Bahrain and Yemen get PR help from Qorvis and Bell Pottinger Consulting Firms

I wanted to share what some journalists have already picked up on: the influence two consulting firms in the US and UK are having on the media coverage of the unrest in Bahrain and Yemen.

The first, Qorvis Communications, is based in Washington, DC and has been hired by the Bahraini Government for $40,000/month to spruce up its international image. Evidently Bahrain is concerned that violent crackdowns on protestors makes it look bad (yes Bahraini monarchy, we already know you desperately want to stay in power.) With the contract overseen by Matt J. Lauer (nice slogan there Matt: “I do not want the world. I just want to influence it.”) Qorvis has begun its campaign to make the current Sunni monarchy look good, and the minority Shia protestors look like roving bands of irresponsible, dangerous outlaws. A press release by the Bahrain News Agency (official government agency) on September 24^th addressed the recent elections for 18 vacant parliamentary seats:

“Manama, Sept. 24. (BNA) – The by-elections held here yesterday proved that the pioneering democratic march, anchored by His Majesty King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa’s Reform Project, will continue un-wavered.
 Efforts made by some clerics and political functions to urge people not to take part in them, by trying to convince them that “boycotting them is a must” and hinting that participation is religiously forbidden, have proved meaningless as voters headed massively to the polling stations and exercised their constitutional rights.
 In addition to the above incitement, groups of saboteurs and outlaws tried to spread chaos and disturbance so as to create unfavorable conditions for the elections to take part and make citizens boycott them through violence and incitement.”

On the same day, a press release through the BNA was issued to the US-based PRNewswire, with similar sentiments:

“HRH the Prime Minister praised the embrace of freedom and democracy, which characterized the electoral process as well as citizen's focused efforts to cast their ballots, as part of the next step to help usher in a new chapter of democracy in Bahrain.
He said the parliamentary by-elections, which took place today, is an unprecedented historical event, showcasing democratic form in Bahrain.”

As pointed out by Brian Whitaker in his excellent blog Al-Bab, the usual boring BNA press releases centre on the comings and goings of the royalty, issuing statements and congratulations. These recent releases mark a shift toward much more propagandised public information.

The actual events of the elections were, of course, more complex than these press releases would make you believe. The 18 parliamentary seats were empty after members of the Shia al-Wefaq party resigned in protest of violent crackdowns on protestors in recent months. Al-Wefaq also called for a boycott of these September elections. This Financial Times article reports that battles between protestors and the security forces disrupted the elections, and opposition groups say that the security forces shut down some Shia areas in order to quell unrest during the voting. It is hard to know exactly what occurred, but the 17% voter turnout is certainly not the grand victory for democracy that the Bahrain Government (and Qorvis) is claiming.

In Yemen, another consulting firm (this time UK-based), Bell Pottinger, is working under dubious government auspices. As reported in the Guardian here, this was confirmed by the company chairman Lord Bell. Bell Pottinger, which previously worked for the Bahraini Government (and subcontracted Qorvis), is evidently now working for an “unnamed entity” in Yemen (later revealed through TBIJ research to be the National Awareness Authority). The NAA certainly has ties to President Saleh’s government – particularly since “President Saleh’s nephew, Colonel Tareq Mohammed Abdullah Saleh, who is also the commander of the Presidential Guard, is the Authority’s chairman and founder, and its board of trustees includes members of President Saleh’s current cabinet.” (see full article).

President Saleh recently returned to Yemen after recuperating from wounds in Saudi Arabia. Though it is unclear what will happen in Yemen in the coming months, it is disturbing that Bell Pottinger is actively working to assist another autocratic government to ‘look good.’ There have been many reports of harassment and arrests of journalists in Yemen for charges such as ‘insulting the Republican Guard’ – documented by organizations such as Reporters Without Borders – and Saleh’s government continues to portray protestors as violent, irresponsible groups and itself as the keeper of stability.

It seems that unlike in the United States, UK lobby groups do not have to register their contracts with foreign governments. In either case, it doesn’t keep firms in the U.S. from having dubious ties to authoritarian regimes.

I find it interesting as a reminder to those of us who focus on government policy – particularly those of the U.S. and Europe in regards to the Middle East/North Africa – we might overlook the relationships that private sector companies have with groups in the region. While I often think of oil companies and defense firms as the primary culprits, it seems that our information and the media are also under threat from our very own firms. Corporate social responsibility? Encourage democracy in the Arab world? Give credence to the idea of a real Arab Spring?

Why, when there’s $40,000 per month to be made. Why? I want to influence the world.

Bell Pottinger and Qorvis, shame on you.

Palestine at the UN, the Showdown Approaches

Lately everyone is talking about the Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations. Though I have not written on my blog for some time, I find myself urged (by someone wise J ) to write some thoughts down and try to unpack a few of the dynamics happening in this move by Mahmoud Abbas’s government. I hope it may be useful to a few people who may be trying to understand the flurry of opinions surrounding the UN bid. In the process I also want to share a few articles that I have found interesting.

First of all, it is important to state what goals the Palestinians’ likely have in mind as they pursue this bid – one of which is not the reality of full UN state membership (they know this is an impossibility with the U.S. on the Security Council). What they gain from all this drama is leverage. Clout, moxie, confidence, a stage. That is what they may achieve if they ‘win’ at the UN in the coming weeks. See Professor Juan Cole’s article: “Palestinians’ Seek UN Moxie.” It is the dramatic stage of the United Nations, the international public eye and the media. If the Palestinians succeed in getting a majority of 9 votes on the 15 member Security Council; there is a real possibility that the United States will be forced to single-handedly veto their chance for full membership. It is telling that this vote is splitting British politics, and France has actively considered supporting it, effectively splitting the previously solid Western support for Israel. In the General Assembly votes, it seems the European Union is scrambling to present a united opinion on the matter. Public opinion may have some governments in Europe worried - a recent BBC poll claims over 50% of citizens in France, the UK and Germany support the Palestinian bid for statehood. There are also strong voices pushing Europe to vote "yes" and keep the two-state solution "alive" (see this excellent opinion piece "10 Reasons for a European 'Yes'" by Javier Solana and Martti Ahtisaari).

At the moment, talk is (see David Bosco’s update at Foreign Policy) that the Palestinians have already secured 7 votes (China, Russia, Brazil, India, South Africa, Lebanon), with 2-5 more possible (Portugal, Gabon, Nigeria, France, UK). A couple of these are probable supporters (Nigeria, Portugal) and France’s move will likely influence Gabon’s. The United States is the only member on the Security Council that is a definite no. If the Palestinians get 9 yes votes, they force the U.S. to stand alone as a sole destroyer of Palestinian statehood. This makes the United States look very, very bad, and certainly damages its claim as a neutral negotiator. It also puts the U.S. in an awkward position vis a vis its wish to befriend newfound Arab democracies in the Middle East; and its claim as a supporter of self-determination in a newfound atmosphere of optimism in the region.

Beyond the Security Council, the Palestinians do have the votes to gain non-member status at the UN through the General Assembly. This, done after the U.S. prevents Palestine’s full membership through the Security Council, will demonstrate the extent of worldwide support for the Palestinian cause. Gaining non-membership status will also give ‘Palestine’ access to the International Court of Justice, the World Health Organization, and many other international bodies from which it has previously been barred. Access to the ICJ and the ICC means Palestine can bring war crimes and other breaches of international law by Israel to the court ; bringing a world stage and loads of legal hassle for the Israelis to deal with. I’ve even heard it suggested (in this article in Egypt's Daily News) that Palestine could invoke the Uniting for Peace resolution; used previously in 1981 by the GeneralAssembly 8th Emergency Session to invoke sanctions against South Africa (over the heads of the Security Council who vetoed the measure). The sheer possibility of this threat is a huge leap forward in Palestinian leverage over the peace process.

I, for one, think this move is perfectly rational of the Palestinians. Why NOT go to the UN? Negotiations have failed once again, most recently because of Netanyahu’s refusal to freeze settlement construction as a pretext for talks. Obama himself has little/no power over Israeli internal politics. Avigdor Leiberman, Netanyahu’s foreign minister, has pushed Israel’s government away from negotiations and (I believe) away from rational foreign policy. Though some deride Abbas’s UN bid as a legacy-seeking ploy and an empty gesture, I think it is far more than that. It is a gesture to be sure, but not at all empty.

This bid is Palestine showing its hand. It is a new world where people around the globe are connected to online news, friendships and opinions. A new atmosphere has rocked the Middle East out of stagnation, and regional economic powers like China, Brazil, India and South Africa are increasingly willing to tout their strength in the face of Western powers. Palestine knows this, and their strength in this ‘new world’ is what they are attempting to prove right now. 

I also wonder if secretly, some in the Obama Administration may be welcoming this move from the Palestinians. Though sticking to the public show of support for Israel and promising to veto the SC bid, this takes the pressure off of the U.S. to force Israel back to the negotiating table. It may be that Abbas will provide enough pressure on his own to get Israel to start up again. On the other hand, I am also sure there are some in the Obama Administration who believe this Palestinian move will scuttle negotiations for some time; this may also be true. It depends on the Israelis and what they offer as a starting line for negotiations in secret. It also depends on how strong the Palestinian hand at the UN turns out to be, and how they choose to use their newfound leverage in the international arena. It makes the United States look weak, but then again, that already happened when Obama's efforts to force Netanyahu to freeze settlements utterly failed. Perhaps the U.S. should contemplate a new era of its own incompetence at managing this process. It goes in hand with the Arab Spring, which largely (barring Libya) moved of its own accord without American interference. It might be an entirely new era, and one where the U.S. is much less important and less able to dictate policies to Middle Eastern leaders. So I say, in the spirit of the Arab Spring, let's see what momentum the Palestinians can muster on their own.

Obstacles to Peace? Arab citizens of Israel

An article I read recently made me again mourn the loss of complex thinking when it comes to Israel-Palestine. The article, which I read in Ynet Israeli news a couple weeks ago, is titled An Obstacle to Peace: Israeli Arabs, Palestinians have opposite interests in respect to a peace deal.  The article claims that the Arab population of Israel, who are Palestinians, do not support a peace deal and are in fact working against it.  Citing responses by some Arab MKs in the Israeli Knesset to remarks and moves made by the PA, the article claims that the Arab minority in Israel is “more radical” than Palestinian leadership.  The reasons given for this are that Arab Israelis ‘have something to prove’ to the rest of the Arab world since they live inside Israel, and that they are afraid that the thousands of Jewish settlers now located in the West Bank would be re-settled into Arab areas inside the Green Line in the event of a peace deal.

First of all, the couple of examples cited by the article of one particular Arab MK in Israel do not represent the whole of the Arab minority, which make up a huge number (20%) of the Israeli population.  Second, the ways that Arab Palestinians in Israel feel about any kind of peace deal are very complicated, not simplistic as the article suggests.

Arabs in Israel are worried about a peace agreement, just as Jewish Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are.  However, Arab Israelis are caught in the middle and are one of the groups with almost no voice during the negotiations.  They speak Hebrew as a second language, go to Israeli universities, and have Jewish friends and colleagues at work. They watch Israeli news and know the country inside and out. They know the realities of discrimination and racism in the Israeli public.  They cannot get the jobs they want or buy the land they want because they are Arab. They are called “security risks”.  And they see every advertisement about children in Gaza and hear every Israeli comment on the news justifying violence against innocent Palestinians every day.

Arabs in Israel worry about a peace agreement for so many reasons, but it doesn’t mean that they don’t support justice.  If a peace agreement happens, their reality would change. If there was a Palestinian state, their existence in Israel suddenly becomes one of choice. Choose to stay or choose to start a new life under a Palestinian government, leaving everything behind.  If you choose to stay, deal with thousands of settlers being moved back inside the Green Line, likely at your expense.  Find your children continuously fighting for equal rights and representation in a state that is increasingly controlled by an ultra-religious minority of Jews.  Or take your chances in a new and less stable state of Palestine, with years of re-building ahead.  Be prepared to suffer at the whims of new regulations on visas, travel, citizenship, etc. due to the new 2 state solution. It’s just such an unknown for them.

So for now, Arab Israelis want justice, not only for their Palestinian relatives and friends in the Occupied Territories, but also for themselves as rightful citizens of Israel. 

Instead of calling them obstacles to peace, Arab Israelis are key to the process. If anyone knows the meaning of coexistence, it’s them. They know what it is to be caught in the middle of this conflict. When I lived in Kufr Qara, an Arab village in Israel, I discovered nuances of opinion and more complex views on the conflict than I had ever heard before. I believe that nuance and complexity could save us, if people on all sides were willing to think less in black and white. Particularly in this conflict, a little bit more creativity is needed. I wish some of these nuanced voices of Arabs in Israel could be heard more, and their stories heard.   And I’ll argue with anyone who calls them obstacles to peace.

Bans and Oaths

The Israeli legislature, the Knesset, is scaring me lately. Last year, when I was living in Kufr Qara and first heard of the proposal for a “loyalty oath” in Israel, I largely dismissed it as the remarks of one extremely nationalist politician.  It was no great surprise coming from Avigdor Lieberman, the newly elected Foreign Minister and head of the Yisrael Beiteinu party.  The oath he proposed would require all citizens to swear loyalty to Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.   I never honestly thought that I would be seeing Prime Minister Netanyahu pushing it through his Cabinet this year and handing it to the Knesset. With the number of Israeli academics and journalist who have written impassioned, reasonable, and historically-sound arguments against such an oath, I also thought that reason could not fail to reach Netanyahu’s government.  Evidently I was wrong.

There is still hope that the loyalty oath will fail to gain the votes need to pass in the Knesset.  Reported today by Ha’aretz, there are so many disagreements about wording the bill (should only non-Jews have to swear the oath? Should all new immigrants? Does it apply mostly to Arabs?) that many Knesset members even of parties like Yisrael Beiteinu are reluctant to approve it.  Read the article here.  Why is there such a debate over it? Because “loyalty oaths” are scary. Because they sound authoritarian. And because a lot of people are threatened by it, most of all the 20% of Israel’s population who are Arab Palestinians.

I believe that no state can declare its identity to be one religion and hope to keep the true principles of democracy and equality intact.  I also think that Israel can still be the homeland for the Jewish people without declaring itself a Jewish State.  It’s a subtle but crucial distinction in my mind.

Not that these distinctions are escaping Israeli politicians. They know well what these phrases mean to non-Jews in Israel. Efforts to keep control the narrative of ‘what Israel is’ are ongoing. These are also getting scarier. Today I also read that another Knesset MK, Gideon Ezra from Kadima, sponsored a bill that would ban Arabs from working as tour guides in Jerusalem (of which there are at least 300 currently).  Yes, that’s right. Ban Arabs from working as tour guides.  I cannot believe these things are even being publicly discussed! Mr. Ezra’s reason? Arab tour guides do not present the “national Israel viewpoint,” and “do not represent Israel’s interests in the appropriate manner.” Read the article here.  Do I need to even explain what I think about this? Believing that a state has, or should have, one ‘national viewpoint’ is to deny the values of democracy, pluralism, and individual freedoms.  I hope that the Knesset will come out against state-sponsored tour guides based on ethnicity.  I truly hope so, or I will know that Israel has completely lost its way.

Loyalty oaths and bans on certain ethnic groups scare me, because they remind me of so many cases in history where countries have gone down similar paths, only to be haunted by their own creations.  Yes, the Israel-Palestine conflict might make some think that this is a special case, where extraordinary measures are needed. That has also been said before.  Extraordinary measures are needed, but not in this direction. Instead of increasing the distrust, hatred and fear between ‘the loyal ones’ and the ‘disloyal ones’ – the politicians of Israel should be working to resolving this conflict. If only that were apparent. Instead of efforts to make peace, what’s grabbing the headlines are loyalty oaths and further discrimination against Arabs.

goodbye for now

Well, this is my last post for the summer. I've been in Cairo for the past couple weeks, enjoying the Ramadan season with friends. Even while on 'vacation' in Egypt, I've found many interesting conversations happening, particularly about the Ground Zero mosque controversy happening in the U.S.  Many of my Muslim friends have heard about this debate happening, and it has fed more into cynicism that Americans have something against Islam and Muslims.  I've received some email forwards claiming Muslims around the world are seeking world domination, and that there is a slow creeping of sharia law in the West. My friends here know that the true spirit of Islam, and the teachings and life of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) are totally against this principle.

However, others of my friends also admit that Islam (as any religion) can be easily manipulated to support political agendas.  In this, Islam joins Judaism and Christianity as having stains on its record.  However, I hope that Muslims in America do not feel isolated from the rest of our society, because we need them.  The danger I see in this mosque debate is the anti-Muslim tone that it has taken. This could have negative consequences for all of us in the future.

Anyway, I am expecting more conversations about the mosque in NYC when I get back, and I for one am glad that at least some people out there (ex. Mayor Bloomberg and Jon Stewart) are rationally responding to it. I'm happy to be getting back to New York, the park, and even studying. :)  I expect to be taking a break from blogging for awhile, so for those of you who read a few posts over the past months, thank you!

 It was an unforgettable summer. As always, I look forward to the next time I'm back in the Middle East.

Honesty: the Ground Zero mosque, Israel/Palestine, Muslims and the West

Sitting in Cairo now, I’ve been thinking more about the conversations that I had with Israelis and Palestinians over the summer. I’ve also been following the debate in the United States about the mosque/Islamic community center that gained approval for building near Ground Zero.

What I’ve been thinking is that there’s a need for some real honesty on all sides. Take Israel and Palestine. I watched a documentary recently that portrayed pro-Palestinian protesters in north America as building raging anti-Israel sentiment among young people.  The commentators criticized these protestors for crossing the line between criticizing Israel and being anti-Semitic, and said signs describing Israel as a racist or apartheid state are beyond this ‘line.’  I definitely agree that some protestors cross the lines of anti-Semitism. Some pro-Palestinian protestors are simply crazy, cruel and completely insensitive when they use Holocaust terminology or demonize the entire Jewish religion. I also agree that calling for Israel not to exist is wrong.

However, it is dishonest of Israelis to claim that this criticism is totally unfounded.  There are plenty of reasons why many people view the situation in Israel/Palestine as apartheid. There are also plenty of reasons why people view Israel as a racist state.  In many cases, it is.  And many Israeli Jews that I have talked to have spouted unbelievably racist sentiments towards Arabs. So, I’d like to see some honesty about this.  Likewise, pro-Palestinian activists should condemn the use of insensitive and evil language against the Jewish people. Pro-Palestinian activists should also condemn unequivocally the use of suicide bombings, etc. against Israeli civilians.  And importantly, which the documentary did acknowledge, being pro-Palestinian does not equal being anti-Israel.

Likewise, the debate over the so-called “Ground Zero mosque.”  Which is not even really a mosque, nor is it exactly at the Ground Zero site. But that’s beside the point.

The point is that those who are criticizing the Islamic center should admit that they are failing to see Islam as a multi-faceted, dynamic and complex religion – rather than a global monolith working to take over Western civilization.  The kinds of Muslims wanting to build this Islamic center could not be more different than the Muslims who blew up the World Trade Center. The same as the Jews who beat up Palestinians in Hebron could not be more different than Rahm Emmanuel – or that Jerry Falwell could not be more different than my Christian professors at university.  The tea party movement, Gingrich and others should also realize that they are losing ‘America’ when they start to choose only those who they like to have the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution, rather than extending them to all.  Islam is a religion just like any other, and should demand the same intellectual honesty and respect as any other.

But on the other hand, some Muslim leaders in America need to be much more honest as well. When asked about Hamas, they should criticize their bombings of Israeli cities.  They should also be able to offer honest and candid answers about problems in Islam with women’s rights and just punishment. When the Taliban grab the headlines again and again with their public stoning executions and the like in the name of Islamic sharia law, there is a need for Muslims to clarify strongly the way in which this is not acceptable.  Perhaps Muslims should focus on the issue of Islam and the state ('church and state') and generate some robust, honest debate on groups like Hamas, on Iran, and on the Taliban. Explain to us why these groups/phenomenon have arisen, and let more Americans understand. I think this is the major issue which makes so many Americans nervous about Islam. And though I am not in the least afraid of Muslims eventually making America an Islamic state (and think it's ridiculous) I think many Americans need to hear some honest answers from Muslims.

Those of us who study Islam, this conflict, and these issues have an advantage. It’s part of my life to understand these things and to parse out the truths from the falsehoods. But I’m beginning to have much more sympathy for people who don’t have this opportunity. It is hard to draw accurate conclusions about these complex issues when so much of what you hear on both sides is colored by dishonesty.

Meeting someone from Hevron

Today, on the bus in central Israel, a girl sat next to me. She looked like she was about to go camping, wearing Teva sandals, sporty pants and a t-shirt. When we started talking in halting English, I realized she was young, maybe 19 or 20 years old. I asked her where she was from, and she told me : Hevron.

Hevron, the Hebrew word for al-Khalil (Hebron in English), the city of 300,000 Palestinians in the southern West Bank. Al-Khalil also houses around 500 Jewish settlers, who live in the Old City with Israeli army protection.  I had just randomly run into 1 of these 500 Jews, on the bus.

For a moment I actually stared at her face in slight shock. But then, I thought to myself: what to say?!? I’ve been to al-Khalil so many times, but literally never spoken to one of the Jews there. When I have seen them, they have been throwing water or garbage at Palestinians, spitting on my friends, or looking at me with disdain.  Perhaps this girl has done one of those things, perhaps I had even seen her once from a distance.

First, she told me that both of her parents are American, her father from Chicago and her mother from Baltimore (I was surprised her English wasn’t better!) This did not surprise me, as many of the most extremist Jewish settlers in the West Bank are actually American Jews.  I asked her if she had ever spoken to a Palestinian in Hebron. She said no. She then asked me what I was doing in Israel. I told her I had been working in Ramallah with a program for children (limited English prevented me from explaining more). After learning I had been staying in Ramallah, she asked me: “Do you hate Israel?”

Calmly, I said no, of course not. Look where I am? Riding an Israeli bus on my way to my Israeli relatives’ house on a kibbutz. But in my head I was also shocked.

I again brought up the topic of the Palestinians and Jews in Hebron, asking her why she never talks to any Palestinians there. She said that all the Arabs hate them, that they would never allow any Jews to live in Hebron. She said, “we will never have peace with any Arabs.”  And again, as she said it, it was as though ‘Arab’ was a dirty word. I told her, the reason the Palestinians in Hebron do not like the Jews is because they have been so hurt from them, and they are afraid. She said, “I think if I talked to any Arab they will try to (and she made the motion of putting a gun to her head).”  She asked me, “have you been to any Arab’s house before?” I said yes, many times. She looked so surprised, wondering if it was safe for me. I told her, they are wonderful people and I love to be with them.  I told her, please if you see a Palestinian girl one day in the street, try to say hello to her. Try to be kind and see what happens.

(sigh) I couldn’t believe this conversation even happened. It makes me want to talk with more settlers. If only there was a way to transform al-Khalil/Hevron into a place where Jews could live peacefully among the Palestinians.  If only someone could talk sense to extremists, if the settlers would stop teaching their children to hate all Arabs. Then I wouldn’t be meeting a young girl who is anything but innocent already.

Letting Muslims into our Hearts: the Mosque near Ground Zero

As many of us have been seeing in the news recently, there is quite the controversy about the new mosque that received permission for construction near the Ground Zero site in NYC.  Called Cordoba House, the mosque is actually slated to be an Islamic community center: hosting artistic and cultural events, community classes, children’s activities, as well as the mosque and religious center.

Now I’m not writing this to debate the origins of this mosque idea, nor its funding. (Though I did check the website, as well as Park51 website, and they claim they are receiving absolutely no foreign funding).  I’m writing about the concept: letting Muslims into our hearts, acknowledging their desire to be a part of mainstream America, allowing them and us to repair the damage of 9/11.

I recently watched the film My Name is Khan.  It follows the story of an Indian Muslim man whose life in America is brutally interrupted when his adopted son dies after being beaten up at school for being Muslim.  There is a scene where Khan enters a mosque, and hears the imam giving a lecture on Muslims needing to fight. The imam tells the story of Abraham when he is asked to sacrifice his son Ishmael (or Isaac in the Christian version), but in the end God provides a ram for the sacrifice, sparing Abraham’s son.  The imam interprets this as God calling Muslims to sacrifice for the cause of Islam, that in some cases God calls us even to spill our blood.

Khan yells: Satan! at the imam. He rebukes him, saying the point of this story is that God will always provide for us, that we have to trust and be compassionate even until the end. God will take care of us. No one else can, even when we are facing the prospect of terrible pain.

I think that Khan’s words in the film reflect the views of so many Muslims after 9/11, particularly in America. 9/11 was painful for America, for the victims of the attack.  But 9/11 was also terribly, excruciatingly painful for so many Muslims, who saw their entire religion hijacked in a few short hours. Rather than fighting back against much of the discrimination and violence that faced them in America afterward, and even forced to watch America enter 2 wars as a response, Muslims have been waiting for God to take care of them, without any violence whatsoever.

America needs to get past the point where accusing then-candidate Obama of being Muslim was considered a politically fatal stab. When Obama was asked if he is Muslim, I wish he could have said: “what if I was?” “Is being Muslim somehow wrong, somehow un-American?” All he did was deny it.

This mosque near Ground Zero should exist. It should be there on the grounds of freedom of religion first – allowing all religions in America to practice freely, adding to the numerous Jewish synagogues and Christian churches spotting New York City.  It should also exist as a symbol, allowing Muslims to trust in their destiny in America, being welcome in a country which was built on pluralism and individual liberty. We need to welcome Muslims, no longer treating Islam with suspicion and separating them from what is considered ‘mainstream’ America.  What better way for us to heal than allowing Muslims to be present at the place where 9/11 destroyed the reputation of their religion, allowing them to show their compassion and the true face of Islam?  It is time we welcome Muslims into our hearts, into the heart of America, as equal Americans in our eyes.

Shabbat Dinner in Jerusalem

This Saturday, I went to my first ever Shabbat dinner. I also feel pretty special, because my first Shabbat dinner was in Jerusalem, the holiest of holy cities (well, perhaps). J Andrew, friend of mine, invited my friend Ratna and I to join a group of American and British yeshiva students at an orthodox rabbi’s house.

We met at the Wailing Wall in the Old City, where a few hundred people were gathered, meeting their friends and family, some praying at the wall before heading off to celebrate Shabbat.  We walked over to see the joyful dancing; some young women danced in a circle holding hands and singing near the wall.  When we met the rabbi, he was young, only around 25 years old.  Already married with two young children, he and his wife were introduced to each other by their rabbi back in Chicago, and have moved to Jerusalem, allowing him to study Torah.  When he walked up and introduced himself at the wall, I stuck out my hand in greeting. He graciously tried to ignore it. I had forgotten that it is inappropriate for men to shake my hand during Shabbat (for him it might be an everyday rule, I’m not sure).

After our group had gathered, we left the wall and walked for around 45 minutes to the rabbi’s house, north of the Old City.  The walk was peaceful, with hardly any traffic on the streets. Transportation and using technology is prohibited during Shabbat.  When we arrived to his apartment, the lights had gone out and there was only the flicker of candlelight.  After standing in the dark for a couple moments, he politely said: “since we are celebrating Shabbat, we can’t turn on the lights. Would you do it for us?” And so, as the honorary Gentile of the group, he led me outside and pointed to the fuse for me to switch on. J Now, this might be cheating a bit, but I have a sense of humor about it. It would have been difficult to eat in the dark. J

Next came hours of amazing food and fascinating conversation. Our group consisted of young British and American Jewish men, who have come to Israel to study; the rabbi and his wife; and me and Ratna. Ratna and I are both working in the West Bank this summer, and even bringing that up felt awkward in this group.  Through the course of the evening, we spoke about the conflict, about the nature of U.S. support for Israel, loyalties to Israel vs. the United States, about how Palestinians feel in the West Bank, and whether women are mistreated in Islamic societies.   Some of them asked good questions and seemed genuinely interested in what Palestinians think/feel.  Others seemed only willing to keep professing their belief in Israel and their support for AIPAC. Another told me he hated the Arabic language, that simply the sound of it made him think they were bad people.

As angry as some of the comments made me, it was a fascinating conversation and one that I seldom experience.  The emotions that tie Jews all over the world to the Israeli state – even wealthy east coast frat boys – is astounding. When I’m forced to listen to them, and realie the extent to which Israel is embedded in their religious and cultural consciousness, it is a reminder of how difficult communication is across divides. It’s a reminder to work harder.  And also, it leaves me with the conclusion that if these young men could only see some of the things I’ve seen, they would perhaps begin to understand. I only wish I could convince more of them to come with me to Hebron, to see the Jewish settlers who throw trash at Palestinians and spit on them.  Young Jewish men like these are the ones who need to stand up and say that these settlers do not represent Judaism, nor Israel. Just as ordinary Muslims had to stand up and renounce Al Qaeda, and moderate Christians should renounce crazy people like Pat Robertson, these young men should be the ones standing up against these extremist settlers. I also wish more of them could see the good in an organization like J Street, which gives Jews a place to both love Israel but leave room to criticize its actions.

Because I could go on and on about this night, I’ll stop now. It was fascinating, and a Shabbat I won’t forget.  I hope I have more opportunities to speak to young Jews like them again. I’ll be better prepared next time. J I won’t shake hands, I’ll be ready to turn on the light switch, and I’ll challenge them more on stopping the settlements and working towards real peace.

Is the Occupation really so bad?

In some conversations I've had recently, some people seem to have the perception that the Occupation isn't so bad these days... that things have been 'relaxed.'  It is true that there are up and down times during this occupation.  Some times, violence sparks more road closures and arrests... sometimes, things are cooled down and the checkpoints are loosened.  But the occupation is still very much a reality, and the control of Israel is felt throughout the West Bank and Gaza.

Some people have asked me what the military presence is like in the West Bank.  Do we see the Israeli army every day? Do we feel constantly that we are under a military occupation?  In Ramallah, we do not see the military day-to-day. But Palestinians here feel the occupation nevertheless, whenever they want to drive to the next city. The fact that they cannot enter Jerusalem, which is only 20 minutes away. The difficulty in obtaining permission to even cross the Allenby Bridge into Jordan, where only then they have an airport from which to fly to anywhere in the world. They also feel the occupation through its economic effects - the difficulty of opening a business here in Palestine, where exports can be stalled by Israel for any reason.

However, in other parts of the West Bank outside Ramallah, the occupation is even more a daily, physical reality.  In Hebron and the south West Bank, you see Israeli soldiers every day. In downtown Hebron there is a constant mlitary presence to 'protect' the Jewish settlers. In some Palestinian villages south of Hebron, Israeli soldiers escort Palestinian schoolchildren to school every day in order to prevent them being attacked by extremist Jewish settlers.  Israeli tanks are a constant sight on the horizon of the village of Doora, near Hebron.

In the north West Bank, and around the city of Nablus, the Jewish settlements create the same necessity for military presence. Closures of roads, road blocks and curfews imposed by the Israeli army are still common in some Palestinian villages in the area. In recent days, this is the case in Iraq Boreen, the village which I wrote about and visited a few weeks ago.  It has now been declared a 'closed military zone' and international medical volunteers were denied entrance to the village.
Israel declares village closed to foreigners

Some people on the outside, particularly some Israelis that I have spoken with, want to believe that the occupation really isn't so bad, and that its presence is exaggerated by Palestinians. I can tell you that it is not.  The occupation is felt, and it is real. Whether physically manifested in tanks and soldiers, economically in trade restrictions and border delays, or in the psychological scars from family history of arrests, humiliation or death at the hands of Israel, the occupation is very much a present reality.