The
town of Bayt Sahour spills
down the hills to the east
of Bethlehem, spreading out
along ridges and valleys
that mark the beginning of
the long descent to the Dead
Sea. Up the slopes the roads
carve out twisting rivers
of dirt and asphalt, wending
their way through clusters
of soft brown stone houses,
but across the ridges they
run straight and smooth.
At
the end of one of these roads
lies a hill called ‘Ush
Ghurab, known to Israelis
as Shdema, the name of the
military base that sat on
the summit until 2006. Today
there are only a few hollowed-out
buildings, thick concrete
blocks with gaping windows
and doorways set low behind
earthen walls, to remind
visitors of the previous
occupants. On the northern
slope, small pillboxes stare
out vacantly over Bayt Sahour
and Bethlehem. Full
Story>>
On
the eve of Rosh Hashanah,
the Jewish new year, the
sitting Israeli prime minister
spoke more plainly than ever
before in public about what
will be required of Israel
in a comprehensive peace
with the Palestinians and
Syria. In a September 29
interview with the newspaper Yediot
Aharonot, Ehud Olmert
said that, to achieve peace, “we
will withdraw from almost
all the territories, if not
all the territories” that
have been under Israeli occupation
since the 1967 war, including
most of the West Bank, East
Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
Particularly coming from
Olmert, who long opposed
the notion of swapping land
for peace, these words might
have inspired hope that deals
on the Palestinian or Syrian
fronts were at hand. Full
Story>>
Interventions:
A Middle East Report
Online Feature
What
happens when almost 3,000
men, women and transgender
people march down the main
street of a major Muslim
metropolis, chanting against
patriarchy, the military
and restrictive public morals,
waving the rainbow flag and
hoisting banners decrying
homophobia and demanding
an end to discrimination?
Or when a veiled transvestite
carries a placard calling
for freedom of education
for women wearing the headscarf
and, for transsexuals, the
right to work? Full
Story>>
After
18 months of political paralysis
punctuated by episodes of
civil strife, Lebanon finally
has a “national unity” cabinet
-- but the achievement has
come at a steep price. Prime
Minister Fouad Siniora and
new President Michel Suleiman
announced the slate for the
30-member cabinet on July
11, six weeks, and much agonizing
and public criticism, after
Lebanon’s major political
factions agreed on Suleiman’s
presidential candidacy and
principles of power sharing
at a summit in the Qatari
capital of Doha. As with
much else in Lebanon, however,
the words “national
unity” are sorely at
odds with reality. If anything,
the politicking behind the
composition of this cabinet
has deepened the polarization
of the country. The battle
lines are largely familiar:
the classic sectarian divides,
as well as economic and regional
disparities sharpened by
the lagging pace of reconstruction
following the 2006 war. And
the March 8 and March 14
forces, the two cross-sectarian
blocs named for the protests
organized by their respective
camps during the 2005 “Beirut
spring,” remain in
polar opposition even as
they sit together at the
cabinet table. Full
Story>>
Less
than three months after being
formed, Pakistan’s
coalition government is in
trouble. The leader of one
of its constituent parties,
Nawaz Sharif of the Pakistan
Muslim League (PML-N), is
awaiting a decision from
the country’s Supreme
Court about whether he can
run in parliamentary by-elections
that began on June 26. The
court is packed with judges
appointed by President Pervez
Musharraf, the ex-general
who overthrew Sharif, a two-time
prime minister, in a 1999
coup. Full
Story>>
When
Israel commenced its bombardment
of Lebanon on July 12, 2006,
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert
and his general staff declared
that the air raids were provoked
by Hizballah’s kidnapping
of two Israeli soldiers that
day. As the destruction piled
up over the ensuing 33 days,
then, Lebanese did not ask
themselves, “Why is
Israel bombing us?” Rather,
the question in many Lebanese
minds, those of ordinary
citizens and analysts alike,
was “Why did Hizballah
provoke this? Why now?” The
implicit answer -- that the
Shi‘i Islamist party
was acting in the interests
of its friends in Tehran
and Damascus rather than
those of its constituents
and compatriots in Lebanon
-- has reverberated through
the country’s political
discourse ever since, with
few bothering to recall the
rhetorical and historical
precedents for the abduction
operation. Full
Story>>
Interventions:
A Middle East Report
Online Feature
With
war on its eastern borders,
and renewed turmoil inside
them, Turkey is transfixed
by something else entirely:
the desire of university-age
women to wear the Muslim
headscarf on campus, a seemingly
innocent sartorial choice
that has been forbidden by
the courts, off and on, since
1980. At public meetings
and street demonstrations,
in art exhibits, TV ads,
and dance and music performances,
headscarf opponents argue
vociferously that removing
the ban will be the first
step backward to the musty
old days of the Ottoman Empire.
A quieter majority of 70
percent, according to a recent
poll, thinks that pious students
should be allowed to cover
their heads, perhaps because
approximately 64 percent
of Turkish women do so in
daily life. There is almost
no middle ground between
the two poles: Even completely
apolitical Turks have gravitated
one way or another. Full
Story>>
It
was business as usual for
Orascom, a gigantic Egyptian
conglomerate with major interests
in everything from Cairene
highway construction to Red
Sea luxury resorts to cell
phones in Iraq.
On
February 26 Orascom Construction
Industries, one of the Orascom
family of enterprises, proudly
announced that it had acquired
the International Company
for Manufacturing Boilers
and Steel Fabrication (IBSF)
for $13.6 million. The corporate
press release trumpeted the
doubling of Orascom’s
steel capacity, but mentioned
nothing about the fate of
the firm’s workers
or its recent history. Those
stories, as told by a group
of skilled IBSF workers --
a lathe operator, a machinery
fitter, a welder and a storeroom
supervisor, each with at
least 20 years’ experience
in the factory -- are the
underbelly of the advancing
neoliberal agenda in Egypt.
Fearing reprisals from the
firm, they asked that their
names not be used and spoke
in the name of their trade
union committee and its president,
Husayn Abu Dahab. Full
Story>>
In
early August 2007, Jalal
al-Din al-Saghir, a Shi‘i
preacher affiliated with
the Islamic Supreme Council
of Iraq, made headlines with
striking comments to a reporter
for the Christian Science
Monitor. The cleric revealed
in an interview with Sam
Dagher that “a massive
operation” was underway
to secure the establishment
of a Shi‘i super-province
in Iraq, to be named the “South
of Baghdad Region,”
and projected to encompass
all nine majority-Shi‘i
governorates south of the Iraqi
capital. Saghir claimed that
his party had already drafted
detailed plans for how such
a super-province would be governed
-- plans of such importance
to Iraq and the region that
there was “no room for
misadventures.” While
Saghir did not mention a timeline
for this remarkable undertaking,
other Supreme Council supporters
of the idea were less reticent: “The
Shiite federal region will
be announced in April 2008,” wrote
one enthusiastic proponent. Full
Story>>
Bob
Woodward’s four books chronicling the wars of President
George W. Bush are sensitive barometers of conventional wisdom in Washington.
Whereas the first volume, published in 2002 at the height of the self-righteous
nationalism gripping the capital after the September 11, 2001 attacks,
hailed Bush’s self-confidence in acting to protect the homeland,
the 2008 installment depicts the same man as cocksure and incurious.
This much is not news. More educational are Woodward’s hints
about the worldviews that will outlast this unpopular administration,
embedded in the organs of the national security state. Full
Story>>
The Egyptian
regime has once again succeeded in stifling freedom of speech, this
time not in Egypt, but in the US. Earlier this month, an Egyptian court
convicted a prominent Egyptian-American activist for his outspoken
criticism of the regime’s poor human
rights record in American public fora. The court accused Saad Eddin
Ibrahim, of "tarnishing Egypt's image" abroad. The conviction
referred primarily to writings he published in the foreign press; most
notably among them an August 2007 op-ed in the Washington Post in which
he criticized Egypt's human rights record and questioned the reasons
behind US aid to Egypt. Full
Story>>
Militant
Islam is under global scrutiny for clues to conditions that foster
its rise, and to strategies for reversing that growth. But the key
is not in Islamic doctrine, US foreign policy or formal ties to various
nations, as many analysts have asserted. It lies at the community
level, with clan and local leaders. Full
Story>>
Kurdish
parties have become kingmakers in Baghdad , and they know it. As
no federal government can work without them, they are pulling every
available political lever to expand the territory and resources they
control, trying to build the foundation of an independent Kurdish state.
But even more than territory, they need security. If everyone acts
quickly and wisely, that understanding could help resolve one of the
Iraq war’s thorniest issues. Full
Story>>
The
debate over the war in Iraq follows a yellowing script: The minute
someone suggests that the US move to withdraw its troops, war supporters
cry “Havoc!”
True to form, when no less a figure than Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki stated he wants a timeline for a US pullout, John McCain
summoned the specter of dire consequences. “I’ve always
said we’ll come home with honor and with victory and not through
a set timetable,” McCain said. In his major foreign policy speech
on July 15, Barack Obama affirmed his support for a withdrawal timetable,
adding that the US must “get out as carefully as we were careless
getting in.” Obama’s position is the correct one, but he,
like many other war critics, has done too little to counter the refrain
that withdrawal is simply
“cutting and running,” a recipe for disaster. Full
Story>>
At
the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC) earlier this month, presidential candidates
John McCain and Barack Obama competed over who would become the “candidate
for Israel.” The match came to a draw when both candidates
pledged undying and unconditional support for Israel. While their
support for “Israel right or wrong” was unquestionable,
at the end of all the commotion, the most pertinent question for
Americans and the world remained unasked and unanswered: Who is
the candidate for peace? Full
Story>>