brain-tarboush
             

About

Issandr El Amrani
is a writer living
in Cairo [...]

Contact him here

Archives

2003
Months
OctNov Dec

Recent articles

Egypt follows EU line on GM

Egypt has unexpectedly rescinded its support for a lawsuit filed by the US against the European Union...

'Baghdad' -- music to Arabs' ears

For Mamdouh, the music that comes out of his creaky radio is one of the few respites from the dense, noisy Cairo traffic...

All hell breaks loose in Cairo

Demonstrators riot and try to close the U.S. Embassy in a country where protest has been mostly banned for 20 years...

Mirror of a movement

The word "ebullient" seems barely adequate to describe the atmosphere in the austere Cairo courtroom...

Arab League faces uncertain future

Officials at the Arab League's Cairo HQ - an unassuming building in the city's central square that blends modernist and Islamic architecture - wear long faces these days.

News

Regional News

  • Cairo Times
  • Al Ahram
  • Middle East Times
  • Al Hayat
  • Haaretz
  • Middle East Newsline
  • Electronic Intifada
  • Electronic Iraq
  • L'Intelligent
  • Liquid Africa
  • Al Jazeera
  • Mafhoum
  • Western News

  • New York Times
  • Washington Post
  • Wall Street Journal
  • The Guardian
  • Salon
  • The Times
  • World Press Review
  • Strategic Forecasting
  • BBC News
  • Global News

  • World Press Review
  • Courrier International
  • International Crisis Group
  • Technology

  • Shashdot
  • MacNN
  • O'Reilly
  • Gizmodo
  • iPoding

    Blogs

    Egypt

  • Cairo Live
  • Shrinking Globe
  • Arab Street Files
  • Iraq

  • Salam Pax
  • Shi'a Pundit
  • Iraq Democracy Watch
  • The Iraq War Reader
  • Al Muajaha
  • Arms and The Man
  • Juan Cole
  • Abu Aardvark
  • ...turningtables...
  • Baghdad Burning
  • US and general

  • TPM
  • The Agonist
  • Tom Tomorrow
  • Altercation
  • Daily Kos
  • Counterpunch
  • The Head Heeb
  • Reading

    cover
    ~ My name is red
    by Orhan Pamuk


    ~ Warda
    by Sonallah Ibrahim

    cover
    ~ A history of Iraq
    by Charles Tripp

    cover
    ~ HTML & XHTML: The Definitive Guide
    by Musciano & Kennedy

    Shelved


    ~ Apres l'empire
    by Emmanuel Todd

    cover
    ~ Scoop
    by Evelyn Waugh



                 

    Wed, 08 Oct 2003

    Israel’s Syrian ambitions

    This could be a dangerous precedent:

    A day after Israel attacked what it said was a terrorist training camp in Syria in retaliation for the suicide bombing in northern Israel on Saturday that killed 19 people plus the bomber, Mr. Bush suggested that the responsibility for breaking the growing cycle of violence now rested primarily with the Palestinian leadership.
    “I made it very clear to the prime minister, like I have consistently done, that Israel’s got a right to defend herself, that Israel must not feel constrained in defending the homeland,” the president said at the White House in response to a reporter’s question.
    Israel’s strategy of hitting a target inside Syria raised the question of whether the Sharon government had adopted Mr. Bush’s policy of focusing on not just terrorists but also states that harbor them. The lack of explicit criticism from the United States did nothing to dispel the impression that the White House, after discouraging Israel from assuming that it could embrace the Bush doctrine in its battle against Palestinian extremists, was now doing nothing to stop Israel from doing so.

    The article suggests further down that rather than endorsing a new Israeli policy based on the “Bush doctrine,” this could be merely a pragmatic resignation to the fact that condemning Israel would be politically costly and accomplish little. Either way, it’s scary to think that the Israelis could be tempted by trying to redraw the region in their own way. Syria has long been a thorn in their side, particularly for the Israeli right (including Sharon) who don’t really feel like giving the Golan Heights back (whether for ideological or strategic reasons.)

    It must also be kept in mind that the neo-cons in the White House may be very happy with this potential development, which might have Israel continuing what the US started in Iraq. It’s pretty clear that Syria has been sidelined despite its potential usefulness as a source on Al Qaeda, as the New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh reported back in July. And ever since Richard Armitage said that “Al Qaeda is the B team of terrorism, and Hizbullah is the A team,” we’ve been waiting to see when Syria would be tackled. With the US bogged down in Iraq, the strategy the neocons want to achieve in the region may now rest on Israel.

    Let’s go to tape and dig up “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” the neo-con bible a lot of current national security officials were working on for Bibi Netanyahu when they were in political exile in the Clinton years. Here’s the section on Syria/Lebanon, presumably before Israel withdrew from Southern Lebanon:

    Securing the Northern Border
    Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by:
    * striking Syria’s drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure in Lebanon, all of which focuses on Razi Qanan.
    * paralleling Syria’s behavior by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces.
    * striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper .
    Israel also can take this opportunity to remind the world of the nature of the Syrian regime. Syria repeatedly breaks its word. It violated numerous agreements with the Turks, and has betrayed the United States by continuing to occupy Lebanon in violation of the Taef agreement in 1989. Instead, Syria staged a sham election, installed a quisling regime, and forced Lebanon to sign a “Brotherhood Agreement” in 1991, that terminated Lebanese sovereignty. And Syria has begun colonizing Lebanon with hundreds of thousands of Syrians, while killing tens of thousands of its own citizens at a time, as it did in only three days in 1983 in Hama.
    Under Syrian tutelage, the Lebanese drug trade, for which local Syrian military officers receive protection payments, flourishes. Syria’s regime supports the terrorist groups operationally and financially in Lebanon and on its soil. Indeed, the Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley in Lebanon has become for terror what the Silicon Valley has become for computers . The Bekaa Valley has become one of the main distribution sources, if not production points, of the “supernote” — counterfeit US currency so well done that it is impossible to detect.
    Given the nature of the regime in Damascus, it is both natural and moral that Israel abandon the slogan “comprehensive peace” and move to contain Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction program, and rejecting “land for peace” deals on the Golan Heights.

    It’s not clear yet that it is this agenda that Israel’s current leadership would like to carry out, but it bears thinking about, doesn’t it?

    Update: For more analysis and a look at the upcoming Syria Accountability Act that the White House has decided to let Congress pass, look here.


    01:05 | / syria | link


    Chalabi’s Zionist-friendly family

    The Guardian uncovers that Ahmed Chalabi’s nephew is in partnership with an ultra-Zionist lawyer with administration connections to make money in Iraq:

    It was established by Salem “Sam” Chalabi, the 40-year-old nephew of Ahmad Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress, a Pentagon favourite and now a prominent member of Iraq’s governing council.
    Sam Chalabi’s “partner for international marketing” is Marc Zell, a rightwing Zionist lawyer who has offices in Jerusalem and Washington and previously ran a legal practice with Douglas Feith - now a leading Pentagon hawk with responsibility for the reconstruction of Iraq.
    Until recently, Mr Zell - an Israeli citizen - was the registered owner of the Iraqi firm’s website. Registration was transferred to Sam Chalabi’s name on September 25 - the day after Mr Zell’s ownership of the site was revealed by an article on Guardian Unlimited.

    Zell is a pro-settlement, “Greater Israel” militant. Nice company these Chalabis keep.


    00:47 | / iraq | link


    Tue, 07 Oct 2003

    Ode to Chalabi

    The Star Tribune ran this great ode to Ahmed Chalabi a few days ago:

    You are Ahmed Chalabi! You left Iraq when you were 12 years old, but history doesn’t matter. You are the future of Iraq, and the very breath of its liberation.
    So go, you Armani-clad warrior, to arms, and ride with the wind.

    Go read the rest of it immediately.


    16:58 | / iraq | link


    Mon, 06 Oct 2003

    New group to rule over Iraq

    President Bush announced today that Condoleeza Rice will be heading a new group in charge of monitoring the situation in Iraq — the Iraq Stabilization Group. This means tighter White House control over the situation in Iraq, says the Washington Post , because Bush is afraid that with his ratings dropping, a lingering bad situation in Iraq could hurt his bid for re-election:

    Administration officials had insisted this summer that the White House did not plan to play a larger role in the reconstruction effort. The reversal reflects the growing awareness among Bush’s aides that the Iraq task is much bigger and more difficult than they had expected, and the consequences could be dire if the pace and perception of progress does not pick up dramatically before the general election race next year.

    A little further down:

    The stabilization group is to begin functioning this week and created by Rice in a classified memo on Thursday. The group will have divisions focusing on counterterrorism; economics, to develop plans for obtaining financial support; political institutions and governance, to deal with the development of a constitution and the conduct of elections; and communications, to focus on the administration’s U.S. media message about Iraq.

    I think it’s interesting that they include that last bit about the group needing to “focus on the administration’s U.S. media message about Iraq.” So the White House is not happy with the picture of the news in Iraq that’s coming back home? It must be a liberal media conspiracy. Condi’ll sort them out.

    Also note that Anna Perez, a deputy assistant to Bush and Rice’s counselor for communications. Here’s Perez bio from results.gov, a White House/Bush-related site:

    Anna Perez — White House
    Deputy Assistant to the President and Counselor to the National Security Advisor for Communications
    Most recently, Anna Perez was General Manager of Corporate Communications and Programs for the Chevron Corporation. From 1995 until 1998, she served as Vice President, California Government Relations for the Walt Disney Company. Previously, she was head of Media Relations for Creative Artists Agency, Inc. in Los Angeles. From 1989 until 1993, she served as Press Secretary to First Lady Barbara Bush. She began her career on Capitol Hill, serving as Assistant Press Secretary and Communications Director to U.S. Senator Slade Gorton in 1981 and as Press Secretary to U.S. Congressman John Miller in 1985. Anna attended Hunter College.

    Chevron, Disney, the CAA… I’m sure the US media in Iraq will be in goods hands. Let the spin begin!


    23:45 | / iraq | link


    Al Jazeera under pressure?

    Al Jazeera has apparently removed offensive cartoons from its website at the request of the US government, according to the Arab News.

    The two cartoons were pulled “without any hesitation” from both the Arabic and English language websites after a US government official complained about them, according to the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
    One cartoon was of so-called “green card soldiers”, young Latino men shown going through an immigration tunnel to emerge from the other side as US soldiers ready to leave for military service in Iraq. The other was of the Twin Towers imploding, and two giant fuel pumps rising to replace them from the ashes. Neither cartoon is now available in Al-Jazeera websites’ cartoon archive.

    I bet there’s more to this story than it seems, especially as there are widespread rumors among Arab journalists that there is a mini-civil war brewing inside of Al Jazeera.


    15:46 | / media | link


    Muslims made me divorce my wife

    Laugh or cry? You decide:

    CHARLOTTE, N.C. — U.S. Rep. Cass Ballenger blames the breakup of his 50-year marriage partly on the stress of living near a leading American Muslim advocacy group that he and his wife worried was so close to the U.S. Capitol that “they could blow the place up.”
    The nine-term Republican lawmaker, in an interview with The Charlotte Observer published Saturday, called the Council on American-Islamic Relations — whose headquarters are across the street from his Capitol Hill home — a “fund-raising arm” for terrorist groups and said he reported CAIR to the FBI and CIA.


    15:38 | / potluck | link


    Israel/Syria face-off

    I watched both the Syrian and Israel ambassadors to the UN give their speech to the Security Council last night. The Syrian ambassador’s speech was fairly poor, engaging in the same tired old song without focusing enough on the strict illegality of what Israel did by attacking it. Of course, he spoke in Arabic and the live translation was hardly inspiring, which perhaps explain that he didn’t come across as well as the Israeli ambassador, who spoke in English.

    The Israeli ambassador’s speech was manipulative and, it seemed, unusually hawkish — but it was well delivered. The Israeli ambassador was of course right to point out that Syria hosted the political leadership of Islamic Jihad and Hamas, and that it probably had training camps (although I seem to recall that the training camps were in Lebanon Bekaa Valley, not in Syria itself). But the comparison he made between his country’s attack and the US response to 9/11 is dishonest and disproportional. Even if there was a direct link between the Haifa suicide bombing a couple of days ago and Syria, it’s not exactly the same thing, is it? And besides, the US was not illegally occupying Afghan territory, as Israel does in Syria and Palestine.

    More worrying was the implication that like Afghanistan and Iraq, Syria should be the target of regime change because it is a sponsor of terrorism. The Israeli ambassador came coming back to this point:

    “Syrian complicity and responsibility for suicide bombings is as blatant as it is repugnant,” he said. “For Syria to ask a debate in this council is comparable only to the Taliban calling for such a debate after 9/11.”

    It was even more worrying to see that the US ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, seemed to concur with that analysis, at least broadly speaking:

    “The United States believes that Syria is on the wrong of the side of the war on terrorism. We believe it is in Syria’s interest, and in the broader interest of Middle East peace, for Syria to stop harboring and supporting the groups that perpetrate acts such as the one that occurred yesterday.’’

    It has been common knowledge for years that Syria hosts the political leadership of Hamas and Jihad, and that it has a particularly tight relationship with Hizbullah in Lebanon. The question is, why attack now? Was the latest suicide bombing attack unlike the previous ones? Why did Sharon decide to use it as a pretext for an attack at this particular time? Is there in fact an escalation of the conflict with Syria, perhaps with US approval? As Robert Fisk put it (registration required):

    Yesterday, we took another little lethal step along the road to Middle East war, establishing facts on the ground, proving that it’s permissible to bomb the territory of Syria in the “war against terror”, which President Bush has himself declared now includes Gaza.

    The best course of action for Israel would be to stop occupying the Golan Heights and Palestine. Any terror attacks that occur after that with any form of outside state support would roundly be condemned, and there would definitely be a case for military action. But while Israel continues to occupy these territories and nurture maximalist ambitions and until it refuses to consider a peace process according to the relevant UN resolutions, its appeal to the UN for its right to “self-defense” will just be viewed as more hypocrisy. And that’s why the US and Israel were alone last night in the Security Council in defending Israel’s attack on sovereign territory. One also hopes that not having the excuse of being occupied anymore, the Syrian regime would finally begin a real move towards democratization.

    For quotes from the UNSC meeting, go here.


    15:21 | / syria | link


    Military Balance 2003

    Even though it came out a week ago at least, I thought 6 October — a national holiday in Egypt commemorating the 1973 Arab-Israel war — was a good date to tell amateur geo-strategists and military geeks that the new Military Balance report is out. Researched by the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies in Israel, and calling itself “the most authoritative source on Middle Eastern Armies since 1983,” it’s shock-full of yummy military statistics.

    And while on the theme of the October/Ramadan/Yom Kippur War, take a look at this piece on how Israel used the threat of nuclear war to get the US to help it in 1973.


    15:18 | / egypt | link


    Sun, 05 Oct 2003

    Diaa Rashwan and 9/11

    In the near four years I’ve worked as a journalist in Egypt, one talking head I often turn to is Diaa Rashwan, an expert on Islamism at the Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo. Rashwan is probably one of the world’s top experts on political Islam, and in the year immediately after 9/11 was often quoted in the international press. He is not an Islamist himself, but has studied Egypt’s Islamist movements, as well as Al Qaeda, thoroughly. I believe he has good contacts with both the state security apparatus that deals with the Islamists in Egypt, and with some Islamists. Moreover, he follows Islamist literature and is aware of the debates in the movement. He’s also a very nice guy.

    It must have been over a year ago that during one of my conservations with Rashwan that I first heard him say that he did not think Al Qaeda was behind the 9/11 attacks. That’s an allegation that I would have immediately dismissed had it come from anyone else. Rashwan is no blind ideologue — quite the opposite. He is, as far as I know, a cautious and scholarly man and would not fall into the “it can’t be the Arabs, Mossad did it” denial that many others have fallen into.

    Last week, Rashwan for the first time explained his doubts about who was behind 9/11. He raises some interesting issues, although he does not go into them in enough detail for my taste. His main points seem to focus on the recruitment patterns for the hijackers, and Muhammad Atta — the only Egyptian and allegedly the ringleader of the operation — in particular.

    I can’t say that I’m really convinced by what Rashwan wrote — it still seems to me pretty evident that Al Qaeda (or at least a group with loose connection to Al Qaeda) carried out the attack. It’s not enough to find holes in the US government theory of what happened, there must also be some positive proof of someone else being involved. He also doesn’t suggest any other possible perpetrators. A few days after his piece came out, I called him to ask about who he thought was behind 9/11 if not Al Qaeda. He said he didn’t know, adding it was a “sensitive” topic. That answer is not quite good enough if you’re going to make this kind of allegation. But perhaps he’ll clarify his thinking further on.


    20:23 | / terrorism | link


    “Neither public nor diplomatic”

    More on the debate over US public diplomacy in the Muslim world:

    United States public diplomacy is neither public nor diplomatic. First, the government — not the broader American public — has been the main messenger to a world that is mightily suspicious of it. Further, the State Department, which oversees most efforts, seems to view public diplomacy not as a dialogue but as a one-sided exercise.

    Read it all, it’s short and sweet.


    15:32 | / media | link


    More costly lies

    The NYT has this story looking at how a secret study of Iraq’s oil production potential was ignored by the neo-cons last fall when they made their case for war:

    Despite those findings, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz told Congress during the war that “we are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.”
    Moreover, Vice President Dick Cheney said in April, on the day Baghdad fell, that Iraq’s oil production could hit 3 million barrels a day by the end of the year, even though the task force had determined that Iraq was generating less than 2.4 million barrels a day before the war.
    Now, as the Bush administration requests $20.3 billion from Congress for reconstruction next year, the chief reasons cited for the high price tag are sabotage of oil equipment — and the poor state of oil infrastructure already documented by the task force.
    “The problem is this,” L. Paul Bremer III, the top civilian administrator in Iraq, asserted at a Senate hearing two weeks ago: “The oil infrastructure was severely run down over the last 20 years, and partly because of sanctions over the last decade.”
    Similarly, Bush administration officials announced earlier this year that Iraq’s oil revenues would be $20 billion to $30 billion a year, which added to the impression that the aftermath of the war would place a minimal burden on the United States. Mr. Bremer now estimates that Iraq’s total oil revenues from the last half of 2003 to 2005 will amount to $35 billion, running at a rate of about $14 billion a year.
    The administration now plays down the report’s findings.

    More lies for the sake of ideology. It’s this kind of self-delusion and manipulation that spelled the beginning of the end for the Soviet Union. Where are the pragmatists in this administration?


    15:23 | / iraq | link


    Fri, 03 Oct 2003

    Russia adopts pre-emptive strike doctrine

    Oh, great. Russia’s top brass just adopted a new military doctrine that allows pre-emptive strike, refers to the UN as useless, has them eyeing Pakistan and Afghanistan as targets and makes the use of WMDs easier.

    Presenting the latest military doctrine, Ivanov said that Russia reserves the right of preventive military strikes to thwart threats to its own vital interests or of its allies, including the protection of crucial transport arteries, and stability in the neighbouring countries.
    “Russia has virtually declared its right to intervene militarily in the affairs of other countries and has substantially lowered the threshold for the use of weapons of mass destruction in case of aggression,” NTV channel said commenting on the new Russian military doctrine.
    Even though the UN and its Security Council have been identified as the main mechanisms of global stability and security, the new Russian military doctrine virtually admits their “impotency” when it says that the Russian armed forces are the key factor for global stability.
    Russian Defence Ministry has declared Europe, Middle East, West and Central Asia, and Asia-Pacific regions as the areas of Russia’s strategic interests as in the West it faces the Euro-American world, in the south - the Islamic world and in the east the vast Pacific region.
    According to the various Russian media comments about the new doctrine, “the reforms of ex-Soviet armed forces are over and a new ambitious Russian army is born”.

    Now who could have ever given them these ideas?


    23:58 | / politics | link


    Thu, 02 Oct 2003

    Bush wants more funding for WMD search

    Having already spent $300 million looking for Iraq’s WMD program, President Bush now wants another $600 million to continue the search. In the meantime, note that the report on Iraq’s WMD program, while partly leaked to the press last week, is still not finished although it was meant to be released in September. The reason, it seems, is that its findings — that no serious WMD capability was found in Iraq — would seriously embarass an administration that currently has enough political problems in the run-up to the elections. I can’t claim to know much about how weapons inspections work, but considering that Iraq’s top scientists, a good part of the intelligence community and the UN’s weapons inspectors are saying that the WMD threat was blown out of proportion, why do we need to spend so much money and time before getting a straight answer? If we’re asking for twice the money, how much longer before we get a definitive answer? And why is looking for these weapons so outrageously expensive?

    Here’s the answer to least that last question:

    The group has also concentrated on installing an unnecessarily elaborate infrastructure to support its operations, said several military officials who complained there was a disparity between the resources allotted to the two programs.
    While the Exploitation Task Force worked out of an abandoned palace and the servants’ housing quarters near Baghdad airport and remained short of vehicles, air support, computers and even electricity during the initial months of the weapons hunt, the Iraq Survey Group spent its first weeks installing air-conditioned trailers, a new dining facility, state-of-the-art software and even a sprinkler system for a new lawn, according to officials and experts who worked with the group this summer.
    “They kept unloading crates and crates of new Dell laptops,” said one Pentagon official who complained that the exploitation force lacked resources.

    Yeah, let’s give these people more money…


    13:59 | / iraq | link


    ICG does Egypt

    You know a country is in trouble when it starts being studied by the International Crisis Group. The ICG, for the uninitiated, is a Brussels-based think tank that in my opinion pretty much offers the best analysis of any think tank anywhere. They started mostly focusing on Eastern Europe and the Balkans, where they did excellent work, and have more recently started to monitor Algeria, Israel/Palestine, and Iraq. Their Iraq reports are particularly good, combining analysis with recommendations on how to improve the situation there. And now, they have a report on Egypt which can be considered as a definitive overview of the situation that the country is in as a result of the Iraq war. Download it here.

    I thought this paragraph in the introduction was particularly interesting in light of the debate over perceptions of the US in the Arab world:

    The U.S. administration should take seriously the evidence of political damage that American- Egyptian relations have sustained as a consequence of its regional policies, notably its perceived bias in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, its decision to topple the regime in Iraq, and its heavy-handed admonitions to Egypt and other Arab countries to reform. Washington’s policies, and the manner of their implementation, have embarrassed a friendly government, aggravated its domestic difficulties and undermined the U.S.’s self-proclaimed reform agenda. Significantly, there is far greater anger directed at President Mubarak for supporting the U.S. than there is at the U.S. for supporting Mubarak. For a growing section of the Egyptian intelligentsia and political class, the cause of domestic democratic reform is increasingly associated with opposition to, rather than support for, U.S. policies. Ultimately, the preconditions for the U.S. to recover credibility as a promoter of democracy with Egyptian public opinion have less to do with its actions regarding democracy than with its regional policies. The U.S. would help the cause of reform best by more vigorously pursuing a just settlement of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict and de-Americanising the Iraqi occupation by both empowering the UN and accelerating transition to self-rule.

    While you’re on the ICG website, peruse their other reports and download their new newsletter — consider it talking points for geo-strategists.


    10:33 | / egypt | link


    No kidding

    Stop the presses: “U.S. Must Counteract Image in Muslim World, Panel Says”

    I’m very weary of these articles that make a not-so-subtle association between Arab opinion on America and terrorism. The two have little to do with each other — 9/11 was the work of a bunch of extremists whose ideas (despite what you may read in the American press) have little sway over ordinary people. I mean, they’re nutters, and I think most people here see as such. Remember in many Arab countries they suffered from Islamist terror long before the rest of the world did.

    Part of the problem is that Americans feel they should always be loved, and don’t understand when people don’t like them. The answer is simple. It’s the foreign policy, stupid. It’s not because they hate freedom or have been “taught” to hate the rest of the world.

    That being said, the article makes some good points:

    The group’s major recommendations, besides creating a new White House director of public diplomacy, were to build libraries and information centers in the Muslim world, translate more Western books into Arabic, increase scholarships and visiting fellowships, upgrade the American Internet presence, and train more Arabists, Arab speakers and public relations specialists.

    Since changing policy is not likely to happen anytime soon, that would be an important start to actually getting people to learn about another side of America that they seldom see. Most of the European countries pursue these kinds of cultural policies, funding festivals and often playing an important role on the impoverished local art scene. And they do it in a discreet way, without putting their flags on everything (something that embassy officials do, it seems, to please visiting congressional delegations more than anyone else.) If you want to really know what’s wrong with US public diplomacy in the Middle East, you could so worse than turn to an old classic about South East Asia. Much of what was written there nearly 50 years ago still applies.


    01:08 | / media | link


    Speaking of hate speech…

    The loony Zionist hate brigade over at the New York Daily News has come up with this towering work of bile, bullshit and anti-Arabism to say about Edward Said. It’s perhaps the most disgusting piece of writing I’ve ever read — I’m sure they laughed all the way to the printing press safe in the knowledge that dead men can’t sue. But it’s a good reminder of the kind of sick people in Israel and the US will do anything to fight the work of people like Said who believe in a fair peace between Jews and Arabs.


    00:31 | / palestine | link


    Bremer on Iraq’s reparations debt

    Paul Bremer has apparently suggested that Iraq should not pay reparations back to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Good for him, and good for Iraq. Those two states backed Saddam long enough when it suited them, I don’t see any reason why they should get money now.

    Follow the links over at Eclectic Chapbook for details.


    00:07 | / iraq | link


    Blogging etiquette

    I’ve been blogging lightly for the past few days, partly because I’ve been a bit sick (there’s a terrible stomach flu going through Cairo) and because I’ve been pretty busy with stuff that pays the rent (the story will be out this Saturday in The Times, and will get some big play from what I hear.)

    But there’s been something I’ve wanted to post ever since a reader alerted me to it. It’s a post by Arab Street Files in response to a post of mine about the arrest of gays in Cairo. Read it and you will see that it’s sickeningly homophobic and, rather perversly, seems to rejoice in the fact that men who are innocent of any wrongdoing under Egyptian law (homosexuality is not illegal here).

    The reader who let me know about it asked me, essentially, whether I endorsed this since I’ve out Arab Street Files in my sidebar. The answer is, of course, no. I don’t endorse it. I put Arab Street Blog in my sidebar because it’s one of the very few political blogs about Egypt that I found, and thought it was good to let people know that it existed. I thought in the past that some of what he wrote was interesting, and this latest post does not change that. So for now I won’t remove it from the sidebar, and I hope that doesn’t offend too many people. I disagree with most Shia Pundit, for instance. Granted, it isn’t (as far as I know) spouting off hate speech. But I often fundamentally disagree with it and only have it in the sidebar because I think it’s interesting to read different points of view. And I can also change my mind and take someone I find offensive, boring or whatever off the list.

    I realize, as Arab Street Files points out, that most Egyptians strongly disaprove of homosexuality. I know that this is a fundamentally conservative country whose social mores, in some cases, are comparable to Europe and America 50 years ago. But I’m not moral relativist or multi-culturalist. I don’t like it, and think it’s wrong. But then again I’m an atheist and social libertarian, and I know that means I’m at odds with 99% of the people I live among. But that won’t make me change my mind.

    One last point. Arab Street Files ends his post writing:

    So forgive me for not showing much concern for the plight of a few pleasure-seeking fags who got arrested for debauchery. I’ve got a government to overthrow.

    Well, in that case you’ve missed the point. The thing that troubles me about the Queen Boat and other gay cases in Egypt is that they are seemingly pointless attacks on ordinary Egyptian citizens. I spoke to one of the human rights organizations that will represent them (at the end only 15 were charged and will go to trial, not 62, although a few more are still in the limbo of administrative detention) and was told that after being kept for a day and beaten, they were told that they would be released if they signed a piece of paper. Many signed without reading it. The piece of paper was a confession saying that they were homosexuals and that they were prostituting themselves. It will now form the cornerstone of the case. As the human rights worker told me, “that’s what they [the police] usually do.” Unfortunately, this is an all too common strategy in Egyptian police stations, and it has created the kind of atmosphere that makes you want to overthrow the government. Cases of persecution like this, when the victims aren’t even political activists who pose a threat to the regime, show what’s fundamentally wrong with Emergency Laws and other anti-terrorist legislations that start being used as a replacement for real, honest police work. Next time they decide to randomly arrest someone and charge them with being gay (ensuring their public humiliation in this country and almost total lack of support), just remember it could be you.


    00:03 | / egypt | link


    Wed, 01 Oct 2003

    Clark on “doctrinaire” Bush administration

    If there is a Pulitzer prize for blogs, Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo should get it. Take a look at his must-read exclusive interview with Wesley Clark, which unlike all of the stupid profiles I’ve read on him lets you know something about what the man thinks. I had worried that Clark, while an appealing candidate, would be weak on domestic policy and burn a little too fast in the primaries to still excite people after them. Although this interview deals mostly with foreign policy, it shows that Clark a sophisticated and thoughtful person. That might not make a winner, but it certainly makes for a real contender.

    The following paragraph struck me for several reasons:

    Why is it impossible to take an authoritarian regime in the Middle East and see it gradually transform into something democratic, as opposed to going in, knocking it off, ending up with hundreds of billions of dollars of expenses. And killing people. And in the meantime, leaving this real source of the problems — the states that were our putative allies during the Cold War — leaving them there. Egypt. Saudi Arabia. Pakistan.

    If you read this in the context of the entire interview, you get the sense that Clark believes that the real problems in the Middle East aren’t Iran, Iraq and Syria as the Bush administration would have you believe, but Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. (He only mentions Egypt here, and I’m not sure in what sense.) Unfortunately, two years after 9/11 the Bushies have managed to convince many people (and have been endorse by heavyweight media figures like Fareed Zakaria and Thomas Friedman) that the problem is something about the general nature of the Arab world.

    I’ve always thought that while there are certainly serious problems of governance and democracy in the Arab world, these have little to do with 9/11. These terrorist attacks —if you accept that they were carried out by Al Qaeda and not some other fundamentalist group — were conducted by a bunch of zealots that had for the most part broken off contact with the Arab world for a good decade, were trained by the Afghan war, hosted by the Taliban, funded by the Saudis, backed at least logistically by the Pakistanis and were at least tolerated (perhaps more) by the United States. Look for the responsibility there before you ask “Why do they hate us?” as if it was the question that explained it all.

    In any case, it’ll be interesting to see what will become of these ideas if Clark becomes the next president. And there’s a decent chance that will happen.

    While you’re reading the interview, scroll down and take a gander at Marshall’s excellent work on the CIA/White House scandal. He put it on the table, forced the media to discuss it, and is now fighting off the right-wing press machine’s agitprop faster than they can spin it. What a sorry bunch us journalists are…


    22:51 | / politics | link


                 

    Copyright © 2003 Issandr El Amrani