is not enough to debate the trend of the journalism industry in India, or discuss how it fares compared to the rest of the world. Indian journalists have a duty to cover the biggest, and most often ignored, issue in the country. However, because this has failed to happen, Sainath says, “India has failed in democracy.”
Saturday, November 15, 2008
su doku night
They flirt with each other without much concealment, but both are held back. From where each stands, such flirtation is enjoyable, curious and a way to make the passing time more interesting, but not meant to spill over outside the time allotted for meaningless conversation.
“But there is nothing wrong with it”
She is adament about the candle he is about to toss out.
“It won’t light”
“let me do it”
click click click. The orange blaze explodes from the small hole of the lighter but soon envelopes the entire cup she precariously holds. Just a bit further, a bit further, the flame moves to the bent and burnt whick, but then turns on her. She smiles defeatingly and gives it back to him.
“I told you”
He returns later with a fresh candle, holding it as a peace offering. Her tone turns giddy, but commanding as well. She leans towards him as he stands looking down at her, a hand clutching a pencil which she now points in his direction, gesturing towards the puzzle she has been laying on her lap as her purpose for sitting there.
“I’m not smart” he says, creeping towards the door.
“Of course you are, help me. Of course you’re smart.”
He turns away.
He comes back again. His visits become more and more frequent. He sits next to her now, adding in his two cents, finally, to the puzzle she insists he has brains for.
The courage in his voice strains underneath the weight of his uncertainty. “what are you doing tonight?”
“oh, I’m going to be a couple hours…”
The conversation becomes inaudible, she sips on her wine and her head looks up only once as a little girl runs by. He continues to creep into the door frame, lingering in her wake as he fingers his towel. He is about to turn away when the customer sitting nearby says, “excuse me, can I place my order?”
-- Max Cafe, Saturday night.
“But there is nothing wrong with it”
She is adament about the candle he is about to toss out.
“It won’t light”
“let me do it”
click click click. The orange blaze explodes from the small hole of the lighter but soon envelopes the entire cup she precariously holds. Just a bit further, a bit further, the flame moves to the bent and burnt whick, but then turns on her. She smiles defeatingly and gives it back to him.
“I told you”
He returns later with a fresh candle, holding it as a peace offering. Her tone turns giddy, but commanding as well. She leans towards him as he stands looking down at her, a hand clutching a pencil which she now points in his direction, gesturing towards the puzzle she has been laying on her lap as her purpose for sitting there.
“I’m not smart” he says, creeping towards the door.
“Of course you are, help me. Of course you’re smart.”
He turns away.
He comes back again. His visits become more and more frequent. He sits next to her now, adding in his two cents, finally, to the puzzle she insists he has brains for.
The courage in his voice strains underneath the weight of his uncertainty. “what are you doing tonight?”
“oh, I’m going to be a couple hours…”
The conversation becomes inaudible, she sips on her wine and her head looks up only once as a little girl runs by. He continues to creep into the door frame, lingering in her wake as he fingers his towel. He is about to turn away when the customer sitting nearby says, “excuse me, can I place my order?”
-- Max Cafe, Saturday night.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
