A sexual revolution -- women moving up in Iran

To continue the focus on women from the reading, I found this article posted on a non-profit news-source called Iran Focus**'s website.  The article itself is from the NY Times, but it details some basic developments from where the article left off.  Basically, the author presents an argument that a sexual revolution is imminent, because of the allowance for basic and advanced education for women.  The more that Iranian women are learning about and seeing in global culture the alternative to their situation, the more they are demanding equal legal rights.  In this article the debate doesn't seem to be centered on clothing, but rather on legal rights such as divorce.

Another article highlighted a case in which 8 women have been sentenced to death by stoning.  A lot of international attention has been focused on outlawing the practice of stoning to death those convicted of such crimes as adultery.  Amnesty International is a major player in this effort, where many Western nations have denounced this Iranian (Islamic) practice.

What is the role of the international community in such cases?  Is it another form of colonialism to enforce Western beliefs on an Islamic nation?  Although in this case it is considered a violation of human rights by most and thus widely denounced, how much can the international community interfere with/demand change in another country's practices?  Is wearing a veil violation of human rights?  Where do we draw the line on what we accept as tolerable practice of another culture?

**About Iran Focus

Iran Focus is a non-profit news service provider that focuses on events in Iran, Iraq and the Middle East. With a network of specialists and analysts of the region and correspondents and reporters in several countries, Iran Focus is able to provide fast and reliable news and analysis on the political, social and economic situation in the region.

Iranian Jews Refuse To Immigrate

Iran's Jews reject cash offer to move to Israel:

This guardian article explains that Israel's monetary incentive was not accepted by Iranian Jews as they refused the offer to be paid to move to Israel.

I found this incredibly interesting that Israel was offering money (up to 30,000 pounds for families) to try to get Persian Jews to move to Israel. This is an example of the extreme moves that are pulled by governments to make political statements by forcing migrations.

My immediate interpretation was that Israel's motives would be to get Iranian Jews to leave Iran as a testament against Iran's extremely anti-Israeli government. But, I am now wondering if the refusal of this offer from the Persian Jewish community reflects that this anti-Israeli (or not anti, but not pro) sentiment is taken in by the Persian jews, or if they are just refusing to give up their land and national identity. Any thoughts?

Runaway Girls

To tie our theme of movement/immigration to this week's reading, which traced the history women's rights from the late 19th century to today, I found some interesting news pieces about the incidence of runaway girls in Iran. Most of the articles I found were written in 2000/2001, but it is not unreasonable to think that this issue persists today. This BBC article cites that authorities find and take in 30 runaway girls every day, a figure that may only represent a small fraction of all runaway cases. For many of these girls, the only option once they've fled home is prostitution.

The BBC article mentions the Reyhaneh House, a women's shelter that houses girls who have run away from difficult family situations. It turns out that a documentary called Runaway was made in 2001 profiling the Reyhaneh center.

Obviously runaway children are not a phenomenon limited to Iran alone. However, I did think that the BBC article and the film synopsis framed the runaway problem in the context of Iran's traditional roles/rights for women. The reading for this week talked about Iranian women "fighting back" against regressive policies that have eroded their social and political rights -- is running away a way of fighting back, a last resort indicative of a deep-rooted repression of women, or something else?

Afghan Refugees in Iran

I thought this story was an interesting parallel to last week’s post as it discusses Iran’s reaction to Afghan refugees within its borders. It’s called Times get tougher for Afghan immigrants in Iran and it comes from Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders). I chose this perspective because the most I could find about Iranians actually migrating was centered around the Islamic Revolution in the late 70s. Last week we discussed the dire situations refugees were living in once they returned, forcibly or not, to Afghanistan. This article describes another difficult situation as Iran is beginning to forcibly return more and more Afghanis. The issue arises in that as the national migration laws have become stricter i.e. legal migrants need to renew documentation; Afghans fall into illegality and then can be forced back to Afghanistan.
Besides the difficulty of the situation in Iran, balancing national sovereign issues and a destitute population, the article also speaks once again to the overall lack of international aid. I was shocked by this: “While Iranian authorities claim to spend 6 US$ a day for every Afghan refugee, United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) spends the same amount in one year.”
I think this article is an important link between the refugees we see and realizing the lengths that they have gone to escape Afghanistan, only to overwhelm Iran, and eventually get sent back. It’s an even more complicated issue than one of lack of international funding because the massive number of immigrants has begun to affect Iran.
Here’s another more recent article about the forced removal of Afghan immigrants (Iran Expels Afghan Refugees). If these migrants are truly refugees, as in they applied and received status under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees/1967 Protocol, how can they be removed? I was under the impression that refugee status meant permanency and that there was a legitimate life-threatening concern in one’s home country that required international protection. If these Afghan immigrants are refugees (in the legal sense) is Iran acting illegally? If so, can anything be done? Or, is this just an example of a nation exercising its sovereign rights and demonstrating the weaknesses of international accords?

Iranian relations

I found this article, http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/04/22/alieza_iran_un/, by a foreign anylast discussing what the implications of further mismanagment of Iran could lead to. The anylast felt the Bush administration had done a horrible job with Relations of Iran and that it was up to Obama's administration to take a different route for relations. Clinton in this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2sL_zITWJc, states that this change of policy is also needed, and that the administration is willing to speak with Iran about detering nuclear weapons and sanctions.
The journalist feels that some of the solution to the problem of nuclearization with Iran has to do with working with the people rather then just the leaders. He states there has been thousands of protests within Iran against the Islamic republic, and their is evidence of how upset the people are. It's also evident that the people of IRan are capable of making their concerns known and doing something about it, hence the revolution of 79, but it is difficult to see how the United States could aid this change. How can the oppresion of people by Religious Law be changed? How can the people of Iran bring about change in their country? If the United States changes its diplomacy efforts with Iran, in what ways could this bring about change for not just Iranian U.S. Relations but also regional relations, relations to the Islamic revivalist movenments among people in other countries, and also Israeli relations? Sorry this is a little off topic....

Overall Refugee Picture

In reading all these articles I found many interesting, but also feel like we've jumped all over the place and so I found myself searching for an overview perspective on the refugee situation. So I searched on the human rights pages and found that Amnesty International is not present in Afghanistan and Human Rights watch is reporting on the huge blunder to women's rights that Brennan posted on.

On the UNHCR (UN Human Rights Council) website I found this article: UNHCR and Pakistan government sign Letter of Mutual Intent. A letter was signed last March indicating future cooperation between Pakistan and UNHCR with regards to the massive amounts of Afghan refugees whos situations have changed since the Taliban has fallen. Pakistan agreed to continue to support the dwelling of Afghan refugees as UNHCR funds

There are as many as 1.7 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan now and over 4.4 million have returned to their home country since the support program began in 2002. It seems to me the the UNHCR's presence in this situation is huge. This is hopeful since most of what I have found of the international communities influence on the refugee situations has not been as influential.

Form of Rape Legalised in Afghanistan

President Karzai recently made the rape of Shi'ite women by their husbands legal. Here is a news source-http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2009/04/20/legalized_rape_in_afghanistan/

I know we are supposed to talk about movement of people - how is our cultural influence by American presence be also an influence on this issue? As occupiers, how do we deal with issues like this where we strongly oppose the politics? To me this issue highlights the clash of cultures especially when one is a dominant force and presence. USA has been fighting for Afghani women's rights especially for the schooling of women. What should be done in this situation? Is it fair that we are imposing our cultural norms on Afghanis when our reasoning isn't the same as the explanation for our presence?? 

Elections increase Troop size

This article---->http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/264956,afghanistan-to-have-15000-extra-police-minister-says--summary.html discusses the increase in troop and police size in Afghanistan this year due to upcoming elections. The United States also issued 17000 more troops to Afghanistan in order to put down taliban attacks. This movenment and recruitment of troops, shows that there the Unites States has decided to focus strongly on security in a short elapsed time yet they do not concentrate on it or work on it in the long run. The de escalation of troops and increase in Iraq early in the Bush years shows that the agenda on terrorism is misguided and misevaluated.

Challenges of Urban Migration in Afghanistan

This article talks about a radio drama targeting young Afghans who have migrated to urban areas. It is one of several radio programs that addresses issues that migrants and "returnees" are facing, especially with few opportunities for employment and poor urban infrastructure.

While the article focuses on the radio program itself, the issue of urbanization in Afghanistan seems as though it would be compounded by the complex political strife in the area. As Marisa pointed out, U.S. and Afghani leadership have not succeeded in curbing issues like opium production within the country, and urban issues will likely persist until the political and economic structure of the country can be stabilized. To continue the idea of reconstruction, what steps do you think should be taken in order to stabilize the country, especially urban areas? Reducing or eliminating the opium trade would destabilize the financial foundation for the Taliban, but it would also necessitate a significant restructuring of the Afghani economy. I feel that with international assistance, this kind of restructuring would alleviate many of the problems urban migrants are facing, but the question may be drumming up support for this kind of reconstruction.

Bodies of 45 suffocated Afghans repatriated

Searching for recent developments dealing with the movement of Afghan people, I found a disturbing article about people smuggling out of Afghanistan. 45 Corpses were found in a container on Saturday along with 65 survivors near Quetta, Pakistan. The Afghan migrants were driven across the Afghan-Pakistan border in a truck after bad weather prevented them from being flown. This incident needs to be understood by the international community and should not be brushed under a rug with the lives of victims of terrorism and war. These people were attempting to escape a country with the belief that there was hope at the end in Iran, according to the article. However reprehensible needless acts of violence really are, acts of negligence such as this where 45 men women and children have lost their lives should be seen as catastrophes. There is obviously something terribly wrong with where these people are fleeing and something needs to be done about it. I know that this is a very big "something" but what has been tested obviously is not working.

Moving Forward in Afghanistan

In this article from the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (see description of the center below)  in late July 08, a couple of interesting points are brought up.  First, it speaks of poppy eradication efforts failing to curb Afghanistan's provision of 92% of the world's opium supply (used to make heroin and fund the Taliban), where there are no programs offering alternative income opportunities for opium farmers, providing ample space for the Taliban to step in and gain support as well as money.  Secondly, it speaks to the uneven focus of the US's efforts on Iraq, with less than 1/3 the amount of troops stationed in Afghanistan than in Iraq, while more American casualties and increasing instability are occurring in Afghanistan.  

But i think the most important point this article touched on was responsibilities of reconstruction-- an interesting point brought up in Laurie's post as well.  It mentioned that the US entered Afghanistan (unlike Iraq), with the support of the international community.  This begs the question of how much responsibility the international community has to the reconstruction of Afghanistan, and more pressing, the care of the thousands of internally displaced persons.  Obviously, the Al-Jazeera video posted by Laurie tells of a largely underfunded and insufficient aid system for refugees.  I am of the line of thought that if the Afghan government cannot or will not support these people, it is up to the international community, and especially the US to take on this role.  

What have you guys heard about this?  Is the international community less willing to assist the US in Afghanistan because of our actions in Iraq?  How do you see this shaping up?  Do you foresee improvements in the 'reconstruction' process?

The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars:

"The Center is the living, national memorial to President Wilson established by Congress in 1968 and headquartered in Washington, D.C. It is a nonpartisan institution, supported by public and private funds, engaged in the study of national and world affairs. The Center establishes and maintains a lively, neutral forum for free and informed dialogue. 

The mission of the Center is to commemorate the ideals and concerns of Woodrow Wilson by: providing a link between the world of ideas and the world of policy; and fostering research, study, discussion, and collaboration among a full spectrum of individuals concerned with policy and scholarship in national and world affairs."

Afghan Refugees

This video I found is from Al-Jazeera and is a look into the tragic conditions of Afghanis who have been internally displaced from their villages and have set up refugee camps in the capital Kabul. This clip includes shocking statistics such as: “for every 1,000 Afghan children born, 165 die within a year - and a quarter of all Afghan children die before their fifth birthday.” The reporter admits that despite international aid, these people live in destitute situations, but more upsetting this is not a unique camp. These people are just an example of the larger influx of refugees; they are invisible to the government and overshadowed by the construction and desire to rebuild the city. Afghanistan’s recovering economy cannot help these displaced people and international aid is not enough.


Watch CBS Videos Online

The second video is a different perspective on Afghan refugees who have returned home through the eyes of Khaled Hosseini, the author of The Kite Runner. The clip provides a bit more background on these returning Afghans, who led relatively safe lives as refugees in other countries and are returning to much worse conditions. It offers a more hopeful message of the work of the international community and citing its importance in a country that is not ready to receive returning refuges.

Pilgramge

I found this article just looking around online. http://baghdadbureau.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/a-millers-tale-a-widows-tale-a-beggars-tale/#more-549

It talks about the pilgramge made each year by Shiite muslims to Karbala in commemoration of Muhammeds grandsons death 1300 years ago. I found this interesting a number of different levels It says that millions of Muslims make this journey every year and this was wirtten in 2009. I have to think prior to the war in Iraq that the numbers were even larger. I think that this story is important because obviously pilgramges like this one and the one in Saudi Arabia are attended by Muslims from all over the world. This obviously has a dramatic effect on the economies of these countries due to the influx of people. It would be interesting to dig deeper into how important religious history and hisrtory in general plays a part of countries economy.

The Future of 4.7 Million+ Iraqi Refugees

In searching what different global authorities are doing about the Iraqi Refugee crisis I find mixed messages as always. Laurie's article inspired me to compare different reactions from non-governmental organizations. Her article was from Human Rights Watch which, in principle, is a similar organization to Amnesty International (AI). When browsing their site, I found a straight forward article about their approach to the problem. It was published in June 2008. AI is calling upon the international community for financial assistance, an end in deportations and the creation of/permission to seek legal employment. This seems to be a standard response to a refugee crisis, but as indicated in a more recent article published by Human Rights Watch in November 2008, Greece is systematically gathering Iraqi refugees and sending them to Turkey and denying almost all asylum claims. I have a hard time trusting that non-governmental non-profits have enough clout to make a change in a problem this vast.

So, on to the United State's role in the situation. Obama claimed in campagin, as indicated on his website, that he would allocate 2 billion dollars "to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find sanctuary." This was a claim he made in his campaign, but now, realizing the shrinking budget and growing problems, I believe that humanitarian efforts in Iraq may be the first sort of efforts to be cut from the budget allocations. Proof for this claim is found in this facinating Pro-Publica (journalism in the public interest) article that is a story on the tracking of the White House website's changes in official agendas.

Basically, the US government's Iraq agenda is changing, and I think that all evidence points to a lack of support for Iraqi refugees in the future. In my opinion, it is the United States' responsibility to support (at least in some ways, if not comprehensively) Iraqi refugees. It is time for the US government to take some responsibility for the mistakes that have been commited.

The question I am left with is how do we support the refugees? Perhaps creating re-settlement programs here in our country seeing as many refugees are not able to return because their communities are broken. I am not sure that pouring funds into supporting refugees in surrounding countries is such a good idea, but may me more plausable than creating yet another re-settlement plan. The next obvious step seems to make Iraq safe for civilians to live there, stop violence but assit the new government in maintaing non-violence and post-war reconsruction efforts. I am not sure that I have cleared anything up, but more presented a question of how to actually support the "official" 4.7 million that have been displaced by the war. (I say "official" because I assume there are millions more that have been displaced within Iraq and are not registered "refugees")

Iraqi Refugees in the United States

In the reading for this week, Gregory referred to the responsibilities that are conferred upon an occupying nation according to the Geneva Convention of 1949. The basic responsibilities include protecting the people and their property, and Gregory stresses the point that the U.S. has failed to do so since the initial incursion. I was interested in looking at asylum and immigration to the United States and whether or not it constitutes one of the obligations we have to the Iraqi people.

I found a few articles that report Iraqi refugees are being admitted in much higher numbers recently (2007,2008) than they were at the beginning of the war, with this LA Times article reporting that the target for 2008 was 17,000 refugees.

One article from the Chicago Tribune discusses the influx of Iraqi refugees to the Chicago area. I found it interesting that the article compared the trend in Iraqi immigration to the flow of Vietnamese refugees into Chicago 30-40 years ago. The article predicts that the Iraqi population in Chicago could increase to 30,000 or more. I felt like this statistic highlighted the fact that the current immigration policy is not a symbolic gesture or concession to Iraqis, but a significant step towards resettlement.

Gregory makes the reader aware (if they weren't already) that the U.S. has not typically heeded international advice or statue in this conflict, but I feel that the idea of responsibilities that accompany occupation are still relevant. Do you think that accepting refugees is one of the obligations of an occupying power? Is it another way of ensuring the protection of the Iraqi people, or is it simply an attempt to "make up" for the protection we failed to give in the first place?

Would You Return?

With our migration theme now focusing on Iraq, I have found several articles from throughout the last year or so discussing displaced Iraqis and the prospect of returning to their homes. This article from Reuters, written by Refugees International entitled "Would You Return?" discussed the question; Can they return home? And if not, what would it take for them to return to their cities, neighborhoods and houses? The answers to these questions reflect the still very high number of violent incidents in the country and that these displaced peoples don't necessarily want to return to the place where they saw members of their families murdered. It is difficult to understand people's emotions after their lives have been so drastically impacted, but it seems like the desire of displaced Iraqis to return to the lives they had prior to the U.S. invasion is not universal. Restoring the lives of these people is often not even a possibility, one Shia woman's home was demolished by a Sunni militia with the intent of making it clear that she and her family/old community are not welcome. I don't know where to begin in my attempt to understand such a terrible situation for so many people, does anyone have any thoughts about what the responsibility of the United States is in this dilemma? Has the military already messed up enough, or should they continue to help people return to their old lives?

"I felt like the country shifted away from me, and that I wasn’t shifting with it"

This post is a take on the movement of one American (emblematic of many) away from his country.  I read an article (1/29/09) from the Santa Barbara Independent, reporting after a film screening of an oil-company-employee-turned-documentary-filmmaker.  Mark Manning tells of how he became frustrated with our nation and its actions and set out to make a film (Road to Fallujah) about exactly what was happening-- an effort to try to humanize the "enemy."  I think this is a strongly felt sensation since of the US invasion and war on Iraq.

After the screening, the audience was connected via live video feed to Iraqi citizens.  This dialogue between the two people was an effort by Manning so that "[People could] get in touch with the suffering that war causes. For most Americans [in the audience on Tuesday], that was probably the first time they’ve actually met people who have been on the receiving end of our military action. It’s not a joyful kumbaya experience, but it’s real. I think that once you start that process of humanizing the other side you create a connection that is really hard to break.”

After reading Laura's piece about how the conclusion of this conflict will go, I thought about the US's role, and after reading this article, about how the American people will react.  How will our relations to Iraqis change?  What sort of ending to the conflict will we demand?  Will complacency prevail?  How might this affect our role as citizens in future military decision-making?  

Rot or Die

The article I found for this week, entitled Rot or Die: Iraqi refugees in Lebanon tells a tragic story of Iraqi immigrants that are considered illegal in Lebanon because the country does not adhere to international refugee laws and are thus imprisoned. This situation has layers of immigrant abuse, denial of international aid required for asylum seekers, unlawful imprisonment and general disrespect for these immigrants' rights as human beings. This precarious situation is summed up: "by first arresting and detaining Iraqi asylum seekers who do not have valid visas, and then giving those in detention a “choice” between returning to Iraq or indefinite detention, Lebanon in practice commits refoulement—and thereby violates international law."

The questions that arise in this situation, especially as the US is withdrawing from Iraq in the next few years is, who will take care of these people? Who is responsible for these immigrants and refugees? Is it neighboring countries, the international community, the US itself? These are questions that need to be addressed and quickly especially in light of these immigrants escaping one human rights abuse and falling victim to another.

Shia Arrests

Our topic was population dynamics and migration so I found some news claiming 35 Shia citizens were arrested. They were arrested after a protest in support of a man named Sheikh Namr Baqer An-Namr gave a sermon. The article claims that the Shia are only 10% of the 22 million and that the majority live in the oil-rich eastern part of the country. The man who is currently Minister of the Interior, Nayef, looks to be the next on the throne for Saudi which would probably mean a bigger crackdown on the Shias in the east as he already has a rough reputation in treating the Shia people of KSA. The Shia are marginalised by numbers but in terms of power, they hold access to the major oil fields and also the refineries and processing facilities. The Shia have reduced the movement in the commodity chain and are able to make a lot of profit taking the oil-making process from start to almost finished. Many non-Shia Saudis believe for some reason or another that the Shia in KSA are led and connected to Iran and that they follow an Iranian agenda.

The work force

In this artice http://migration.ucdavis.edu/MN/more.php?id=3172_0_5_0 it further discusses the situation of the workforce in Saudi Arabia. It says that 70 percent of the work force are foreign workers and I think this is important. In the article we read it said that a lot of the citizens in Saudi Arabia turn to militant action due to the inablitiy to find work. Perhaps if Saudi Arabia is serious about stopping "terrorist" organizations they would not allow as many migrant workers and let their own citizens work for them.

Saudi former detainees on the move

Starting a different strain on "the movement of people" than we have talked about, in this New York Times article from February 3rd, the author describes the influence of terrorist movement between countries, especially Saudi Arabia's own.  

SA's government released a list of wanted terrorists, which included a number of Saudi nationals that were recently released from Guantanamo Bay detention.  Upon release, they were sent through a Saudi "rehab" program which was thought to be highly successful, until the release of this list, which included many Saudis who had been treated.  After treatment, they apparently fled to re-join terrorist organizations in neighboring nations.

Although this is not our typical idea of 'movement' of people as in immigration, I thought that it was an interesting take on the theme.  It is especially interesting to consider the ramifications of this new development (of freed Guantanamo inmates re-joining terrorist activity) to the Obama administration, or even to the ability of people to move freely.

Could developments like this spawn a call for stricter border controls and limitations on the movement of people in places like SA, which has previously been a relatively low priority on the list of security risks?  How about for the rights of former Guantanamo prisoners? 

Saudization and the economic crisis

The topic of migrant and foreign workers in Saudi Arabia reminded me of an article I read a while back about the migrant situation in Dubai. Essentially, foreign workers who have fallen into debt are fleeing Dubai at a stupendous rate in order to avoid debtor's prison. Others who have lost their jobs are being forced to leave by the government.

Since our country this week is Saudi Arabia, I found an article/interview from the Brookings think tank that discusses what may happen to Saudi Arabia's migrant workers as the economic crisis unfurls, especially compared to Dubai. About halfway through the article, the interviewer asks about the fate of non-national workers as the industries that employ them begin to decline. The interviewee, Hassan Hakimian, suggests that layoffs in those sectors may help Saudi Arabia's program of "Saudization". The government wants to reduce dependence on foreign workers, and may use this economic "opportunity" to replace migrant workers with Saudi nationals. It was interesting to compare the situation in Saudi Arabia to the one in Dubai, where the government also seems to deter foreign workers from staying in the country. The NYT article focused more on European and non-national Arab workers, so it would be interesting to see more specifically how Southeast Asian migrants are being affected and where they will go if they lose their jobs.

Migrant Workers: Returnig Home Causes Problems

Human migration in Saudi Arabia has recently become an interesting situation given the recent worldwide economic crisis and its impact on the price of oil. The article in Jacque's post by the Guardian described migrant workers in Saudi Arabia as household laborers, but in my research I have discovered that a large portion of the migrant workers are also employed in construction and oil companies. Workers in these industries from Asia have recently been sent back to their home countries because of the current economic crisis having reduced oil prices so drastically and devastated the real estate industry. Saudi companies have responded with lay-offs that send the migrant workers home, where, in the case of Bangladesh they are not always welcome. In this article, the fact that migrant workers are, in large numbers, leaving Saudi Arabia and the UAE is described as causing big problems in their home countries. Check out the article and tell me what you think about the idea that migrant workers in Saudi Arabia returning home is causing big problems.

Migrant Workers in Saudia Arabia: Human Rights Violations

The most compelling news I found when searching for information about migration in or out of Saudia Arabia was news on the horrific human rights violations that have been committed in Saudia Arabia against many of the 8-9 million migrant workers from mostly from the Indian Subcontinent and South-East Asia.

The immigration visas are tied to the employers, which gives the employer control over the employees. The word "slavery" or "slave like conditions" was used in multiple articles I found. Many accounts of rape are reported on, but seem not to be reported in Saudi Arabia. The migrant workers who do speak out seem to be countered by the more powerful (in that situation) Saudi Employers. These sort of violations seem to be a trend seeing as immigrants in other countries have little agency. My experience in the United States has mostly been with Mexican and other Latin American immigrants. I worked for an immigration lawyer and learned about the fear of authority that is instilled in immigrants. Human rights violations seem inevitable in these situations as these people are easily taken advantage of, but the Saudi situation seems extreme.

Here is a story from the Guardian that gives a good backgroud on the situation.

Reverse Urban Migration in Saudi Arabia

This article Suburbanization boom as families flee costs is about an increase in suburbanization in Saudi Arabia from Arab News, an English Language daily newspaper, published just a few days ago. It’s very interesting to look at urban to suburban migration and the reasons behind it, they mirror many of the same reasons why Americans are drawn to the suburbs. Factors such as escaping high rents in cities, quieter life, schools and health centers etc. are the main pull effects to the suburbs, which match very closely to motives behind the boom in suburbanization in the US. It’s a short article but I think it’s telling somewhat of urban development in the Middle East and factors that draw people away from the city, and an important reverse in traditional rural to urban migration.

Blogging a Theme

Let's get this new blogging experiment rolling! I'd just like to remind everyone what we are doing (and get it in writing). I would like you to each post something related to your theme and the country we will be discussing in the upcoming week. So for this week, what can you find about movement and people in/to Saudi Arabia? Then the following week your post would be related to Iraq, etc. With this structure you will get a deeper understanding of your theme, and how it relates to different countries, while still staying focused on a particular place so we can have conversations across the different groups. Be creative in how you interpret your theme, if you can make the connection to us in your post--go for it!

So the assignment itself is at least 1 primary post and 1 comment. You may use your text from the blog within your moodle 'reflection paper' without penalty (not double dipping), but your reflection paper should also reflect on the reading assigned to the whole class.

If you have any questions, put them in the comments! :>

Route 181: ..." Documentary: International Response

The other evening I spent 4 and a half hours watching Route 181: Fragments Of A Journey In Palestine-Israel. It is a documentary film in which the directors followed the route of boarder drawn after the UN Resolution 181 in 1947, beginning a two-state society that we have still today. It was an incredible film in which the makers (one Israeli and on Palestinian) talked to hundreds of people along this boarder, Israeli and Palestinian. In their film, they showed patient, face-to-face interviews with the people they came across; asking them questions about what used to be here and what their feelings were about the state of the land. The film focused so much on the sense of place, always showing the surroundings, never leaving out a person's environment as they spoke to the camera. The makers also used many shots of the countryside and the ruins of Palestinian villages. Some of the most interesting interviews for me were those of the Arab Israelis who had such a starkly different approach to nationalism than the descendants of European Jews.

It was hard for me to find much media response because it was a 4.5 hour film and was not shown widely. (The makers clearly made many decisions that would lead to this lack of publicity.) It seems to me what they wanted was to patiently show/represent what they had found and were not to succumb to the "film media norms".

The film was banned and cancellations for political reasons. Here is an article a screening in France that was canceled by the French Ministry of Culture and Communication due to unease and anti-semitism in France. I see this as a parallel to the international sport scene brought up by Stephen. In sport, in film, in art, this political issue is raised in so many different contexts and responded to specifically each time.

An Israeli Playground, Armored Against Rockets

In a continued discussion about the roles of children in the recent conflict as well as the impacts of war on their development, I found a NYTimes story today entitled An Israeli Playground, Armored Against Rockets. This story focuses on Israeli children in Sderot but balances the story of an indoor recreation center with the impacts of this conflict on both Israeli and Gazan children. Interestingly included in the center are"two rooms set aside for counseling and a staff of mental health workers" and the author comments that "emotional trauma among the young is an area of great focus not only in Israel, but also in Gaza." The article is relativley unbaised when it focuses on children, it speaks to the great damage this is conflict causes to the children on both sides, but it ends admitting that Gaza may be worse off. Israeli children are being protected and considered, Israel can construct a recreation center to foster growth and support children affected by the conflict, and yet Gazan children are living in tents because their homes were destroyed.

When speaking to the actual conflict between Gaza and Israel, the article has a more biased tone, at least in my opinion: "Israel went to war in late December to put an end to the rockets, and though it pummeled Gaza for three weeks, killing some 1,300 people and destroying hundreds of buildings, the rockets have not stopped. On Tuesday, five fell around the Sderot area. Since the war ended on Jan. 18, some 160 mortar rounds and rockets, including nine long-range ones, have been launched from Gaza at Israel." It almost rationalizes the deaths of the 1300 people with the fact that Gaza continues to attack Sderot, even though the death toll in Israel is around 20. Obviously the article is focusing on Israel and the danger in the region, but in the section describing the similarities to the story of Purim and the current conflict, I felt like instilled some pity for Israelis over Gazans.

Disproportianate uses of force (sorry for the new post)

Hey, sorry I made a new post for this because I know we talked about keeping the remainder of our discussion to responses but I wanted to create a place for us to continue our in-class discussion of the disproportionate uses of force in this conflict. If you consider the crappy Soviet-era rockets against the 21st century Israeli military, the contrast is made very clear. To start, here is an article from the Huffington Post that discusses disproportionate use of force and self-defense, is concludes by saying that Israel's decision to bombard Gaza was ill-advised and that international criticism has mostly come from the UN and Sarkozy, while Obama has dodged the issue. If anyone finds any info regarding the quantifying/categorizing of force used by both sides, please post here,
Thanks!

Hamas and Fatah meet to talk about uniting

There was some discussion about what it would take for Palestinians and those who share the same views to gain some political leverage in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Recently the two political parties Hamas and Fatah who have so far been in heavy competition are having talks about Gaza's Future. As the article mentions, with any form of Hamas in the picture with government with a united two parties, official dialogue with the Israeli government would be pretty much impossible. Also talking with the EU and US could be problematic still if the new coalition is too Hamas-led. With possibly the same limited international governmental dialogue and a stronger Palestinian authority - is this a step back or a step forward for the region? What do you guys think?

sorry, this is part of the previous post

I accidentally hit the 'post' button before I meant to.  The following continues my last post:

"One will never know as most seem to be silent on the appointment of Lieberman as Israel’s new Foreign Minister. It is now an established fact that one does not criticise anything that goes on in Israel for fear of being labeled an anti Semite….. So I guess it’s up to us Israelis ourselves to do the condemning….. WHICH WE WILL!"

This cartoon and comment beneath it were also on this "Desert Peace" blog that I mentioned as the source to the Palestinian poster.  

This is related to my post before about the seeming unacceptability of criticizing Israel, at least by a politician.  It is interesting to see an Israeli acknowledge this fear of being labeled an Anti-Semite, and scream in its face (at least in this case).  I am not sure how common it is, but I certainly haven't seen much of it.  Does this come up often/with even more controversial issues?  Is a truly open and honest discussion taking place?  If not, is this why?  If this fear is a roadblock, what is being done to change this?

[note: Although my last couple of posts seem pro-Palestinian, I am not trying to propagandize.]

Palestinian poster

http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/

Posted on a self-proclaimed peace-maker's blog.  He lives in Jerusalem.

Politicians muckin it up / Apartheid

This post is connected to Jacque's post about the internet being a key to opening dialogue between Palestinians and Isrealis.  After Jacque emphasized the importance of the perspectives and opinions of the people actually involved in the conflict, I wondered what that would mean.  I imagined great progress in the peace process due to people's general good nature, abillity for compromise, empathy, and respect for one another.  But then I imagined how so many differing political agendas would get in the way of this.  Even if Israelis and Palestinians opened up a waterfall of dialogue and made real solution progress in the blogosphere, I fear that politicians would surely muck it up in the execution.

So, I searched "political motives in Israel Palestine solution."  It brought me to a basic blog titled "From Occupied Palestine," which had posted an article from a November article of Haaretz about the UN General Assembly President's comments likening Israel's policies towards Palestinians as a newer version of apartheid.  See the article here.  He went on to say that he felt it necessary to use such a heavily charged term, as it was the UN itself who passed a resolution against apartheid.  Then Israel's ambassador to the UN called him an "Israel-hater" because he hugged Iran's president, an outspoken critic/enemy of Israel.

So, does Israel enforce apartheid-esque policies (did you catch in the video about black market aid that 85% of Gazans are living below the poverty line?)?  Why is it so unique for an international official to criticize Israel (remember Brennan's post on Turkey's PM?)?  What about the politicality of the issue?  Perhaps blogging will be/is an immense aid to bringing together Israeli and Palestinian neighbors, but what are we to do with our politic(ician)s?

Hebrew anyone?

Here is a link to an article in Hebrew where I found an eye-catching cartoon of Obama painting the white house black. From just the cartoon and a blog I saw written about this, it seems to me as an incredibly racist cartoon. I think that race is a testy issue in the Israel as it clearly has an effect on the relations between the Ashkenazi Jews and the Mizrahi Jews and the Palestinians.

I don't feel right speculating about this cartoon before I know what the hebrew says that is written around it. Can someone help me out?

ימים של קלות דעת צורמת בסיקור"

The Internet as a key to peace?

I was talking with a friend of mine last night about Israel/Palestine and she claimed that Obama said, "Jerusalem for the Jews". Now, as I am still not sure if he really did say this, I "stumbled" upon an article on Al Jazeera's website "From Gaza to Obama" that had three Palestinian accounts of the recent blow up in Gaza and what they think Obama can do for them seeing as many said that the fighting happened when it did becasue Obama was just about to be in office. These personal accounts struck a chord as I was thinking about the lack of home/place that both peoples have experienced or are experiencing now. The recent violence up rooted the people of Gaza to yet another extreme, but again, this lack of home is affecting both sides, just in different ways.

What I found most intriguing about this article was not so much the body of the text but the responses that are coming for all across the world. It was here that I found a reference to Obama's quote that I referred to above:

miguel lupianez United States		21/01/2009
Gaza/Obama
He's a fool on this subject,and the people of Gaza and Palestinians should expect nothing as he has said that Jerusalem for the Jews only and believes isreal had the right to throw out Palestinian out of their home and into misery/ghettos,just because isreal says there was no government there.Perhaps he suffers from memories of his own people being dumped into ghettos after their so called liberation.In this aged of independent minds his vocalness using religion makes him like like a real idiot

He makes an extreme claim, but in the spirit of blogging, I think there are some interesting parallels to draw here. The reason why I say that I don't know if Obama really did say this is because I couldn't find a more credible source than this man's blog post (which is clearly not reliable). That said, it's very interesting the dynamic of the conversation that came before and after his posts. There are people from all over the world posting and in 33 of those posts only one is from an Isreali or Palestinian:

A simple Israeli guy who just wants to live in peace Israel		22/01/2009
The Israeli point of you
Not of all us are bad people. In fact, most of us are deeply upset by the suffering of Gazans. Take it from me - Israel would give the whole West Bank and Gaza back if it knew that there will be peace. The fear is that, as many Gazans have explicitly said, they don't want us here at all. They want us all in the sea, dead and will continue to attack. I didn't choose to be born here and also have nowhere to go. I pray that one day some sensible leaders will come and save both peoples!

I feel like personal accounts are the only way that people across the globe are going to begin to understand and/or begin to thinking about and demanding a peace process. Maybe the internet is a good way for both Isrealis and Palestinians to communicate with eachother in ways they they are not communicating today. As has been pointed out from many sources, there is little to no communication between the vast majoity of these neighbors. Could the internet be used as a key to get everyday people communicating and taking strides towards peace?

Syria

In a recent story featured in the Jerusalem post,http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1236269380382&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull, Syrias president Assad was quoted as saying peace talks between Syria and Israel cannot continue until the, "issue of one-and-a-half million Palestinians is solved." Inderect talks between Syria and ISrael were underway until Israel invaded Gaza. Many feel that a solution to the conflict between ISrael and Palestine could be solved through Syria negotiations. That Palestinians would see ISrael's negotions as a major step towards wanting peace and it would lead towards more disscusions. IT would also hopefully put a stop to Syrias support of Lebannons Hezbollah. What really stands in the way of this is Assads demands of right of return for Palestinian refugees. If the refugees get the right of return that would mean there would be a majority of Palestinians over Israelis. Basically ISrael would not be Israel anymore. I dont believe that Israel would evr allow a right of return but I think it must do something for the refugees. The refugees are often considered second rate citizens in the countries they fled to and are very impovered. I think Israel must provide them with sanctions or help them in some way in order to show the current Palestinians they are attempting to do something about the problem.

Turkish PM at Davos economic forum

About a month back at an economic development forum the Turkish Prime Minister Ergodan was speaking about the Israel/Palestine conflict and was given substantially less time to speak than the Israeli Prime Minister. He was speaking passionately on the issue and then was cut off by the forum and then stormed off stage. When he returned to Turkey he recieved a hero's welcome from thousands of Turks. Here are a couple stories with videos, I highly recommend you check it out. To me, this is an extremely interesting happening in the international sphere. Turkey a country that desperately wants to join the European economic and political alliances is proud that their leader vehemently showed his views on an international stage probably because they support the Palestinian cause with a lot of passion. It was an interesting moment that I feel was revealing of a lot of the predominantly Muslim nations' views on the conflict. 

I was in Dubai right after the recent Israeli destruction of Beirut and a lot of Lebanon and there were posters everywhere telling the population to donate money to Lebanon to rebuild and they raised millions of dollars on this campaign. My question is that if the Muslim world feels so strongly about the injustice they feel, why is this revealed through the media in such small and non-effective mediums? Why don't the Muslim nations stand up against the occupation more because it seems to me that its obvious that they strongly oppose it? Is it the fear of the defence that Israeli backed by the superpower United States? Why aren't there widespread protests by the Muslim community that surrounds the conflict on every side? 

Hamas/Fatah

With Hamas now refusing to have a joint party with the secular Palestinian group Fatah.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1236269376833&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Hope is fading for talks with Palestinian leadership. The U.S. will not speak with Hamas as it is considered a terrorist group but also the Palestinians people representitive governement. This made me consider if this is really a good policy or not. Yes a lot of acts commited by Hamas is terrible but I dont know is refusing to speak with them is the right thing. It could perhaps further isolate and radicalize the people.

Another approach

Israel is often blamed for using to much force in Gaza, but the Israelis retaliate accusing Hamas of bombing ISrael for the past 8 years. I feel that this is a tough issue because how is Israel not suppose to re-act? I feel that Israel could put a stop to the attacks if they invested into preventing the missles from entering PAlestine. There are major tunnels going from Egypt into Gaza were weapons are smuggled. I feel that Israel should be putting more pressure upoun Egypt who they have good realations with into making sure no more arms go in. This would hopeful cut back on missles fired into ISrael

Obama Should Consider Inviting Arab Nations to Help Solve Israeli-Palestinian Issues

In the context of United State’s involvement in the recent Gaza-Israeli conflict, I thought this interview between the Consulting Editor from Council on Foreign Relations and Mohammad Yaghi was an stimulating alternate perspective. As we have already examined, the US has been portrayed by multiple media sources as an integral player in future negotiations processes. Besides the worthwhile viewpoint on the issue on the whole by Yaghi, his advice on the inclusion of Arab Nations in the resolutions was a new solution for me. He explains that the the Palestinian Authority President lacks legitimacy in the face of Hamas and that negotiations will only prevail if they are opened to the Arab League.

His main point, it seems, is that Palestinians are angry and the country is divided--they are past the point of bilateral negotiations with Israeli. He believes that if peace is to be realized in this area, it must include other Arab countries because of the inherent connectivity of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. I viewed this opinion, though it still includes the US, as a counter-Western perspective. Yaghi argues that Arab nations and Israel must come to a peace agreement with Palestine in order to neutralize other long-standing issues. He believes that it is from within this geographic area that peace can be achieved, but that the peace process is no longer a bilateral issue and should not be approached as one.

Border Restrictions and Post-conflict Aid

This is partially a response to Stephen's post, but I wanted to post this video and sort of expand the discussion to the question of border restrictions as a way to control aid and exert political influence.

This is a video from Al-Jazeera English describing the black market in Gaza where humanitarian aid is sold for other necessities, such as schoolbooks. This report is from about a month ago, so the situation may be changing as we speak. I did find a more recent AP article, and as Stephen and Laura mentioned it appears that the longer-term issues facing recovery in Gaza will not be a question of humanitarian aid (the article reports $4-5 billion in pledged international aid) but one of restrictive borders that are preventing infrastructure-based aid from coming to Gaza.

This Reuters article reiterates the issue of border crossing impeding the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza. According to these two articles, both Israel and Egypt are putting heavy restrictions on what can pass through. Israel cites the need to screen reconstruction projects (and thus the materials entering the Gaza strip) on an individual basis so as to prevent these projects from benefitting Hamas. Egypt, on the other hand, is using border restrictions to pressure Hamas into making amends with Mahmoud Abbas.

I think border screening/security can become a tough issue during and after violent conflicts. Border restrictions can slow down the flow of humanitarian aid into high-need areas, and the individual screening process for reconstruction projects may bog down efforts to rebuild essential infrastructure like housing, medical facilities, schools, etc. Is Israel justified in taking these kinds of measures if it prevents aid from reaching Hamas? Is Egypt justified in using restrictions to pressure some sort of reconciliation between Hamas and the West Bank P.A.?

One State, Two State

I think it's important to discuss the fesability of a One state vs. Two state solution. Especially considering the literature that we just read.
I feel that a one state solution is not possible for a number of reasons. I feel the history of the conflict is to complex for one. Years of conlonial rule and decision made for the people not by the people was the start of a long history in a short amount of time, relatively speaking. This history has also left devastating scars upon the each side of the conflict. almost every Israeli Jew or Palesetinian has a story of suffering. I also feel that Israelis would not let this happen. The issue of safety and security is a hug deal for Israeli citizens and always comes up in peace negotiations. Finally as long as Hamas exists as the Palestinians representitive government and has in there charter that Israel cannot exist a one state is not possible. Polls over the years have also showed that both Palestinians and Israelis are in favor of a two state solution and that they want peace to exist. If anyone has further ideas or would like to elaborate tha'd be great

"The Gaza War as reality television" / Justice vs. Crime

In an article that I saw linked off of the Haaretz page KC pointed out, Bradley Burston writes about his personal conflicts regarding Israel's actions in and media portrayals of the war.  He comments:

The war had gone on only a few days when Israel Channel 10 television began interspersing coverage of Palestinian rockets exploding in the Israeli coastal city of Ashkelon and commercials for the Israeli version of the veteran reality show Survivor, in which one of the contestants is shown saying of the rival tribe "We're gonna kick their butts!" 

He then quickly shifts his discussion to a more personal and serious issue.  He shares that as a former army medic, he needs to adamantly question if the Israeli government was using phosphorus.  Many army officials and experts were asked about this and none gave a clear response that they were not using it.  Terrified for what his country could be doing to people with the horrific effects of phosphorus (extensive flesh damage due to intense, long-lasting burning), he brings into question the precarious position of the occupier.  Fighting an enemy which is interspersed into the regular population (which includes Israelis as well) creates an especially fuzzy line for a just war.  

Burston writes that restrictions have been in place to protect civilians in these scenarios, but that several were lifted for the attack on Gaza.  Thus the question of war crimes rears its ugly head.  He quotes a previous article in Haaretz where philospher Yirmiyahu Yovel says,

"The Gaza War dramatically demonstrated that the conjunction of justified combat and war crimes is not an individual instance of this war or that, rather it is becoming a permanent model for the struggle between Israelis and Palestinians. As long as this is a struggle between two populations, occupier and occupied, and as long as there is no peace between Israel and an independent Palestinian state existing beside it, the Israeli soul will be divided between justice and crime, holding onto each other with no way out, like two Siamese twins." 

He ends by suggesting that Israel needs to support the creation of a strong Palestine in order to end this conflict...

I found it very interesting to hear the conerned Israeli voice in actual fear of what his country is doing.  Having almost no previous exposure to alternative sources, especially op-ed type pieces, I am appreciative of this glimpse into the stress and internal conflict that this situation creates in a citizen.  Plus, he brings up an incredibly valid moral dilemma-- 'justified combat' versus war crimes.  Where is the line?  Who decides?

New Possibilities Regarding Palestinian National Consensus Government

A report by the Palestine Media Center states that Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayad announced Saturday that he has submitted his resignation to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. The resignation will take effect after the formation of a Palestinian unity government, but no later than the end of March. The PLO and Hamas have demonstrated highly different policies regarding the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, however unity between the two entities would be seen as a momentous step forward regarding the potential for peace in the region. Dialogue between the two Palestinian governments is expected to resume in Cairo on Tuesday and the article raises an interesting point with the following: "The Egyptian sponsored talks have raised high expectations that an agreement to end the inner Palestinian division and restoring the geographic and political reunification between the West Bank and Gaza Strip." According to the article, reaching an agreement between the factions will enable the start of the reconstruction efforts in Gaza and many Palestinians see unity as an essential matter following the right wing victory in the recent Israeli elections. The process of reunification would be difficult and probably bloody, and with the risk of failure and further division between Hamas and the PLO, is reunification a realistic endeavor? The resignation is seen as a step forward because it leaves room for more PLO officials with the credentials necessary for dialogue with Hamas, but should the PLO risk loosing valuable diplomats regarding Israel in order to gain diplomats to work with Hamas?

Pro-Palestinian Demonstrators Outside Davis Cup

ESPN.com reports that demonstrators clashed with police outside Baltic Stadium in Malmo, Sweden as the Swedes won the doubles match Saturday to take a 2-1 lead against Israel in the Davis Cup series.
Davis Cup officials allowed only 300 special guests inside the 4,000 seat hall citing security issues providing a depressing atmosphere for Sweden's victory. Israeli tennis player Andy Ram said it was a "stupid decision" to play the match behind closed doors and that "playing without a crowd is like playing a practice match." 7,000 pro-Palestinian demonstrators gathered in a square downtown to listen to speeches condemning Israel's offensive in Gaza and urging support for Palestinians. Organizers of the "stop the match" protest had said the demonstration would be peaceful, but extreme-left activists had vowed to disrupt the match. About 100 people were apprehended and at least six were arrested for rioting, there were no reports of injuries.
This article interests me because it demonstrates the reaches of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into wider interactions of the international community, such as sports. When an Israeli athlete travels abroad, is he or she obligated to show their feelings regarding recent events? Could an Israeli athlete's expression of dissatisfaction with recent escalations by their government's military serve any real purpose, or are they obligated to show unwavering support and be 'patriotic'? When one looks at the history of the conflict in light of international athletic competition, the immediate event that comes to mind is the tragic Munich Olympic Games in 1972. However more recently, Israeli tennis star Shahar Peer was denied a visa preventing her from competing in the in the Sony Ericsson World Tennis Association Tour in Dubai. Although these events are less significant in comparison to the overall violence and bloodshed, I feel that there is something to be said regarding the "exterior" or indirect components of the conflict, such as athletics. Why do countries find it necessary to allow the conflict into seemingly unrelated events?

Don’t Try This at Home/Beyond the Banks

These New York Times op-eds are a post in response to KC’s dual view of United States’ aid for Palestine in light of the recent conflict in Gaza. While I am much more of a Krugman follower than a Friedman one, Mr. Krugman is far too busy trying to clean up our own country’s economic woes to have time to focus on international conflicts.

The Don’t Try This at Home article lends another perspective to the Palestinian-Israeli solution; KC’s articles included the international “let’s sit down and figure out a two-state system” and the splintered “six swing states” viewpoint, but Friedman’s adds a much more American view. The article includes Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s initiatives in the Middle East, which is similar to the KC’s articles, though Friedman does not see our intervention as a simple “saving the day” mission. He is much more pessimistic about the entire situation and outlines, in his layman manner, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

What I found so interesting was not the way he outlined the historical and actual conflict, but of his overgeneralization of Israel/Palestine as one giant question mark. He portrays the conflict in a way that we, as Americans, cannot understand. By using phrases like “Are you still with me?” and comparing the conflict to “how an amoeba reproduces by constantly splitting itself in half” he is almost allowing ignorance to overtake thoughtful study. I felt, in a way, he was allowing the Western world to write this conflict off, that its intricacies and struggles cannot be comprehended.

It is his final paragraph where he describes his own feelings towards the situation is the most disappointing: “Who in the world would want to try to repair this? I’d rather herd cats, or become John Thain’s image adviser, or have a colonoscopy, or become chairman of the “bad bank” that President Obama might create to hold all the toxic mortgages.” He ends with a suggestion of starting over, and maybe that is the new Western perspective, but I was wholly unimpressed by his tone regarding the conflict.

The solution article, Beyond the Banks, printed 3 days later, was also interesting in connection to KC’s articles since it offered the same answer--the US must fix this conflict. Friedman’s article ends with the sentiment that US involvement is not just key, it is the whole solution: “So it is important to have George Mitchell, the U.S. special envoy to the Middle East, steadily pushing the diplomacy from above, but nothing will happen without vastly increasing U.S. efforts from below to help West Bankers build a credible governing capacity. Do that, and everything is possible. Don’t do it, and nothing is possible.”

Children!

I think addressing the children of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is especially important in looking at the intensity and friction of the occupation. Children have come up again and again in discussions like when the IDF shows up, the kids are first to throw rocks or in the Promises movie we experienced deep hatred for the opposing side in a couple of the interviewed kids. Also there were brutal attacks last semester in an Israeli school and the back and forth going eye for eye in the killing of children  If they are the future, their attitudes and paradigms will carry over - as of now children seem like the only beacon of light but they are targeted more in this conflict than any other I have heard of. I found this story about the Children of Gaza - an interesting part is this story is the fact that about half of the population (half of 1.5 milllion people) in Gaza and are carry the large brunt of the suffering. 

I also found an article about a month ago in Al-Jazeera about attacks on Children which is the story underneath the first one I posted. 

British Aid Convoy for Gaza Arrives in Rafah

VOA News reports that aid headed for Gaza has been stopped in Rafah, Egypt and that it is unknown as to whether or not the supplies will reach desperate Gazans. The British Parliamentarian George Galloway organized the initiative but the degree of its success remains in limbo.
I find it very interesting that international efforts to bring aid into Gaza continue to meet resistance despite the recent and highly disproportionate increases in violence between Hamas and Israel. Concerns that foreign aid could be used to the benefit of Hamas are used to justify the denial of aid to Gaza, but when the general population of the strip has been significantly impacted by the violence, I find it difficult to believe that the quality of life for Gazans has any presence on Israeli or Egyptian government agendas.

A Question of Perspective: Arab response to Gaza

I've found a few articles treating the topic of Arab political response to Gaza, and wanted to explore the regional politics that factor into how Arab leaders are reacting to the conflict. This article from Reuters reported that demonstrators across the Middle East protested the lackluster answer offered by Arab leaders. In addition to civilian protests, some Muslim nations (particularly Libya) have criticized Arab leaders and how they have handled the situation.

The third article I found from Haaretz gave more insight into regional politics and their influence in the conflict. The second half of the article discusses Syria, which historically has ties to Hamas. Syria and Israel have been meeting in the hopes of negotiating a peace deal between the two, and while the talks have been suspended as a result of the incursion, the article implies that Bashar Al-Assad still wishes to keep that diplomatic avenue open. These kinds of conflicting interests may be driving how Arab nations respond to violent conflicts between Israel and Palestine.

This Al-Jazeera article took a different viewpoint by characterizing Syria as highly critical of Israel at a recent Arab summit. Given these different accounts, I had a difficult time coming to a conclusion about the Arab reaction to the conflict. While some depict Syria as a hard-line critic of Israel's incursion, the Haaretz article sees a more nuanced political situation that has prevented a stronger response to Israel. What do you think? Are there any other sources that can give clues to Arab geopolitics and how they influence Arab responses to Gaza? What about the history of Arab involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Hamas using children as human shield

This post is in response to Alyson's post, but I couldn't add a video in my comment so I just am writing this as a separate post. I thought Alyson's post was an great perspective on the different uses of human shields in conflict. I found the BBC article the most interesting perhaps, since it acknowledged that both Israel and Gaza overtake civilian homes, thus reducing them to human targets. I had never considered that the use of a home transformed into a military target would fall into the same category as the type of human shields I have heard of/seen. I began searching for clips of human shields in the Middle East and I came across these two YouTube videos, which both show Hamas’ use of children as human shields. The first, is a 17 second clip, the second contains the exact same clip beginning around 2:15, but includes other human shield images and a larger message of Hamas’ abuse on children.




I think the second video falls in line with a sort of sensationalist media, it uses the abuse of children as another negative perspective on Hamas. It induces pity for these children, but the video is without background--for example the final image is of a young child crying with a fake rifle around his neck.

Pro-Israel Response and "Human Shields" in International Media

Laura's post on Arab representations of the Gaza conflict spurred me to research representations in political cartoons produced by pro-Israel sources. These are a few comics I found on Mideasttruth, a pro-Israel media site that has articles and editorials as well as comics. I don't know how blogger will scale the images, but if the text is too small to read you can just click on the image to link to a full-sized version.

The first image, by an Austrian cartoonist, as well the second, by an American, reiterate claims that Hamas uses Palestinian civilians as "human shields" during military operations. While the first cartoon suggests that the human shields are used just to physically protect Palestinian militants, I felt that the second cartoon links the use of human shields ("Body Armor") to a larger agenda that uses civilian casualties to strengthen the humanitarian case against Israel ("Public Relations").

I also found an article on BBC that discusses the use of human shields from a very different perspective. BBC reports that Amnesty International is accusing both Israeli and Palestinian forces of using Gazans as shields during the conflict. The article discusses in more depth the tactics both sides allegedly employ with regard to human shields.

Finally, the last comic in the post brings in yet another perspective on civilian casualties in armed conflict, and in a sense it responds to the "Public Relations" agenda implied in the second cartoon. I feel it criticizes the way that popular media can over-exaggerate or sensationalize civilian casualties, and as a result perhaps what some see as a "Palestinian PR agenda" can be attributed to the willingness of sensationalist media to feature civilian casualties in its coverage of the conflict.

So my initial research on pro-Israel cartoons led me to a larger discourse on human shields and how media represents this kind of violence. I think it's interesting that each of the sources I found came to very different conclusions about who is at fault and what the motivations are for using human shields.

Secretary Clinton in Haaretz/Middle East Online

I thought this letter to Clinton was interesting. You might too.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1068057.html

particularly when compared to

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=30715

Each of these sources has a definite perspective on the issue, what I find most interesting is the commonalities.

Arab Press Responds to Gaza Violence with Holocaust Analogies and Anti-Semitism

This article is about a set of political cartoons from various Arab newspapers around the Middle East and this blog post includes both the Jerusalem Post’s and the Anti-Defamation League’s reaction to these images.

The cartoons carry a Holocaust theme, with images of swastikas and Jewish stereotypes and are in response to Israel’s defensive military action against Gaza. The two accompanying articles are from the ADL “the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism” and the Jerusalem Post.

Both news sources discuss the vilification of Israel’s defensive reaction, but what I found most surprising from ADL’s reaction was the response that "We have always said that it is OK to criticize Israel. But these images clearly cross the line." ADL does not, however, respond to why this backlash occurred, which was explained a bit more through Jerusalem Posts’ article:
“Last week, Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilna'i sparked an uproar after warning the Palestinians in a radio interview that they faced a bigger ‘shoah’ if they increased rocket attacks from Gaza. Vilna'i's spokesman later clarified that the deputy defense minister had used the Hebrew word - which is primarily used in Israel to refer to the Holocaust - only to mean ‘disaster, ruin or destruction.’ However, this did not stop Palestinians from seizing upon the original statement, which was widely reported around the world, to compare Israel's attacks in the Gaza Strip with that of Nazi Germany.”
The ADL article criticizes the cartoons for not representing both sides of the story, that they ignore “Palestinian terrorists” and only demonize the Jewish response to Gaza’s attacks.

I found it interesting that some cartons were included that didn’t fit with the Holocaust theme that was represented throughout most of the images. It is undeniable that many Jewish stereotypes were portrayed in these images, but I found the last cartoon (on the website, the first on this blog) a representation of the difference of power between the forces, but unconnected to the Holocaust. Both sides were stereotypical caricatures and I feel that political cartoons are always biased.