My long awaited internship has finally begun. I am excited, but I have a feeling that I will miss my days of leisure and waking up at noon. :) It's a nice lifestyle to have, especially in Egypt.
At the Arab League, I am working under a lady named Mona, who is a Cabinet member under Amr Moussa, the Secretary-General. I am working on a portfolio that she is responsible for, which is the U.S.-Arab Economic Forum. I will be looking at Arab-Americans and how they can impact the future of U.S.-Arab relations, as well as helping to formulate the agenda for the upcoming Forum which is in the spring.
The best thing about the internship is that Mona is very easy to work with so far, and seems supportive and attentive. I am also located just next to Sameh al Fonse, who was my contact in getting the internship. I hope to help him with various things as well, including design and editing. All in all, I think that the internship will be challenging, very busy, and informative as to the workings of a very political and bureaucratic Arab organization. Maybe this will turn me off to politics completely, or perhaps I will love it so much that I will never want to leave. This is yet to be seen!!! :)
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Who's Peace in Palestine?
Newspapers here in Cairo have lately been full of opinions and speculations about the upcoming Israeli-Palestinian peace conference scheduled for November 2007. In the U.S. and British media, I have seen a sense of optimism reflected in hopes that Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) will be able to negotiate further with Israeli PM Olmert. Arab press, however, has been far less hopeful, with most parties treating the conference as just another soon-to-be-failed attempt by the United States as appearing to be an honest broker in the Middle East.
I must say, I too am less than hopeful.
Why? Both the Israeli and Palestinian leadership, at the moment, are fragmented and weak. Mahmoud Abbas has his hands full trying to prevent civil war between his Fatah faction and Hamas, and has been increasingly seen as a U.S./Israeli puppet in the peace process. His politics appear to me to be of a weak leader who is more concerned with his own power than that of his people. He reminds one too much of Yasser Arafat, whose Oslo Peace Accord was a disaster (in my opinion) for the Palestinian cause. It is questionable whether Abu Mazen even holds enough authority and respect to speak for the Palestinian people, and if any agreement made by him will be supported by his population.
Ehud Olmert, the Israeli PM, is likewise a weak PM beset with factional tensions in the Knesset and a low reputation brought on by the disastrous 2006 summer war with Hizbollah in Lebanon. He also shows no signs (the usual for Israeli PMs) of making any significant concessions; already the Israelis are calling for the peace negotiations to create statements of "intent", rather than "principle." Essentially "intent" implies words of non-binding authority, signaling that Olmert is unable and unwilling to commit to any significant steps to ending Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
One doesn't even need to mention George W. Bush, our lovely incompetent President, who is trying desperately to leave some sort of positive legacy in the Middle East before his term runs out next year. Do we even need to comment on his standing and reputation at home and abroad? I hardly think that his Administration's ability to act as any sort of fair mediator in a peace conference is taken seriously by anyone.
No, I must say I have little hope in the upcoming peace conference having any significant impact on Middle East affairs, if it even happens at all. I can only hope for a new generation of leadership in all parties involved before "peace" can even be considered. I just don't want to see Palestinians forced to give up any more of their needs and desires, at the behest of the U.S. and Israel who seem intent on getting as much as possible from the Palestinians and giving nothing in return. What exactly have the Israelis ever given up?
The terms of "peace" are written in the language of the victors.
I must say, I too am less than hopeful.
Why? Both the Israeli and Palestinian leadership, at the moment, are fragmented and weak. Mahmoud Abbas has his hands full trying to prevent civil war between his Fatah faction and Hamas, and has been increasingly seen as a U.S./Israeli puppet in the peace process. His politics appear to me to be of a weak leader who is more concerned with his own power than that of his people. He reminds one too much of Yasser Arafat, whose Oslo Peace Accord was a disaster (in my opinion) for the Palestinian cause. It is questionable whether Abu Mazen even holds enough authority and respect to speak for the Palestinian people, and if any agreement made by him will be supported by his population.
Ehud Olmert, the Israeli PM, is likewise a weak PM beset with factional tensions in the Knesset and a low reputation brought on by the disastrous 2006 summer war with Hizbollah in Lebanon. He also shows no signs (the usual for Israeli PMs) of making any significant concessions; already the Israelis are calling for the peace negotiations to create statements of "intent", rather than "principle." Essentially "intent" implies words of non-binding authority, signaling that Olmert is unable and unwilling to commit to any significant steps to ending Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
One doesn't even need to mention George W. Bush, our lovely incompetent President, who is trying desperately to leave some sort of positive legacy in the Middle East before his term runs out next year. Do we even need to comment on his standing and reputation at home and abroad? I hardly think that his Administration's ability to act as any sort of fair mediator in a peace conference is taken seriously by anyone.
No, I must say I have little hope in the upcoming peace conference having any significant impact on Middle East affairs, if it even happens at all. I can only hope for a new generation of leadership in all parties involved before "peace" can even be considered. I just don't want to see Palestinians forced to give up any more of their needs and desires, at the behest of the U.S. and Israel who seem intent on getting as much as possible from the Palestinians and giving nothing in return. What exactly have the Israelis ever given up?
The terms of "peace" are written in the language of the victors.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Cairo Pics
Top: My good friend Laila's two youngest kids, Ahmed and Nadia.
2nd: My flatmate and friend Claire and I at an Egyptian wedding, along with our friend Nancy.
3rd: Friends Paul, Anwar and Steve.
4th: An Egyptian table full of lovely food!!
Bottom: My brother Ryan and I on our camel ride at the Pyramids.
Ahmedinejad at Columbia University
I just read the text of Iranian President Ahmed ibn Nejad's speech at Columbia University. After finishing reading the text of comments made by University Pres. Bollinger, the moderator, and the Iranian President, I came away feeling profoundly disappointed in my country. Columbia invited Mr. Ahmed ibn Nejad to speak, and yet treated him with scorn and contempt. They actually dared to make fun of him on a world stage. The moderator even got in his last words, making fun of the way that Mr. Ahmed ibn Nejad had avoided answers to certain questions.
How dare we treat a world leader in this fashion? I repeat: how dare we?? Have we lost all sense of respect for differing opinions, all sense of hospitality? How many politicians answer questions directly?? A diplomat always has a split personality; the burden of speaking cautiously and carefully. Why should we expect any President of any country or company to answer every question we ask directly? I defy that even Columbia University President Bollinger has always answered questions directly. And no matter what the case, how dare we deride a world leader, ANY world leader, this way?
Perhaps we view the President of Iran with suspicion, derision, etc. However, he was invited to come and share his views with us. His views are not all unreasonable. I thought he defended Iran's nuclear program quite well, in fact. We also allude to deficiencies in his culture, in treatment of women and homosexuals in Iran. Is the way to address these questions really to antagonize and mock a man who is the product of a country, culture and experience totally removed from our own?? Again, I say how dare we.
I am so disappointed in my nation, in Mr. Bollinger and in the black-and-white mentality that has surrounded issues of Middle East politics in recent years. We claim to want discussion and debate, democracy even. Yet on the issue of terrorism- you are "with us or against us." On the Israeli occupation of Palestine, we absolutely refuse to invoke condemnation for the practices of an abusive Israeli state. Even a bit of honest debate or discussion on Israeli policy would appease me at this point. Thus far I hardly even see that.
One side point that Ahmed ibn Nejad made, that I found interesting, was that after the 1979 Revolution, Iran recognized all nations in the world except Apartheid South Africa, and the "Zionist State" (Israel). In my opinion, the link between these two oppressive states is very strong! Iran, in reality, has a distant interest in both of these states, but out of principle refused to recognize either because of their repressive and racist policies. The Anti-Apartheid movement was able to gain international attention and support. Why has Palestine not been able to do the same?
When will we be honest about our hypocrisy, and at least admit our failures? We have caused so much distress in the Middle East, maybe it is time to try a new policy, a new mentality. First is a comprehensible, reasonable and rational policy in regard to Israel. Can we please view Israel through an objective lens!!!!!???? And, let us look at ourselves in an objective lens as well. The more we draw lines, promote derision and hatred, admit to blatant ethnocentrism and arrogance, and alienate ourselves from the rest of the world, the more we will regret the consequences. We might have started with being at least civil to an invited Iranian President.
How dare we treat a world leader in this fashion? I repeat: how dare we?? Have we lost all sense of respect for differing opinions, all sense of hospitality? How many politicians answer questions directly?? A diplomat always has a split personality; the burden of speaking cautiously and carefully. Why should we expect any President of any country or company to answer every question we ask directly? I defy that even Columbia University President Bollinger has always answered questions directly. And no matter what the case, how dare we deride a world leader, ANY world leader, this way?
Perhaps we view the President of Iran with suspicion, derision, etc. However, he was invited to come and share his views with us. His views are not all unreasonable. I thought he defended Iran's nuclear program quite well, in fact. We also allude to deficiencies in his culture, in treatment of women and homosexuals in Iran. Is the way to address these questions really to antagonize and mock a man who is the product of a country, culture and experience totally removed from our own?? Again, I say how dare we.
I am so disappointed in my nation, in Mr. Bollinger and in the black-and-white mentality that has surrounded issues of Middle East politics in recent years. We claim to want discussion and debate, democracy even. Yet on the issue of terrorism- you are "with us or against us." On the Israeli occupation of Palestine, we absolutely refuse to invoke condemnation for the practices of an abusive Israeli state. Even a bit of honest debate or discussion on Israeli policy would appease me at this point. Thus far I hardly even see that.
One side point that Ahmed ibn Nejad made, that I found interesting, was that after the 1979 Revolution, Iran recognized all nations in the world except Apartheid South Africa, and the "Zionist State" (Israel). In my opinion, the link between these two oppressive states is very strong! Iran, in reality, has a distant interest in both of these states, but out of principle refused to recognize either because of their repressive and racist policies. The Anti-Apartheid movement was able to gain international attention and support. Why has Palestine not been able to do the same?
When will we be honest about our hypocrisy, and at least admit our failures? We have caused so much distress in the Middle East, maybe it is time to try a new policy, a new mentality. First is a comprehensible, reasonable and rational policy in regard to Israel. Can we please view Israel through an objective lens!!!!!???? And, let us look at ourselves in an objective lens as well. The more we draw lines, promote derision and hatred, admit to blatant ethnocentrism and arrogance, and alienate ourselves from the rest of the world, the more we will regret the consequences. We might have started with being at least civil to an invited Iranian President.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
