Recent read…

I recently finished reading a solid book by NYU’s Zachary Lockman titled Contending Visions of the Middle East: The History and Politics of Orientalism and I wanted to share a couple excerpts with you:

“… the ancient Greeks did of course not see themselves as Europeans or Westerners, much less as the originators of anything resembling ‘Western’ or ‘European’ civilization. Rather, they regarded themselves as a distinctive and culturally superior people surrounded by less advanced ‘barbarians,’ by which the Greeks meant all those who spoke not Greek but some other language, disparaged as gibberish. Moreover, though many European scholars would later depict Greek culture in the ‘classical’ period of antiquity as wholly new and unique, as an achievement of incomparable genius which the ancient Greeks created virtually out of nothing, we know that in fact the Greeks were very much influenced by, and borrowed from, the cultures of their older, richer and more powerful neighbors to the south and east. These included might Egypt, the various empires which arose in the fertile and densely populated lands between the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers (Mesopotamia from the Greek for “between the rivers”), and the Phoenicians, who originated along what is today the coast of Lebanon and who, like the Greeks, ranged far and wide across the Mediterranean Sea as traders and settlers.” (Lockman, 10)
“In keeping with the classic colonial strategy of divide and rule, some French officials sought to make the inhabitants of the Kabyle region into allies of French colonialism in Algeria and therefore implemented policies which favored the Kabyles in employment, education, taxation and representation. Moreover, the French tried to insist that the Kabyles be judged in accordance with their customary law instead of Islamic law (even though they were all Muslims) while fostering Berber and suppressing Arabic in Kabyle schools. These policies, based on a highly tendentious and obviously racialized classification of Algerian’s population, helped transform what had long been fluid and contingent forms of identity into fixed, officially sanctioned and officially enforced categories. French officials in Morocco implemented similar policies after the establishment of French rule there in 1912, hoping to separate that country’s large Berber-speaking minority from its Arabic-speaking majority and thereby weaken Moroccan opposition to colonial domination.” (Lockman, 90)

[European Colonialism and its policy of divide and conquer has led to extreme sectarianism and sometimes even genocide, i.e. The Belgian policy of divide and conquer in Rwanda between the Tutsis and Hutus ultimately led to the Rwandan Genocide in ’94)

Posted in Books | 12 Comments

Documentary Film: “Meeting Resistance”

American soldiers in Iraq are exposed to the stories of various insurgents.

(I hope to see this film when it comes out in wide release in November.)

Posted in "War on Terror", Film, Iraq | 1 Comment

Che lives!

Here’s a great BBC Feature on the icon of revolution and how his image is very much alive today.

Posted in Latin America | 4 Comments

“Rendition” Trailer

There’s just so many good movies coming out. “Rendition” comes out Oct. 19th.

Posted in Film, Trailers | 8 Comments

Recent reads…

I just got done reading Juan Cole’s Napoleon’s Egypt: Invading the Middle East, and I thought it was very interesting that Napoleon invaded Egypt under the premise that he was going to liberate Egypt from the tyranny of the Ottoman Beys and export Republicanism, all the while massacring thousands and burning entire villages who opposed his “liberation.” I can’t help but think how once no WMD’s were found in Iraq, Bush stepped up his rhetoric about liberating Iraq from Saddam’s tyranny and seeking to export liberal democracy. What a sham.

I’m currently reading Zaki Chehab’s Inside Hamas: The Untold Story of the Militant Islamic Movement and I found this excerpt very disturbing:

“One of the Informant’s [Palestinians hired by Israeli intelligence to do the occupation’s bidding] assignments was to earmark young men who were regular mosque-goers to size up how willing they would be to join Al Qassam Brigades [Hamas’ military wing] or Al Jihad Al Islamic (Islamic Jihad). He would then recruit them into small cells of just two or three people and supply them with money and weapons. One commonly used double-bluff tactic by Israeli intelligence was to command these ‘dummy’ Palestinian cells to attack Israeli patrols or checkpoints in the Gaza Strip. When they got close and before they had a chance to open fire, they would be killed instead. Israeli forces would then claim they had been forced to attack. Many Palestinian analysts became aware of this and suggested that both the Israeli government and the IDF were using such tactics in order to raise morale amongst their soldiers. It became apparent that these pseudo-attacks coincided with periods when many towns and cities in the heart of Israel were suffering bombing campaigns by Palestinian groups such as Hamas or Islamic Jihad. (Chehab, 77)

Posted in Books, Islamism, Palestine, The Conflict | 1 Comment

Occupation 101

I first saw the trailer to this documentary film in the spring of 2002. I have been waiting for its release ever since. I finally saw it tonight at the Harvard Law School.  I’ve seen many documentaries on the military occupation of Palestine, but this one was by far the most comprehensive.  It was also very very depressing, but I’m glad I saw it. See the trailer here. You can order a copy at occupation101.com. Please see it.

Posted in Palestine, The Conflict, Trailers | 7 Comments

US Presidential Frontrunners Appear Different, but Speak as One when it comes to Iran

Article in OCPC Magazine (My ode to Rage Against the Machine).

And here’s Hilary Clinton getting punked for her pro-Iran War orientation. (thanx Maryam)

Posted in Elections '08, Iran | 32 Comments

“In the Valley of Elah” and “3:10 to Yuma”

Last night I saw “In the Valley of Elah” and “3:10 to Yuma.”  I thought the former was an amazing film; a harsh critique of the War in Iraq and the devastation it has wrought on the troops coming home as well as on the occupied in Iraq. The film is based on a true story.  The movie, however, was completely eclipsed by the 2nd film we saw that night: “3:10 to Yuma.” It was an ode to the classic western film and brilliantly played by Christian Bale and Russell Crowe. By the way, I think Christiane Bale is one of the best actors in Hollywood today and one of my favorites. His performances in “Rescue Daw,” “The Prestige,” “Batman Begins,” “The Machinist,” and “American Psycho” were flawless.

See the trailer for “In the Valley of Elah

See the trailer for “3:10 to Yuma

Posted in Film, Trailers | 8 Comments

Columbia Students Petition Columbia President for Lack of Decorum

Columbia University Students’ Petition Excerpt: In the past Columbia has welcomed many world leaders of all political stripes while maintaining proper decorum. But by introducing Columbia’s invited guest, the president of a sovereign nation, with disparaging and invidious language, you have done a disservice to our academic community.

And now an article that speaks for me on the issue of Ahmadinejad at Columbia:

Iranian.com: Frank Wisner, head of Directorate of Plans in CIA in the 1950’s, used to refer to the US media as a Wurlitzer, a giant pipe organ. Because it could be counted on to play whatever propaganda tune the US government wished to broadcast loudly. Had he been alive today, he may have been proud to hear another Wurlitzer, this one from the academic circles, chiming in perfect harmony with the old one.

Let me start by saying that Dr. Bollinger, president of Columbia University, made several valid points in his address before Ahmadinejad’s speech. I also commend him in the tone that he used to challenge Ahmadinejad. Politicians should not receive a free pass because they’re guests, invited speakers, or politicians. On the contrary, they should be subjected to harsh criticism when they deserve it.And so, let’s analyze Dr. Bollinger’s speech starting with his tone. Would Dr. Lee Bollinger have the courage to confront George Bush, Dick Cheney, Tony Blair, or any other world leader with the same tone? I hope that he would. I hope that he would use the same tone and words to point out the criminal, terrorist acts of Western leaders. However, I wouldn’t hold my breath! It should be mentioned that there are plenty of Israeli leaders, who have made controversial statements like Ahmadinejad; however, if Dr. Bollinger ever contemplates addressing them in the same manner, he better clear out his office first.He was also very courageous and correct to point out Iran’s treatment of women, the Baha’i faith, and homosexuals. We should all commend him for that. However, I would point out a discrepancy that I see. None of these human rights violations seemed to be an issue for Dr. Bollinger when the UAE government made a $200,000 contribution to Columbia University? The UAE government’s human rights records and treatment of homosexuals, Baha’is, and women is no different than IRI’s. He opposed Ahmadinejad’s invitation, but had IRI paid $200,000 would he have changed his position? I hope not. In fact, I wish that when he accepted the money from UAE, he would have been as candid as he was with Ahmadinejad and condemned UAE government’s human rights records too. These issues are complicated. Money for education is important and there is nothing wrong with accepting it while holding on to and applying a uniform set of principles.

Dr. Bollinger must also be commended for raising the Holocaust issue. I particularly liked the way he phrased it: “your absurd comments about the debate over the Holocaust both defy historical truth and make all of us who continue to fear humanities capacity for evil shutter at this closure of memory, which is always virtue’s first line of defense.”

I am one of those idealists who think that acts, which directly or indirectly lead to murder are wrong, regardless of murdering six million people or one person. Therefore, I just have a few questions. What about Iran in 1953 and the war with US-backed Saddam? What about Iraq and Afghanistan? What about Haiti? What about the Palestinians? What about …?

It seems to me that humanity, especially in the West, has an almost infinite capacity for evil, when those who are brutalized are of a particular creed. It seems to me that if Dr. Bollinger had included the plight of Iraqis or Palestinians in that beautifully worded criticism, he would no longer have his job, as it was demonstrated in the case of Professor Norman Finkelstein.

He ended his remarks in regards to Holocaust and Israel by asking Ahmadinejad “do you plan on wiping us off the map too?” To borrow from Amy Goodman’s terminology, it was at this point that the Mighty Bollinger began to metamorphose into the Mighty Wurlitzer.

Dr. Bollinger should know that if anyone is making real and deadly threats of wiping other countries off the map, it’s the gang lead by US. Can he point to a Palestinian state on a map? Will he be able to outline the boundaries of a unified Iraq in the future, on a map? Does he have an inkling of US government’s activities to foment sectarian discord and threaten Iran’s territorial integrity? Ahmadinejad expressed a ‘wish’, and the US media ballooned it into Armageddon, but the rest of the world is fully aware of which countries have been and are wiping others off the map.

Dr. Bollinger’s slide toward propaganda continued with his repeat of Bush government’s allegations on Iran’s involvement in Iraq. He also accused Iran of destabilizing Lebanon. I was wondering at this point, is he the president of a respected academic institution or the White House press secretary? Has he examined or seen any evidence to support Bush administration’s claims, or is it merely enough for the White House to make a claim and FOX/CNN to repeat it enough number of times. Speaking of the Holocaust and its causes, was it not Goebel’s axiom that if you repeat a lie, long and loud enough people will believe it? For an academic to sink to such level of jingoism and hypocrisy is shameful.

He accused Iran of supporting extremist groups. But he conveniently left out far worse acts committed by US government and its allies. Does he know that US government supports groups and individuals that are on its own terrorist list? It is hypocrisy to only use the US government’s list of terrorists as a benchmark. It is outrageously shameful when an academic resorts to such biased criterion.

Dr. Bollinger’s role as the White House megaphone hit a crescendo with the nuclear issue. On this point, we have to be as bold and forceful with Dr. Bollinger as he was with Ahmadinejad, because Dr. Bollinger is a lawyer by profession and the stakes are high.

As someone who has more intimate knowledge of law than the average FOX/CNN viewer, he should (and I suspect does) know that the claims of Bush administration have no factual or legal basis at all. This point is specially demonstrated by the remarks of Mohammed ElBaradei, the Director General of the IAEA, who recently said that he does not see “a clear and present danger in regard to the Iran nuclear program.”

Dr. Bollinger asked Ahmadinejad “why does your country continue to refuse to adhere to international standards for nuclear weapons verification in defiance of agreements that you have made with UN?” Apparently, Dr. Bollinger regards UN with the same callus disregard that Bush and company do.

Apparently, just as Bush stated, UN is only relevant to Dr. Bollinger when it supports his argument. It doesn’t seem to matter to Dr. Bollinger that US is bullying the rest of the Security Council along the path of war based on the same type of evidence that created the catastrophe in Iraq.

Shame! Such a sheepish regurgitation of propaganda by the dean of a respected academic institution! Doesn’t Dr. Bollinger realize that by parroting this nonsense, he would be complicit in the aftermath of a military action against Iran? If he is concerned about human rights then he should be first and foremost concerned about human lives! He should not so carelessly make himself a tool to Bush and go in league with the media that have become so docile to the US government.

Finally, he accused Iran of threatening the world with nuclear annihilation. This must have been the one night that a president of Columbia University tossed out all academic standards! I suggest that Dr. Bollinger turn off his TV, stop listening to the talking heads in the media, lock himself in the Columbia University’s Butler Library, and brush up on history and current affairs. Yes, the world has been and is constantly threatened by nuclear annihilation; however, the threat is made mostly by US and its allies.

Posted in Iran, US Foreign Policy | Comments Off on Columbia Students Petition Columbia President for Lack of Decorum

Iranian University Chancellors Ask Bollinger 10 Questions

The following is the full text of the letter.

Mr. Lee Bollinger
Columbia University President

We, the professors and heads of universities and research institutions in Tehran , hereby announce our displeasure and protest at your impolite remarks prior to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s recent speech at Columbia University.

We would like to inform you that President Ahmadinejad was elected directly by the Iranian people through an enthusiastic two-round poll in which almost all of the country’s political parties and groups participated. To assess the quality and nature of these elections you may refer to US news reports on the poll dated June 2005.

Your insult, in a scholarly atmosphere, to the president of a country with a population of 72 million and a recorded history of 7,000 years of civilization and culture is deeply shameful.

Your comments, filled with hate and disgust, may well have been influenced by extreme pressure from the media, but it is regrettable that media policy-makers can determine the stance a university president adopts in his speech.

Your remarks about our country included unsubstantiated accusations that were the product of guesswork as well as media propaganda. Some of your claims result from misunderstandings that can be clarified through dialogue and further research.

During his speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad answered a number of your questions and those of students. We are prepared to answer any remaining questions in a scientific, open and direct debate.

You asked the president approximately ten questions. Allow us to ask you ten of our own questions in the hope that your response will help clear the atmosphere of misunderstanding and distrust between our two countries and reveal the truth.

1- Why did the US media put you under so much pressure to prevent Mr. Ahmadinejad from delivering his speech at Columbia University? And why have American TV networks been broadcasting hours of news reports insulting our president while refusing to allow him the opportunity to respond? Is this not against the principle of freedom of speech?

2- Why, in 1953, did the US administration overthrow the Iran’s national government under Dr Mohammad Mosaddegh and go on to support the Shah’s dictatorship?

3- Why did the US support the blood-thirsty dictator Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 Iraqi-imposed war on Iran, considering his reckless use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers defending their land and even against his own people?

4- Why is the US putting pressure on the government elected by the majority of Palestinians in Gaza instead of officially recognizing it? And why does it oppose Iran ‘s proposal to resolve the 60-year-old Palestinian issue through a general referendum?

5- Why has the US military failed to find Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden even with all its advanced equipment? How do you justify the old friendship between the Bush and Bin Laden families and their cooperation on oil deals? How can you justify the Bush administration’s efforts to disrupt investigations concerning the September 11 attacks?

6- Why does the US administration support the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) despite the fact that the group has officially and openly accepted the responsibility for numerous deadly bombings and massacres in Iran and Iraq? Why does the US refuse to allow Iran ‘s current government to act against the MKO’s main base in Iraq?

7- Was the US invasion of Iraq based on international consensus and did international institutions support it? What was the real purpose behind the invasion which has claimed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives? Where are the weapons of mass destruction that the US claimed were being stockpiled in Iraq?

8- Why do America’s closest allies in the Middle East come from extremely undemocratic governments with absolutist monarchical regimes?

9- Why did the US oppose the plan for a Middle East free of unconventional weapons in the recent session of the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors despite the fact the move won the support of all members other than Israel?

10- Why is the US displeased with Iran’s agreement with the IAEA and why does it openly oppose any progress in talks between Iran and the agency to resolve the nuclear issue under international law?

Finally, we would like to express our readiness to invite you and other scientific delegations to our country. A trip to Iran would allow you and your colleagues to speak directly with Iranians from all walks of life including intellectuals and university scholars. You could then assess the realities of Iranian society without media censorship before making judgments about the Iranian nation and government.

You can be assured that Iranians are very polite and hospitable toward their guests.

Posted in Iran, US Foreign Policy | 6 Comments

Evaluating Ahmadinejad at Columbia… (& Videos of the Q & A)

The western press keeps highlighting the fact that the president of Columbia University said that Ahmadinejad acted like a “petty and cruel dictator.” Sen. Joe Lieberman said he shouldn’t have even been allowed into the US as he has “blood on his hands.” It’s strange to hear that from these people as they don’t really mind blood on hands of the likes of Olmert as they line up to kiss his hands when he comes to the US, the same Olmert who ordered the destruction of Lebanon in 2006. Fox News keeps making fun of Ahmadinejad’s name, appearance (facial features), and his attire, which speaks volumes about their racist network.

Anyway, people at the university lecture told me that Ahmadinejad was justified when he said that when you invite a guest into your house or country, you treat them with respect, like Iranians do in Iran, and like many Americans do here, implying that to invite him and then to insult him was not befitting and not representative of America.

In any case, I’m sort of baffled as to why Iranian presidents like to talk philosophy and history any time they get a chance to speak in a western forum. I remember when Khatami was interviewed by CNN, he wouldn’t stop talking about the said topics. What are they trying to prove? It’s like they’re saying: “please, I’m civilized, look, I know a thing or two about the world, now, please accept me.” Relax.

I’m also baffled as to how Ahmadinejad can respond to questions about the execution of “homosexuals” in Iran by saying that they don’t exist in Iran. WTF? They don’t exist? Really?

I do think, however, he’s on point when he talks about Palestinian suffering but I think that no matter how much he hammers away at it, it just won’t stick in a country heavily influenced by a Zionist bias. He was also pretty right on when he talked about American support for Saddam in the Iran-Iraq War.

At the end of the day, of the many slogans printed on the placards, one resonated with me: “We refuse to choose between Islamic fundamentalism and American Imperialism.”

Amen. (Here are the videos of the Q & A, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4)

Posted in Human Rights, Iran, The Conflict | 25 Comments

Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia and the UN

He’s speaking at Columbia University today (Monday) and at the UN tomorrow (Tuesday).  Protests have been planned at both the UN and the university. I wonder what’s going to happen as I know he’s going to get heckled at Columbia while speaking. Your thoughts?

Posted in Iran | 6 Comments

Making a killing: how private armies became a $120bn global industry

The Independent: In Nigeria, corporate commandos exchange fire with local rebels attacking an oil platform. In Afghanistan, private bodyguards help to foil yet another assassination attempt on President Hamid Karzai. In Colombia, a contracted pilot comes under fire from guerrillas while spraying coca fields with pesticides. On the border between Iraq and Iran, privately owned Apache helicopters deliver US special forces to a covert operation.This is a snapshot of a working day in the burgeoning world of private military companies, arguably the fastest-growing industry in the global economy. The sector is now worth up to $120bn annually with operations in at least 50 countries, according to Peter Singer, a security analyst with the Brookings Institution in Washington.

“The rate of growth in the security industry has been phenomenal,” says Deborah Avant, a professor of political science at UCLA. The single largest spur to this boom is the conflict in Iraq.

The workings of this industry have come under intense scrutiny this week in the angry aftermath of the killing of Iraqi civilians by the US-owned Blackwater corporation in Baghdad. The Iraqi government has demanded the North Carolina-based company is withdrawn. But with Blackwater responsible for the protection of hundreds of senior US and Iraqi officials, from the US ambassador to visiting congressional delegations, there is certainty in diplomatic and military circles that this will not happen.

The origins of these shadow armies trace back to the early 1990s and the end of the Cold War, Bob Ayers, a security expert with Chatham House in London, explains: “In the good old days of the Cold War there were two superpowers who kept a lid on everything in their respective parts of the world.”

He likens the collapse of the Soviet Union to “taking the lid off a pressure cooker”. What we have seen since, he says, is the rise of international dissident groups, ultranationalists and multiple threats to global security.

The new era also saw a significant reduction in the size of the standing armies, at the same time as a rise in global insecurity which increased both the availability of military expertise and the demand for it. It was a business opportunity that could not be ignored.

Now the mercenary trade comes with its own business jargon. Guns for hire come under the umbrella term of privatised military firms, with their own acronym PMFs. The industry itself has done everything it can to shed the “mercenary” tag and most companies avoid the term “military” in preference for “security”. “The term mercenary is not accurate,” says Mr Ayers, who argues that military personnel in defensive roles should be distinguished from soldiers of fortune.

There is nothing new about soldiers for hire, the private companies simply represent the trade in a new form. “Organised as business entities and structured along corporate lines, they mark the corporate evolution of the mercenary trade,” according to Mr Singer, who was among the first to plot the worldwide explosion in the use of private military firms.

In many ways it mirrors broader trends in the world economy as countries switch from manufacturing to services and outsource functions once thought to be the preserve of the state. Iraq has become a testing ground for this burgeoning industry, creating staggering financial opportunities and equally immense ethical dilemmas.

None of the estimated 48,000 private military operatives in Iraq has been convicted of a crime and no one knows how many Iraqis have been killed by private military forces, because the US does not keep records.

According to some estimates, more than 800 private military employees have been killed in the war so far, and as many as 3,300 wounded.

These numbers are greater than the losses suffered by any single US army division and larger than the casualties suffered by the rest of the coalition put together.

A high-ranking US military commander in Iraq said: “These guys run loose in this country and do stupid stuff. There’s no authority over them, so you can’t come down on them hard when they escalate force. They shoot people.”

In Abu Ghraib, all of the translators and up to half of the interrogators were reportedly private contractors.

Private soldiers are involved in all stages of war, from training and war-gaming before the invasion to delivering supplies. Camp Doha in Kuwait, the launch-pad for the invasion, was built by private contractors.

It is not just the military that has turned to the private sector, humanitarian agencies are dependent on PMFs in almost every war zone from Bosnia to the Democratic Republic of Congo. Which raises the next market the industry would like to see opened: peacekeeping. And the lobbying has already begun.

Posted in Iraq | 2 Comments

Trailer “Into the Wild”

looks fantasmic. It comes out today, 9.21.

Posted in Film, Trailers | 8 Comments

Another student tased on campus

There are 2 versions of this video, the shorter one leaves out his questions, one of which was awesome. It went something like why doesn’t Kerry impeach Bush for the war when Clinton was impeached for a “blow job.” See the video here.

Posted in Human Rights | 1 Comment