I say lead by example.
More than 27,000 people in 25 countries were asked if torture was acceptable if it could provide information to save innocent lives.
In Egypt, according to the poll, 65% voted against employing all sorts of torutre, while 25% saw it legitimate under “some circumstances.”
And surprise, surprise:
Israel has the largest percentage of those polled endorsing the use of a degree of torture on prisoners, with 43% saying they agreed that some degree of torture should be allowed.
You can read the full BBC report here.
Related link: Egyptian police abuse videos
This piece scored a tick.
Headlined “Carriers of conflict� it outlines one of the unpleasant side effects of America’s most recent military adventure: the mass movement of people out of Iraq.
Now, there’s some interesting factoids in the piece. 700,000 Iraqi refugees now in Jordan? A quick Google doesn’t make it clear where this number comes from. UNHCR? Right. A year ago apparently they had recognized 800. Last year the US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants put the number at 450,000 and noted the inflow was increasing. But anyway, there’s a hell of a lot of them.
The annoying part comes in the intro, where authors Dan Byman and Ken Pollack pontificate on the root cause of instability and violence in the Middle East:
where large numbers of refugees go, instability and war closely follow… Palestinian refugees, who with their descendants number in the millions, have been a source of regional violence and regime change for decades.
Ouch! According to the Byman and Pollock, these wanton troublemakers:
helped provoke the 1956 and 1967 Arab-Israeli wars [then] turned against their hosts and catalyzed a civil war in Jordan (1970–71) and in Lebanon (1975–90) [and, like that wasn’t enough shit disturbing] … contributed to coups by militant Arab nationalists in Egypt, Iraq, and Syria.
Wow. Busy little pests those Palestinians. I think they caused the plumbing in my building to get all gummed up last week as well.
Oddly, Israel is mentioned only once in the discussion of Palestinian refugees (as a victim of Palestinian aggression!) and the US is never mentioned at all in the discussion of Iraqi refugees.
But on second thought, it’s not really odd is it?
Make that two ticks.
The irony, of course, is that the niqab is intended to separate.
But that aside, the hullabaloo is a bit hard to understand at first, at least when you’re reading this stuff in Cairo.
Here, where the idea of freedom of religion is a sour joke unless you’re a Sunni Muslim, where racism (anti-black, anti-Jewish primarily) enjoys easy acceptance and where turning up to a demo to denounce a government figure will get you a date with a frustrated little man in Lazoughly who thinks a rolled up magazine is sex toy.
Now, Britain is replete with pasty-faced racists with angry little mouths who still spout the modern equivalent of “the WOGs begin at Dover.” (“They hate our freedom” being one of the more popular these days).
And maybe leaders like MCB General Secretary Muhammad Abdul Bari, who characterized Straw’s remarks as part of a “barrage of demonization,” see sparking a vigorous public debate on minority rights as a healthy way to define their constituency’s position in a modern multicultural society and a contribution to making sure that Great Britain doesn’t become as antagonistic to diversity and dissent as, say for example, Egypt.
But maybe, sadly, it’s just that they’ve finally learned something from the ADL and AIPAC: take offense early, take offense often.
The Cairo Trilogy, part 1 of 3
By Naguib Mahfouz, dramatised by Ayeesha Menon
Al-Sayyid Ahmad Abd al-Jawab, a prosperous shopkeeper, is a tyrant at home who terrorises his wife and two daughters and keeps them in strict seclusion behind the house’s latticed windows. But outside the home he is a serial womaniser with an appetite for plump, middle-aged singers.
The First World War is ending, and then there is a popular uprising in March 1919, when the eldest son Fahmy joins the nationalist cause.
Recorded entirely in Cairo.
Old Kamal …… Omar Sharif
Young Kamal …… Karim Fouda
Al-Sayyid Ahmad Abd al-Jawab …… Ihab Sakkout
Amina …… Caroline Khalil
Fahmy …… Mena Reda
Yasin …… Tamer Nasrat
Miriam …… Ola RoshdyMusic by Sacha Puttnam; producer/director John Dryden.
I’ll try to record them and post them for iPod enjoyment.
Update: 68MB MP3 file available here. Not great quality, unfortunately. Min babak?
The workers tried without success to meet the University’s dean, so they went on strike, and are refusing to leave the campus despite threats from the security.
Meanwhile, a handful of Muslim Brothers journalists demonstrated in front of the Press Syndicate, protesting the closure of the group-affiliated paper, Afaq Arabiya, seven months ago by the government. The journalists posed as vegetable sellers, to symbolize their financial difficulties. “We are left with nothing but selling vegetables ya hokouma,” they were shouting.
Recommended Book:
Al-Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam
The Football Rules of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict:
RULE 1: Israel has the right to play on both sides of the field, but the Palestinians can only play in their own half.
RULE 2: During the match, Israel has the right to build a wall anywhere across the field to enforce the above rule.
RULE 3: Should the referee ever whistle a foul against Israel he shall promptly be denounced as an anti-Semite.
RULE 4: The Palestinians are encouraged to shoot into their own goal. Players who refuse will be nominated as terrorists and will not be allowed to play.
RULE 5: For security reasons, Palestinians do not have the right to pass the ball to each other.
RULE 6: Israel can occupy any empty space on the field by bringing in a new player.
RULE 7: All Israeli goals are valid. Even those scored during the half-time break.
RULE 8: The Palestinians will only receive their sponsorship money if they agree to let Israel win.
RULE 9: The Palestinians can only play in flip-flops.
RULE 10: There will be no goal post on the Israeli side.
Via 7adaara. Thanks, SP.
