Shaaban Abdel Rahim has a new song on the Mubarak health rumors.
The Guardian profiles Alaa al-Aswany as the UK debut of the Yacoubian Building comes out.
Amr Khaled is a hit in America.
Stop the presses — Middle East crap at democracy, says EIU!
More coverage of Nadia Abu al-Haj, the latest academic to be on the Zionist hit-list.
Potential US presidential candidate John Edwards, in a speech on his policy towards terrorism, calls for the establishment of a king of counter-terrorism and intelligence NATO. He calls it CITO. It’s a cure acronym and a pretty good speech.
Jihad for Love — a documentary on gay Muslims. I know its maker and like to think I had a role in persuading him not to foolishly go film on this subject in Saudi Arabia, otherwise he might not have survived to make the documentary. I haven’t seen it, think the title is a bit cheesy (I declare jihad against using the word jihad), but wish him luck.
Israeli officials believe North Korea is selling nuclear materials to Syria. In other news, Israeli officials have proof that Bashar al-Assad and Hassan Nasrallah recently are small, cute puppies for lunch.
Russia unveils “the father of all bombs.” Vladimir Putin entertains me to no end. Do read the wonderful special on the KGB networks the Economist did a couple of weeks ago. I wonder if the Russians are going to start selling this kind of technology in the Middle East. And by the way, if you’re a resident of Ulyanovsk, conceive!
Naomi Klein on the privatization of Iraq, looting in Baghdad, private security firms and the exploitation of natural disasters. See also her Harpers article on “disaster capitalism,” from her new book, the the short film she made to promote it (which no matter what you think of her has cool graphics.) I like some of what Klein writes, but sometimes feel she does not completely master her topics and borrows from academic and other thinkers without attribution. But she’s an excellent vulgarizer, in the best sense of the word.
Also a good occasion to re-read this MERIP piece on the war economy of Iraq.
Joel Beinin writes a letter from al-Tuwani, near Hebron.
I still can’t quite get over the fact that people say things like “Arabic-language instruction is inevitably laden with pan-Arabist and Islamist baggage” and get away with it. Let’s not forget about the racist campaign against the Khalil Gibran International Academy in New York.
Ian Buruma on Norman Podhoretz, that sick fuck.
I am not sure whom has the most forked tongue: Christopher Hitchens or Tariq Ramadan. Ramadan, as Hitchens says, skirts too many issues in trying to make Islamism an acceptable idea (he has at least the merit of dragging it away from the populist muck.) But Hitchens, with his own jihad on Islamism (or should I say Islamo-fascism), wallows in double-entredres, as his own colleagues admit.
POMED has an interview with Sihem Bensedrine, arguably Tunisia’s most important human rights activists. It’s worth reading in contrast to this piece by Jill Caroll about attempts by MEPI to develop independent journalism in Tunisia, which has been put on hold. I wish Jill had talked a little bit more about the journalistic context in Tunisia, one of the most repressive countries in the region in terms of press (and internet) freedom.
Palestinian micro-breweries. It almost brings tears to my eyes as we enter the dry season (in Morocco, the relatively new Casablanca beer is great!). Ramadan Karim, all. And a happy new year to our dear cousins.
Actually, it’s more like an American official claims NK is selling nukes to Syria and that’s what Israel was doing. I’m not sure why so much of the media is focusing on that particular theory and running with it, unless they have some pretty good deep background.
Parvez Sharma sounds like quite an unusual, interesting character (esp with the Hindu Brahmin last name and Muslim first name). But he clearly hasn’t lost his inner desi altogether if he’s whining about not being able to get a spousal green card through his partner.
[…] El Amrani, from Egypt, provides us with an assortment of must-read links in this post. Share […]
Ramadan Karim, all!
Jihad For Love- oh for pete’s sake. I thought Parvez had more sense. he had a much better title the last time we really talked about it.
Forked tongue? ssssssssss- Hitchens, definitely….
Issandr,
Have you considered the possibility that Nadia Abu al-Haj’s book is flawed? I don’t know. I haven’t read it, but maybe it isn’t up to snuff.
Cheers,
Abu T
That’s entirely possible, but considering her own peers (presumably) approved her appointment at a renowned university, a major university press published and those attacking her are pro-Israel activists (and she hasn’t been attacked, say, by the Association of American Archeologists or somesuch organization) I am skeptical. This is something for the tenure committee to judge, and one hopes this campaign will not sway their judgement (although the fact that it exists will leave many guessing).
I would not be able to judge whether her research is good — from what I understand of its topic, few outside her field would.
Issandr,
You make some good points, but plenty of major university presses publish bad books. And, great universities make hiring mistakes. Given the central claims of the book, are you at all surprised that Israel’s supporters are up in arms?
I am sure few on either side of this controversy have actually read the book.
Best,
Abu T
She also received the http://fp.arizona.edu/mesassoc/Hourani/02hourani.htm“ rel=”nofollow”>Albert Hourani Award for her book, which is pretty prestigious. I think most bloggers and journalists covering the controversy haven’t read her book, but personally I feel that kind of endorsement suggests it’s a decent book (unless Pipes & Kramer are right and MESA is a bunch of acid-tripping, America-hating anti-Semites).
The campaign against her, with as far as I know no Middle Eastern Studies academic heavyweight joining it, would be easy to ignore if it were not for similar campaigns being successfully waged elsewhere (see for instance Norman Finkelstein).
The bigger point about these kinds of things is that opposition to them as to be strong from the get-go, or we will continue to see academics, journalists, policymakers, thinktankers etc. who are not judged as sufficiently pro-Israel being sidelined, passed over for promotion , or unable to get jobs in their field. This kind of omerta is already largely in effect despite the fact that Israel’s occupation of Palestine continues to be a central problem in US foreign policy. Even Nobel prize winning former US presidents are not immune from it — not just criticism of their thesis, but actual accusations of anti-Semitism, one of the most vile and damaging accusations one can make in America today. You have to fight back this kind of manipulation of the memory of the Nazis’ victims and bullying of legitimate critics of Israel before you have a generation of Middle East “experts” who practice self-censorship for the sake of their careers.