the news in arabic

(Picture of Prime Minister of Kurdistan Nechirvan Barzani)

The question of peace with Israel hovers over every state in the Middle East (even those who have made peace). Egypt did it, Jordan did it — are they better off now? Syria refuses, Iran refuses — what price have they paid

Now, the question is: In Iraq’s near/distant future, will they do it?

As representatives of a semi-autonomous region of Iraq, Kurdistan and its leaders normally have opinions that differ from their Iraqi federal counterparts. Israel might be one of those issues. In an interview with al-Sharq al-Awsat, Prime Minister of Kurdistan Nechirvan Barzani said that Kurdistan will deal with Israel just as they deal with all other countries, but at the same time, he does not plan on normalizing relations with the country. He also denies that Israeli companies are operating in Kurdistan under pseudonyms.

Tashweesh = Static (like on a phone line)

I listened to about half of Nasrallah’s speech from today (it’s very long) and here are my rough notes. The media has not captured the gist of Nasrallah’s speech and have taken provocative statements out of context, i.e, what did Nasrallah really mean when he said that removing Hezbullah’s telephone lines was tantamount to a declaration of war? I have outlined some of his major points at the beginning:

• Hezbullah’s telephone lines are not part of an effort to usurp the Lebanese government. They have been in place since 2000 and the government has been aware of them. These telephone lines are not for general or international use, they are only intended for usage among Hezbullah’s leadership. Every army relies on communication and since Hezbullah does not have the man-power of technology of the United States, this is how the leadership maintains contact.
• Taking down these telephone lines is tantamount to an act of war because without this form of communication, Hezbullah’s leadership is vulnerable to assassinations and are left without protection.

Lebanon has entered a new era. The leaders in power must realize that the decisions made at the last sitting of Parliament have begun a new era, just as when Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri was assassinated – it is a Lebanon not like before.

Nasrallah then discusses (for a very long time) the nature of the telephone lines and how communications are essential to any armed force. He says that all armies, even ancient armies, have had different ways to communicate and this communication was a necessity. He then talks about the technology behind the lines and says that during times of conflict, enemy armies target telephone lines and create static, preventing communication.

He says that when telephone lines are exposed, it is easier for the enemy to target them. Also, he says that the Resistance does not have the large troops or technology that the United States or Israel has.

He goes on to dispel all notions about the nature of the telephone lines. He says they are used for communication among Hezbullah’s leadership and nothing more. This process of facilitating communications is absolutely essential for the Resistance – as seen in the July War and in other victories of the Resistance.

All of you know that these telephone lines have been in place before the year 2000 and after – these telephone lines are nothing new. Hezbullah has met with the government several times and explained that this network won’t extend to the mountains, Kasrwan, the north, or the Chouf mountains – we don’t need it to. This line goes from Dahiyya (southern Beirut) to the south of Lebanon. This network is specifically for the leadership of Hezbullah and not for general use, in fact, it doesn’t have the capacity for general use. It’s also not for international use. He goes into extensive detail on how Hezbullah and the government had worked out a deal to keep the telephone lines up, and how they even showed the lines to the government.

He then talks about how the government is not under the control of PM Fouad Siniora (al-mskeen, poor guy), but it’s under the control of Walid Junblatt – who takes orders from Condoleezza Rice.

After that, he mentions the French Socialist who was taking photos in Dahiyeh and was “kidnapped” by Hezbullah. He laughs at this and says that he was brought there by the Lebanese Socialist Party (of which Junblatt is the head). He said that security is taken very seriously, and even moreso with leaders and members of Hezbullah.

Now, the new decision is saying that Hezbullah telephone lines are not legal and that they are a threat to the state. He says that this decision is equal to declaring war and starting a war. This is a war launched by the government of Junblatt — on behalf of America and Israel — on the weapons of the Resistance. He says that this decision reveals the true nature of this political faction. Furthermore, this decision is the part of an effort to strip the Resistance’s leaders of protection, of infrastructure and lay them bare to assassinations.

The anniversaries of two equally impactful and violent events in the Arab world took place this week.

April 9, 1948: Over half a century ago, Jewish soldiers killed over 200 Palestinians in the village of Deir Yassin. The village was completely demolished and the land today is a part of the state of Israel. (The above cartoon is from al-Hayat and the text reads: Anniversary of the Deir Yassin Massacre, the massacre continues after 60 years.)

April 13, 1975: The 33rd anniversary of the breaking out of the Lebanese Civil War. On this day 33 years ago, the Christian Phalangist party (Kita’ib) killed 30 Palestinians on a bus in the Beirut neighborhood Ain al-Roummaneh. The group of Palestinians was returning home from a commemoration of the Deir Yassin Massacre. Hours earlier, gunmen had fired on a church, killing four Christians. (The above image is from al-Hayat and the text reads: Beirut, 1975.)

Al-Jazeera reports that one out of the 58 keys to the Kaaba was sold to an anonymous bidder at Sotheby’s for $18.1 million. All the other keys are currently in museums and this is the only known key to be in the hands of an individual.

The key is 37 cm long, made of iron, and dates back to the Abbasid era.

Eighteen-million is a lot of money, so shouldn’t we be able to narrow down a list of possible bidders? No?

So, that means you can come listen to a talk from Iraqi poet and activist Sinan Antoon on the University of Texas campus. The talk is titled “Debris and Diaspora: Iraqi Culture Now.” Here’s a quote from an interview he did with Democracy Now in 2007:

AMY GOODMAN: And your response to proposals like those of Senator Biden, the Democratic presidential candidate, to divide Iraq up, forget trying to keep it together, let there be a place of the Shia, a place of the Sunni, a Kurdistan?

SINAN ANTOON: I even wrote an article about that. First of all, it is not up to Senator Biden or any other senator to tell Iraqis how they should live their lives or divide their country. That’s number one.

Number two is the problem of this perspective of Sunni, Shiite and Kurd. It’s been repeated ad nauseum so that now it seems real. The fact is, these categories are not functioning categories, as well. And these are the product of the United States’ imperialist look upon Iraq. Sadly, since the invasion and because of the political system that Bremer put in place, he turned these ethno-religious identities into political identities, because they put the quota system in the governing council. But ten or fifteen years ago, people did not define themselves primarily as Sunni or Shiite and Kurds, you know. There were other kinds of identifications.

But, about LOST. The Washington Post did a “March Madness”-type bracket to determine the audience’s favorite character. Out of 64 characters, it came down to a battle between the Scottish character Desmond and the “Iraqi” character Sayid.

Of course, ABC did not choose an Arab to play the Arab character. They chose British-born (possible Indian roots) Naveen Andrews, as seen here in the English Patient:

And here, looking all sweaty and torturey on the beaches of LOST:

Sayid did not win the LOST bracket, but he did have some impressive victories over some other popular characters which at least shows that Sayid is not only a central character in LOST, but he is also well-liked. Besides the ultimate cop-out of ABC hiring an Indian actor to play an Iraqi, Sayid is an attractive character because he possesses some of the most admirable characteristics: He is loyal; He has useful skills; And he is courageous.

I fell into ABC’s trap, but there are still major issues I have with Sayid’s character. One, in his non-island life, he was a “torturer” for the Republican Guard. He tortured hundreds of people and then, on the island, he tortured some more people. He is the only character with a military background and there are repeated references to Sayid being a “torturer.” I don’t think this takes away from his affability, but it is a well-trodded stereotype.

I’m sure there is much more to be said about this, but I’ll just leave you with this photo of Sawyer from his pre-LOST days. He was the guy that stole Alicia Silverstone’s purse in the Cryin’ Aerosmith video! Thanks to this person for the find.

EVENT INFO

“Debris and Diaspora: Iraqi Culture Now” Thursday, April 10 at 7PM in the Pharmacy Building (PHR) 2.114
“الشيوعي العراقي الاخير” Friday, April 11 at 11AM in the Chicano Culture Room in the Texas Union.

At least that’s what this AP article would have us believe! The article ends with this charming description of Yemen:

Yemen, the poorest country in the Arab world, is Osama bin Laden’s ancestral homeland and has a persistent al-Qaida movement that has attacked and killed foreigners on several occasions.

It is true that either al-Qaida or a movement inspired by al-Qaida has attacked and killed foreigners in Yemen. But — the “poorest country in the Arab world” and “Osama bin Laden’s ancestral homeland” — that’s just lazy and incomplete journalism.

By what standard is Yemen the poorest country in the Arab world? Is it because every single hectare of land has not been penetrated by Western development agencies? Is it based on some World Bank calculation of GDP and other bullshit statistics? To label a country as the “poorest country in the Arab world” is placing all kinds of Western-guided standards on a population which has seemingly rejected many of these practices.

Furthermore, the discussion of “poverty” in the context of “terrorism” (the AP article was a brief on an explosion at a foreigner housing compound in Sanaa) is fraught with all sorts of errors and latent suggestions for “solutions” to this poverty. Specifically, the World Bank is already very active in Yemen — so, by connecting “poverty” with “terrorism” could be a possible impetus for the Bank’s further encroachment on Yemen’s local economic structures. Poverty is not at the root of terrorism.

As for the claim of Yemen being Bin Laden’s “ancestral homeland” — this might be true, but it’s probably also true for, like, half of the Arabs in the Middle East! Many of the Shi’a of Jabal Amal (southern Lebanon) also claim ancient roots in Yemen from companions of the Prophet Mohammad, but this fact is not mentioned in every article about southern Lebanon! The attempt to portray Yemen as this dark country, full of “poverty” and relatives of Bin Laden is irresponsible at best, and a propaganda tool for Western companies and development agencies at worst.

Al-Jazeera used this shot from al-Manar with their article.

Al-Nour, the Hezbullah radio station, used this screen shot with their article.

The Secretary General of Hezbullah Hassan Nasrallah gave a speech today in Beirut 40 days after the assassination of Hezbullah military commander Imad Mughniya. (The time period of 40 days is significant because it represents the 40 days of mourning in Shi’i Islam for Imam Husayn, who is seen as the most prominent martyr.)

You can listen to the full speech here with Real Player, but al-Jazeera also has a concise wrap-up. Nasrallah reiterated that he is determined to react to Israel’s assassination of Mughniya. He also said that the public has expressed their support for the Resistance (al-muqawama) through a series of several polls. Nasrallah said that 80% of Lebanese from different sects expressed support action that would lead to the downfall of the zionist regime (al-nidham al-sahyoniyya) and that 50% want to see Israel totally disappear (zawal).

There will be mixed translations of the word “zawal” which I have chosen to translate as “disappearance,” but it can also be translated as “extinction” or “cessation.”

Al-Hayat sums up their position on five years in Iraq with this lead:

Five years and the Occupation has turned Iraq into a federalist-sectarian-chaotic blend instead of a beacon of democracy as promised by the American administration before the war — a war that has taken a million Iraqi victims; roughly 4,000 American soldiers; a price of three billion dollars; complete destruction of infrastructure; and the fracturing of Iraqi society. But President Bush said yesterday that these were sacrifices and that the war was the right choice.

Vice President Dick Cheney visited Baghdad and al-Jazeera ran the creepy photo below with their story.

Security has improved. Security has improved. Security has improved.

The surge was successful. The surge was successful. The surge was successful.

Five years in Iraq and the network triumvirate — ABC, NBC, CBS — has produced special segments to commemorate the day.

ABC News brings us “Iraq 5 Years Later: Where Things Stand” which presents a pretty optimistic portrait of the current security situation in Iraq. The anchor announces that “security is a bright spot” in Iraq and attributes this success to the troop surge.

Interestingly, they have an interview with a female from Fallujah who says that the security situation is a “million times” better than a year ago. Of course the security situation is better in FALLUJAH from a year ago since that city saw some of the worst fighting in Iraq and now that the violence has lessened — even a little bit — the security situation has improved. Ask someone in Baghdad about the security situation and I do not believe the answer would be as optimistic.

NBC Nightly News produced the segment “Iraq: 5 Years Later” which is more like an interview with their super good-looking bureau chief who says his five years reporting from Iraq has been “quite a ride.” Insightful. The whole segment essentially rotates around the question: “So, what’s it like being in Iraq, like, were you scared when the U.S. shocked and awed Baghdad?”

The report is equally optimistic by reporting the “dramatic reduction in violence” in Iraq and attributes this to the surge. Oh, and guess what? If you don’t support the war on Iraq, the troops hate you.

CBS News (sans Katie Couric) has reached many of the same conclusions as NBC and ABC with their segment “Iraq: 5 Years Later,” namely that there has been a reduction in violence and this reduction in violence is due to the troop surge. I do not believe these conclusions are accurate, but the CBS report is of a vastly higher quality and seems more realistic than the two other broadcasts since it acknowledges that Iraqis are suffering from unemployment, lack of water and electricity, and they do not want to live under a foreign military occupation. It is also noteworthy that both the anchor and correspondent are females — in contrast with the other male-dominated broadcasts.

Muslim leaders from 57 countries convened in Dakar for the 11th annual Organization of the Islamic Conference this weekend and the above cartoon from al-Hayat depicts a very common sentiment in the Muslim world regarding the various “summits” and “conferences” that their leaders hold.

The writing on the copy machine reads: Summit of Islamic Countries in Dakar. The word for “summit” in Arabic, al-qima, has dual meanings like in English — it can either mean a conference or the apex of a mountain. In this sense, the “summit” is producing the same decisions year after year, and it just so happens that these decisions are really just Islamic states masturbating to images of themselves, hence the photo-copy of the actual “summit.” That’s just my interpretation.

Shi’i marja Mohammad Husayn Fadlallah shares similar sentiments, though he didn’t quite say it was political masturbation. He said that he regrets that the summit was merely an attempt to fill a political vacuum, but on an Islamic level. He said that the conference, which was launched from the “womb” of the threat of the Palestinian issue has come to accept the Israeli occupation as a settled issue.

The NY Times is now offering Arabic-language translations of some of its articles which I think is a good decision, but reading the Times’s articles in Arabic have made me realize the biases which are embedded in the Times’s reporting. (I am not saying Arabic-language news sources are un-biased, it is just that many times, I agree with the biases of the Arabic reporting.)

This Times article on how young Iraqis are becoming skeptical of religious leaders was made available in Arabic. Here are a few observations from my readings of the original English-language article and the Arabic translation:

1. The English language article refers to the “American liberation” of Iraq in 2003. The Arabic article translates this directly as “al-tahrir al-amriki.” No respectable Arabic-language news source would ever call the American invasion of Iraq a “liberation.” The only Arabic-language station that would use the term “liberation” would be al-Hurra, which is funded by the U.S. to pump out news on how much of a democracy Iraq is becoming.
2. When the English-language article mentions an individual who is “Sunni” or “Shiite” it is almost always prefaced with an adjective. For example, this man is a “moderate Shiite” or this person is a “religious Sunni.” The Arabic translation uses the same terminology, but it is awkward, but it seems out of place in the context of this article. It is not uncommon for Arabic-language news sources to label a group “mutatarif” or extremist, but it is normally relevant to the subject matter. If there is ever an article which deals with religious leaders or Iraqi citizens, then it would be rare to see the person’s sect prefaced with an adjective.

The English-language article uses the following descriptors:

a moderate Sunni cleric

a moderate Shiite sheik

a moderate Shiite cleric

a secular Shiite

militant Shiite cleric

a moderate cleric

a non-religious Shiite

From the Times’s article, we are not given any definition on what it means to be a “moderate” Sunni or Shiite. Do “moderate” Muslims support the occupation? Do “moderate” Muslims encourage females to wear hijab?

To call someone a moderate in this context is beyond ridiculous and far from informative and I can only assume that the author (or editor) has other motives when they attach these labels onto individuals. Specifically, these buzz-words are used so that readers can discriminate between good Muslims and bad Muslims. The Times’s definition of “moderate” seems to equate with “reasonable” or “logical,” but it is also the Times’s way of identifying who the U.S. has publicly identified as a non-threat to U.S. interests.

Furthermore, the whole premise of the article is shaky.

In two months of interviews with 40 young people in five Iraqi cities, a pattern of disenchantment emerged, in which young Iraqis, both poor and middle class, blamed clerics for the violence and the restrictions that have narrowed their lives.

I am sure that there are many young Iraqis who have rejected public religious figures, but 40 interviews can not be indicative of any huge trend. It seems like the reporter knew exactly the type of article she had in mind and then set out to get filler quotes.

(The promenade next to the Assad Library in Damascus at night, July 2007)

Al-Arabiya reports that the Syrian government has increased surveillance measures at internet cafes. The president of the Syrian Media Centre Mazen Darwish said that internet cafe owners must record the names and identification numbers of their customers as well as the time of entrance and departure. This information must then be turned over to the Syrian security apparatus.

Websites like YouTube and Facebook are banned in Syria, but it is widely known that all “banned” sites can be easily accessed at internet cafes. If you have internet at your home in Syria, then it is a different case and you cannot access any banned sites, including all blogs. It is known in Syria that there are certain internet cafes which work with the Syrian intelligence and turn over information readily, but there are also internet cafes (which tend to get shut down for extended periods of time and then re-open) which do not always willingly comply with government demands. Yet people who are directly criticizing the Syrian government (through a blog or website) normally play it safe and do much of their work in Lebanon.

(Central Damascus near the Souq Saroujah, July 2007.)

When foreigners arrive in Syria (at least Americans), their passport is marked with a number and this number is then recorded at any hotel, museum, or government office the traveler visits. I have a hunch that this number corresponds to your file (if it even exists) and it is a way for the Syrian government to keep tabs on your movements. The prevailing argument is that this foreigner-tracking is for safety measures.

I once had a Syrian taxi driver ask me, Do you like our President? I looked around uncomfortably and said, Well, I don’t know him personally, do you? He laughed and told me, I am in the mukhabarat (government intelligence office)! At this point, it was obvious that he was joking, but many people only speak with close friends and relatives about their actual opinions on the government.

From Brazilian artist Carlos Latuff. Thanks to Novine for the link!

(The above image is an index map of Iran from the U.S. Defense Mapping Agency. Click here for more.)

• A recent survey conducted by a Virginia-based company which made telephone calls to Iranian citizens in Iran reports that 90% of the population favors a direct election of the supreme leader, i.e. the position that Ayatullah Khamanei currently fills.
• The same survey reports that 75% of Iranians favor naturalization of relations with the U.S. and that 45% would recognize Israel if there was a comprehensive agreement with the United States. (Al-Zaman and Washington Post.)
• The journal Foreign Policy published results of a survey in which over 3,000 American generals (active duty and not) were questioned about America’s military capacity. 60% said the U.S. Army is weaker today than it was five years ago. 37% believe that Iran was the biggest beneficiary of the war on Iraq, while 19% said America. (Al-Zaman and Foreign Policy.)

At the end of March, Syria will host a regional Arab Summit in Damascus, but Saudi Arabia has threatened to boycott the summit if Syria does not wield its influence in Lebanon to help end the current presidential vacuum. Currently, Syrian and Saudi relations are at a low, as evidenced by the Syrian delivery of the summit invitation to Saudi Arabia via a lower-level minister, and not Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem who had delivered all the other invitations.

Al-Quds al-Arabi has an in-depth analysis of the politics behind the Arab Summit, but it largely boils down to this: American influence vs. Iranian influence. Saudi Arabia is on Team America and Syria is on Team Iran. In the recent Vanity Fair article on American meddling in Palestinian affairs, we saw how susceptible leaders in the Middle East are to American influence and how willing many Arab officials are to comply with American demands in order to secure their hold on power in their own countries.

It would be very simplistic to say that a country’s relationship with America or any other entity determines every aspect of its policy decisions, but it is safe to say that Arab countries (and Iran) are divided into two blocs: Pro-West and Pro-Resistance.

PRO-WEST vs. PRO-RESISTANCE

Pro-West: To be a part of the Pro-West bloc, the country must normally fulfill a few qualifications: 1) Make peace with Israel; 2) Be willing to allow the U.S. military to use your country as a base or at least let us pass through it on our way to attack one of your neighbors; and 3) Be a repressive, autocratic government which prevents any type of popular Islamic movements from coming into power.

EGYPT

Egypt is the second largest recipient of US aid in the Middle East after Israel. Most recently, the Bush administration has bypassed congressional restrictions and approved $100 million in military aid to Egypt. Egyptian President and Autocrat Hosni Mubarak has been in power since 1981, and this is not because of popular support. Many believe that if Egypt were to hold democratic elections today, the vastly popular Muslim Brotherhood would win. The Muslim Brotherhood won a fifth of seats in the 2005 parliamentary elections and since then, the Egyptian government has continued to arrest leaders of the Brotherhood.

SAUDI ARABIA

First, watch this video of Bush in Saudi. It’s a known fact that Saudi Arabia is America’s staunchest regional ally, so I won’t elaborate. Saudi Arabia’s positions are normally in-line with the United States, but during the 2006 July War on Lebanon, popular support for Hezbullah was so overwhelming that the Saudi King actually had to give Hezbullah props. So again, the U.S. has influence, but there are times when figures make subtle gestures to assure minor support for Palestine or popular Islamic causes. You could put Kuwait in the same category as Saudi Arabia, but Qatar is more complicated because of al-Jazeera.

JORDAN

King Abdullah II met with George W. Bush this past week at the White House. See top three qualifications and Jordan matches all of them.

PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY

Yep.

Pro-Resistance: These countries and/or groups work outside the framework of Western, primarily American, influence in the region. They have made very public stands to support Resistance movements in the Middle East, either materially or verbally, and most consider Israel to be an enemy.

IRAN

Duh.

SYRIA

Syria is certainly no democracy, but the country and its leadership have not sought to cultivate a relationship with the West and instead have allied themselves with Hezbullah and Iran. The Syrian government has been accused of providing weapons to Hezbullah and Palestinian groups, but the administration does not make secret its Pro-Resistance status. Many view President Bashar al-Assad’s support of Hezbullah and Iran as purely opportunistic and it is believed that if Israel were to offer Syria the Golan Heights, then they would willingly abandon the heated discourse.

HEZBULLAH

I talk too much about Hezbullah.

HAMAS

See this article and you will understand.

Pro-Eh?: Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen are kind of in a nebulous category. Iraq is headed by Shi’i Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki who has very close ties with Iran, but there are also 200,000 American troops in his country. Lebanon is divided between the two camps — and perhaps this is at the center of the recent presidential crisis. Yemen is kind of weird. Yemeni President Salih is as Pro-West as they come and foreign investment flourishes in the country, but the population is not about to wave any American flags.