You are here: Home / Archives for Israel
Cheap Cigarettes

The Trouble with Activism

May 5, 2013 By Firouzeh Afsharnia Leave a Comment

It was a double bill.  An Israeli singer and an Iranian who I had heard perform on numerous occasions before that day at this new venue. My ticket named a famous celebrity as the presenter – a producer to the stars, practically the Godfather of the recording industry and the patron saint of who’s who on the A-list.   So I figured it must be a marketing plug.  Probably Mr. Big Shot sat on some board and had graciously lent his name to one among many events on the season’s calendar.  After all, the entire cultural scene in this town runs on philanthropy and celebrity horse trading rather than Uncle Sam’s love for the arts who, judging by those head shots pasted all over the country jabbing his finger in my face and yours, is probably more interested in fine arsenal rather than fine jazz – much less in obscure world music from the rural Middle East. 

So you can imagine my surprise when I saw the celebrity producer, in the flesh, a little older and a little heavier than his TV persona, walk up on that stage, slightly hunched, and dressed in his finest, festooned with a blue silk scarf to make the introductions.

He said he was so happy and moved to be presenting an Israeli artist along with an Iranian.  Really?  I am sitting in the audience puzzled as to why that is interesting — more interesting than say an artist from Zimbabwe with an Iranian. Or an Eskimo with the Israeli.  It goes to show the power of music, he said, clasping his hands in reverence.  That despite all their differences, music is the language of peace and can bring people together. Shalom. Salaam ….

Peace? Between Iranians and the Israelis? Does he mean the Jews and Persians?  Jews and Arabs? Israelis and the Arabs?  The Palestinians? One never knows with celebrity activists.

For a while it seemed that an adopted African child was an absolute must have accessory to a designer outfit just in case one was caught off guard walking out of Kitson’s by the paparazzi. But with all the modern day upheavals; the Arab spring, the Syrian revolution, the poor Afghani women sequestered inside their burqa – (now that we know what the heck a burqa is, never mind that they have been wrapped in that thing for centuries) – with the mass rapes in eastern Congo; the Maasai land grab in Tanzania; oil exploitation by Shell in the Niger delta; Yanomami evictions from their ancestral land in the Brazilian Amazon; oppression of the Nepalese Dalit; the Tibetans, Burmese, Darfuries ….and did you know that the Saudi women can’t even drive?… well — Its practically a supermarket out there!

A giant outlet of pet causes, discount and premium brand raison d’etres right for every pocketbook — the privileged Brentwood dweller wishing to get a whiff of the exotic from the safety of her security patrolled, pesticide-free, air conditioned mansion without missing a single Pilates class; the suburban minivan-driving soccer mom wanting to escape the routine of humdrum PTA meetings, Costco hoarding exercises and Wednesday nights at the in-laws; and of course that constant mother lode of activism — the idealistic college kid who has channeled all his frustrations growing up in a dysfunctional family with an abusive or absent parent into saving the world whose army of middle men sit ready at call centers tethered to donate buttons happy to help pay his way into his inner humanitarian through a simplistic, ready packed and pre-digested narrative to fund raise, validate mainstream agenda, and stamp that free-trade locally grown designer-diet, free of guilt in spite of its higher price tag because an undisclosed amount is going to some tribe with an unpronounceable name in the middle of a war zone.

Excuse me, but since when are the people of Iran and the people of Israel at war with each other and in need of peace, understanding and a hearty sing-along? If you can’t recognize a conflict for what it is – namely a pissing contest on the highest levels to wield influence over the cradle of civilization – nowadays simply the cradle of strategic trade routes and bottomless oil and gas fields, kindly refrain from opining on the subject, let alone using our position and status to give it oxygen.  Because you know what?  You may actually be breathing life into a non-existent problem; worse – diverting from the actual one.   In other words, if you can’t be bothered to read an in depth analysis from all angels – and I don’t mean listening to Wolf Blitzer on an infinite CNN loop – then stop.  Do no harm.

But in the event you should find yourself in the position of wanting to engage in the fine art of political activism, here are a few thoughts.

Did you know that over 80,000 homeless wander the streets right here in Los Angeles, or that we in the U.S. incarcerate a larger number of our own people than any other country – that’s a quarter of all documented prisoners in the world.

Did you know that the prisons are privatized and that their lobbies, like all other lobbies in this great democracy have short-circuited the system, passing laws to maximize sentencing terms for profit?

Did you know that The U.S. is among the top five countries carrying out executions along with Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and China. And did you know that once the hysteria around the Boston Marathon bombing subsides and the main stream media is done mourning the lives of the three victims and dissecting the two suspects ad-nauseam, there will still be a violent crime committed in this country every 25.3 seconds,  that’s up to 30 gun related deaths, 162 injuries, not to mention 53 suicides each day.

Now; in case you do decide on that fundraiser, here’s also an idea for an opening concert:  An evening of songs for peace and understanding – a double bill — An upcoming young Chechen duo along with a band from the Czech Republic!

….Now that is what I call interesting.

 

Filed Under: Can We Talk?!!, Iran, Israel, Middle East and Beyond Tagged With: , , , , ,

A Special Relationship: Musings of a Hyphenated American…

March 7, 2013 By Firouzeh Afsharnia Leave a Comment
512px-Brezhnev_and_Honecker_kiss

The Washington-AIPAC love-fest season is once again upon us.   The New York Times’ featured article sports a picture of Biden and Israeli Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, in loving embrace pledging support and allegiance, unconditional and eternal. Kiss! Kiss!

All talk of settlement freeze is shelved for the moment as the most formidable Washington Lobby – for all intent and purposes, agents of a foreign country – push for yet more resolutions choking Iran; seek blanket agreement for congressional backing of whatever measure Israel deems necessary to pursue their interests; and secure their 3.1 billion yearly aid even as sequestration threatens American jobs and economic recovery.   Not bad! If the forefathers could see the turn this democracy has taken, they would be thrilled I’m sure.

My reaction as a hyphenated American is pure horror!   My Persian side – because of the double standard applied to policy issues and the mess it has created by selective meddling in my region.  My American side — because of the constant hemorrhage of resource, blood and money due to this “special relationship” which seems only to benefit the Israeli hardliners and political aspirees in the U.S. Congress. My Persian side – because of the chokehold the sanctions impose on 70 million innocent Iranians destroying generations through lack of opportunities and basic needs; my American side — because it squanders any good will I presume to project in terms of standing up for human rights and democracy to my Persian side. On both fronts, this special relationship pits me against the world and my ideals; my hyphenated existence; and etches ever more deep scars of cynicism in the myth of exceptionalism my adopted country preaches day after day.

In a day and age where my American government routinely throws about terminology invoking notions of “Homeland”, “Patriotism” and “Security”, I wonder how so many of my compatriots can promptly pin their lapels with the American flag, applaud multiple invasions squandering over a trillion dollars at the first breach of air space on 9/11; yet remain unphased by our elected officials who routinely pledge allegiance to the Israeli flag; get fitted for a yarmulke and pose for photographs at the wailing wall before every election; and unreservedly throw about terms like “unconditional support” when support means continued undermining of the rights of other people, of international law and of our own national interests.

The peace process is all but dead in the face of continuing settlements on occupied land thanks to this alliance that extends blanket diplomatic immunity to Israel no matter how outrageous the act. Instead, the focus is squarely diverted on nonexistent nuclear ambitions of Iran even as experts fail to find evidence of such intentions.  The former director of IAEA, Hans Blix, has once again gone on record to confirm that Iran has not violated the NPT; that there is no evidence that Iran has plans to weaponize and that military threats based on mere suspicion is not justified. Yet the hysteria around nuclear threats seems to have a life of its own, continuing to escalate on autopilot as Israel and the U.S. bond in front of cameras just in case anyone had doubts as to how special, special was.

Advocates of this relationship say things will change organically.   Look – J Street is the answer to AIPAC and slowly we are witnessing criticism of Israel and this unique relationship creep into pop culture and mainstream discourse.   Journalists, thinkers, artists have taken a bolder approach to questioning the nature of this relationship and who it is really benefiting.  The recent SNL sketch and the spirited debate over Chuck Hagel’s confirmation are good examples.   The New York Times itself opened the article half-mockingly by referring to the “thunderous ovations” and “slick videos” of the annual conference captioning the Biden – Barak huddle, reminiscent of the 1970’s Brezhnev – Honecker embrace.

This week at the conference there was no mention of settlements. No mention of peace talks.  Instead standing ovations of the 13,000 strong friends of Israel, delighting at promises of military action against Iran.

“From the bottom of my heart, and with the clarity of my brain, words alone will not stop Iran. Sanctions alone will not stop Iran. Sanctions must be coupled with a clear and credible military threat if diplomacy and sanctions fail.” Netanyahu declared. Well, he should know, he is an authority on serial non-compliance yet shielded from action by a special friend who finds it more expedient to tackle the fall out rather than the root problem.

Soon President Obama will be making a visit to Israel – a first American president to go to Jerusalem. It is sure to ruffle some Palestinian feathers who dream of making part of this city their homeland. Contrary to his first term when he pushed for a halt to illegal settlements as a precursor to meaningful peace talks, there will be no more mention of a freeze.  There will be no criticism of Israel for the oppression of Palestinians on occupied land.  There will be no demands for compliance with U.N. resolutions.

Obama is going to Jerusalem to show that the American President does not bluff.  At least not when it comes to Iran.

Filed Under: Can We Talk?!!, Iran, Israel, Middle East and Beyond, Politics, Conflict, Africa, Middle East Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Gaza: A Fundamentalist’s Guide to Gravity

November 20, 2012 By Firouzeh Afsharnia Leave a Comment

A few years ago I was traveling through Africa and found my self in a rickety cab. As I bounced up and down in the lumpy back seat, shifting spots to avoid the broken springs and whatever was festering in the exposed paddings, another passenger got in and sat in the front seat.  He was in a jovial mood and had just passed some sort of certification exam.  “I passed! I passed!” He declared.

First I thought it was a college exam, or some life changing professional achievement.   Turns out it was an HIV/AIDS test.   And if you know anything about Africa, you know the importance of such a test.  Conversation rolled from AIDS to lack of employment, poverty, state corruption, war; then the passenger sighed and said.

“You know, I really admire Ben.” The driver agreed.  “Oh yes. Ben. He is a great man.   We need somebody like him here in the Congo.”

I wondered who Ben was.  I had lived in the country for months, and not heard of anyone by that name.  “Sorry — Ben?  Who is Ben?”  I interjected from the back seat, shifting over the lumps and bumping my head violently on the ceiling as the cab cleared another pothole.

“Ben!  You don’t know Ben?  Madame!  He is very famous.  Il est Genial.”

“Ben what?  Who are you talking about?”

“Laden.”  Both men chimed. “Bin Laden!”

Amazing! Here I was in a Christian country.  The Moslem population in Congo is miniscule, and yet Bin Laden represented something of a hero – a symbol of resistance to a higher injustice.

I have traveled almost ten years in Africa.  On this continent, the narrative often goes like this:  Bin Laden was a hero, Ahmadinejad should be admired for standing up to the West, Ghaddafi will be remembered for the many mosques and schools he built; and the Palestinians – well, Palestinians are the very embodiment of suffering; the equivalent of Jungian archetypes for victims of all things unjust, unfair and hypocritical; the ultimate evidence that the lectures on human rights by the masters of the world, and all that talk of democracy are nonsense. Palestinians are the very essence of pain and resistance with whom anyone from any corner of space and time can relate to and stand with in solidarity.

In Africa, most people are only too familiar with hopelessness, lack of recourse, lies, oppression and co-opted systems in which they have no part. They are also familiar with the basic reality that desperate people beget desperate actions.  And when all other options fail, in the absolute vacuum of hope, the most radical elements will emerge to reinvent their own brand of justice to right all the wrongs that cannot find recourse in alternate forums.

This week as rockets fly overhead, the headlines on the 24 hour news cycles focus on the terrorist strikes at the urban centers of Israel. Newly elected Barack Obama who has evidently forgotten that he has nothing to fear from AIPAC anymore, releases his stale clichés on Israel’s “right to defense” even as he stands with his Nobel Prize counterpart and lectures the Burmese Junta on the rights of dignity and equality for all people.  The narrative in the U.S. focuses on “terror” in Israel and the 90% Israeli support for the attacks on Gaza.   Indeed the CNN poll shows that 57% of our own citizenry are in favor of the strikes, evidence of the complete disconnect from context at the confluence of selective reporting, ideology and middle class consumerism.

That the Jerusalem post has printed an op-ed to the effect that entire communities should be flattened in Gaza, left without water, electricity and basics has not triggered outrage in this country, nor has it made a dent in the absurd notion that Gaza has had self-determination since 2005. America’s mainstream stands with Israel.  Congress stands with AIPAC. And Operation Pillar of Defense plays out as a bad sequel to Operation Cast Lead – as if the obscenity of the title in itself is not an outrage.

The casualty figures at the bottom of the TV screen in fact tell the whole story.  Day 6 of the conflict. Gaza: 107 dead; Israel: 3 dead.

Israel maintains it is only pursuing “terrorists” and the rest are unfortunate collateral losses. They even go so far as to say that casualties are results of a deliberate Hamas strategy of employing civilians as human shields, thereby disassociating the reality of the cause of the militants from its fundamental connection to the perpetual anger of a humiliated people – one, an inevitable consequence of the other  — like gravity.

Mr. president – for all the talk of not wishing to lead from behind and being a force for good; for the $1.4 trillion spent to date in pursuit of jihadists; and for the thousands sacrificed in the fight for what has been summarily dismissed as mindless terrorism, how about walking the talk of justice and focusing on the oldest grievance in the Middle East.

How can you pretend to push for human rights by upholding a six-decade Cuba policy while washing your hands from the crushing Israeli blockade of Gaza.

How can you reconcile your crippling sanctions on Iran for possible breach of NPT commitments, while vetoing any measure that would condemn Israel’s continued occupation in violation of International law.

How can you rise up in defense of Libyans and Syrians while staying mum on the continued aggression against Palestinians.

How can you rationalize your national outrage responsible for waging two wars in pursuit of one man culpable of killing 2900 Americans in 9/11, without on some level understanding the outrage against decades of Palestinian humiliation, displacement and occupation and the need to avenge it.

How can you expect to further the cause for democracy and peace if you don’t play the part of the unbiased advocate for dignity for all people.

How do you expect to hold back the wave of anger against the U.S. and the creation of a new generation of activists every time you opt to read from the “unconditional support” script, brandish the lone veto on the Security Council and value the Israeli life over that of a Palestinian.

Gravity is a fact. Those who pretend to live in a void may never fully grasp its meaning. But they are no less susceptible to its effects.

Filed Under: Africa, Can We Talk?!!, Congo, Israel, Politics, Conflict, Africa, Middle East Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Existential Threats and Trayvon Martin: The bumper sticker politics of fear.

April 14, 2012 By Firouzeh Afsharnia 4 Comments

The first season of the Trayvon Martin reality show is finally over. George Zimmerman is behind bars 45 days after the shooting of an unarmed African American teen-ager which snowballed into a national soul searching crisis as to whether Americans are closet racists.

Activists, celebrities and ordinary citizens stepped up to express their outrage and demand justice. Tweets from Justine Beiber and Spike Lee along with thousands of irate phone calls flooded the airwaves; and civil rights politicians like Reverend Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson came out to denounce the act as an egregious example of racial hate crime.  The Rainbow Push coalition held hands, singing “We Shall Overcome” and the “Million Hoodie March” rallied in cities across America.   In a short period of time, over 2 million signatures petitioned for the arrest of George Zimmerman who continued to invoke self-defense under the “Stand-Your-Ground” law, which expands the rights of citizens to use deadly force in any public space if they feel threatened – albeit by a small framed, unarmed, skittles chewing minor like Trayvon.

The law which has been promoted by the National Rifle Association and Republican politicians have now been passed in 25 States and since its enactment in 2005, “justifiable” murders have increased several fold – 36 in Florida, up from 12 just 5 years ago.  Had the other 24 been literally getting away with murder before the law, or are we getting jumpier as a nation?

Mayor Bloomberg says it is clear that the law has undermined the integrity of the justice system, made the country less safe, and that it is promoting a culture of impunity.  Others call it “kill at will” or “shoot first”.   The national debate is curiously timely considering the broader global context.

In the past ten years, since the attacks on the twin towers, the U.S. has been increasingly basing its foreign policy narrative on the concept of preventive and pre-emptive attacks.  Dick Cheney even went so far as to make a case for action with as little as one percent probability of a threat clearly ruling out leaving his house in case of encounter with a discarded banana peel – a fear many of us wish he had heeded. Over the course of the past decade what started as a deadly attack by a handful of non-state loosely aligned actors in New York City, has lead to the invasion of several countries, the death of hundreds of thousand, and the displacement of millions in the Middle East and beyond as America consistently “stood its ground”.

George Bush rightly stressed his war on terror was not anti-muslim; no more than the Trayvon Martin case is anti black.  Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and the proxy wars we wage in the horn of Africa and beyond are not about hate as much as they are about fear — fear that continues to get packaged and sold for political and economic gain by an increasingly violent America which uses violence as its principal currency as sure as it does its greenback.  We use violence as currency for entertainment, casually feeding it to our children in ever more brutal video games and demanding more of it in our movies — more than our European counterparts who seem to prefer sex – thanks to their Mediterranean DNA; and we use it as the prime currency to define ourselves as individuals whether at home, in our neighborhoods; or on the world stage by “standing our ground”, resolute and uncompromising no matter how asymmetric, intransigent and one sided our demands.

We nurture violence through the exploitation of fear by the right wing with links to a multi billion dollar arms industry which brings jobs to constituents who fund their Washington representatives to preserve their livelihoods; by the political machinery where each side postures as the more patriotic by being hardest on crime – hardest on terrorism; and mostly we nurture fear and violence by a disconnected public who gladly consumes the messages of a lazy and complicit media who mostly amplifies the conventional narrative of power without trying to reframe the conversation.

The Iraqi WMD wild goose chase quickly became “support our troops”; a multi billion dollar military expansion across the globe was sold as “peace through strength”; and the “war on terror” became the catch all phrase for the pursuit of all things evil by our heroic forces whose patriotism bars them from asking why.

The result is a polarized world with a clear “us” versus “them” narrative framed by fear, resolved through force. As the Trayvon Martin story plays itself on an endless loop on national channels, another round of “negotiations” to stop Iran from enriching uranium is taking place so that we may get over the election hump before bombing yet another country. Who knew election season could be so hazardous to your health.

As others more astute than myself have observed, and Mark Twain’s powerful reminder we choose to ignore, the rhetoric rhymes alarmingly with the argument for the Iraqi invasion – the mushroom cloud was it?  It is ironic how asymmetric “strength” can in fact lead to conflict rather than peace.  Even more ironic that the citizens of the strongest, most powerful country should be so ruled by fear that they should seek to eradicate even the smallest, most minute possibility of harm to the point that they would be scared out of their wits by a hoodie, or see a country with no evidence of a weapons program an existential threat to themselves and their ally who, between them, own over 8,000 nuclear warheads.

Barack Obama has successfully fended off an Israeli attack for the moment even as he embarks on non-starter negotiations, demanding the unreasonable even as he ratchets up “crippling sanctions” against 70 million Iranians.  Israel for its part is preparing for a strike by securing bases in Azerbaijan and unleashing AIPAC on the U.S. congress.

Following the tsunami of outrage against the injustice in the Trayvon Martin case, Mr. Obama finally broke his silence and offered this measured response:  “If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin.”

Mr. president, in this election season as you walk the fine line between your Nobel Peace Prize and your second term, consider seeing beyond color – beyond borders, to see every child, every where, as your own.

Filed Under: Can We Talk?!!, Elections, Iran, Israel, Middle East and Beyond Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Separation: of Films and Bombs.

March 5, 2012 By Firouzeh Afsharnia 2 Comments
Separation wins Oscar

Amidst talk of bombs and wars, a small Iranian film sweeps up the highest honors in western cinema.   Its unassuming director goes up on stage, faces Hollywood aristocracy and his voice, soft and humble flows across the airways reaching millions dedicating his golden statue to the good people of his ancient land.

The following day various sites hailed the event as an example of cultural camaraderie ignoring the threats of imminent strikes and annihilation red lines; and you tubes of Iranian families sitting spellbound in front of their satellite TVs, holding their breath to be ushered into the hall of fame by their archenemy, spiraled throughout the internet.  Once again it was clear — people will ignore the rantings of their politicians to come together in celebration of all that their humanity has in common while embracing diversity.

The Iranian PR machine predictably declared the whole thing to be a triumph over Israel – since the “Zionist Nation” was also competing in the same category. Well thank goodness for small nothings. That’s what I love about movies.  It can be all things to all people — and come Kodak day, those who lose can snub the whole thing as a meaningless self-congratulation exercise, while winners graciously fumble for words in front of a blank teleprompter basking in their two minutes of sun in front of Hollywood royalty. As for the peanut gallery, they can thank whomever they want.

I had heard volumes about the movie.  As it picked up awards from Berlin to France, Canada and the Golden Globes, I went to see it.  I found myself in a familiar place.  A place of my childhood. A place where I remembered so well that I felt I knew all the characters in their multiple layers with their emotional subtexts – It is every day Middle East where millions of lives negotiate the burdens of cultural obligations, economic hardships, faith, politics and thousands of years of complex history which has equipped them, above all, with the unique art of nuance – a multilayered capacity to cope, to reinvent, to thrive, even as they try to maintain a sense of integrity and social cohesion.

The story is set against the backdrop of an old man suffering from Alzheimer – like his native country sunken in a sense of oblivion, the old man meanders in the background, disoriented, helpless or asleep while the young Termeh, the future, convulses in the conflict between two poles — one who wants to leave, wishing for change – and another who wants to stay — out of duty, out of choice or simply, out of love because even if his father may no longer recognize him, that he nevertheless knows he is his father, knows this is where he belongs.

Our helpless background hero is entrusted to a devout religious caretaker who is going through her own crisis – financial and personal. A series of encounters pits characters against each other, testing the limits of truth, faith and duty in anticipation of a final verdict – will Termeh choose to go, or will she stay behind – like her country, caught in turmoil, the answer is hard to come by. As the credits crawl by, the audience is no closer to a resolution. The future remains uncertain.

Like any good story, the parallels between fiction and reality are skillfully crafted even getting a pass from the Iranian authorities who failed to put a finger on anything which could be construed as overtly political.   But of course it was.  How could one be from the Middle East and not be touched by politics. Hidden in between the crevasses of the personal stories, a larger story looms in layered subtext.

The triumph of the film was its brilliant ability to portray the multiple layers of conflict and heartbreak without commentary, without judgment – and despite the lies, deceptions – even a murder charge – no villain – just a complex set of personal predicaments juxtaposed on a larger canvas, crafted with details of human interdependence that at the end leaves the audience with a profound sense of compassion for each character.

The couple are estranged not because they reject one other, but for individual choices; the accused intervenes on behalf of his accuser; the prosecutor listens with concern and the devout character is taken beyond the current caricatures in the media to reveal a deep sense of morality, unable to swear on the Koran even if it could bring her personal gain. Throughout the story, a quest for truth runs like a silent witness, reassuring and ever present.

These days, when talk of war and binary choices seeks only to dominate and vilify, rather than approach and understand, the world is presented as a struggle between good and evil, each narrator posing as the custodian of truth – indivisible and uncompromising – as if competing to keep from understanding the other. The success of “separation” could be a nod to the humanity in all of us, which longs to bridge and empathize.

If only we could stop playing the polarizing roles we are so used to.

Filed Under: Can We Talk?!!, Iran, Middle East and Beyond Tagged With: , , , , , ,

IRAN: News or Reality TV?

February 20, 2012 By Firouzeh Afsharnia Leave a Comment

A stern faced broadcaster opens against a backdrop of military drums and bold captions: “ The Sum of All Fears”!    He goes on to speak of President Obama as the “Commander in Chief” – and announces that the  “conflict with Iran is escalating”.

A map of the strait of Hormuz, reminiscent of war room paraphernalia flashes, pointing to the “apparent provocation” by an Iranian vessel, which got so close to an American navy ship that the latter was “forced to fire flares” in response to the “hostile action”.

Then came the MSNBC report, which in an eerie echo of the run up to the Iraq invasion, opened with: “…now that it looks like Iran is actually trying to start a war either with the United States or with Israel…” and went on to ask his guest whether there was still hope for diplomacy even after the attacks against the Israeli diplomats in Georgia, India and Thailand.

All this alarmist talk may be great for TV ratings, and perfect consumption material for an audience who by now fear all things Middle East, but it raises serious questions as to the role of media in a democracy and their responsibility to provide unbiased account of all sides over public airwaves.

In fact, the hostile elements were small smuggling boats, hardly a match for an aircraft carrier, not belonging to the Iranian government, its military or even the revolutionary guards and acting on their own. It would be like bracing for war with the Somali government in response to the Somali pirates – although wait – did we do that?  – Furthermore, the details of the bomb blasts are still unclear despite the almost buffoonish episode in Bangkok which left an Iranian legless, so let’s not buckle up for war just yet.  Perhaps they were behind the blasts, why pick India, or Thailand as staging grounds and risk losing friendly allies in a shrinking network of trading partners. More puzzling — if they did mean to teach Israel a lesson for the assassination of their nuclear scientists, why not take credit?  i.e. what is the point of taking revenge if the “revengee” does not know where the blow comes from?  It would be like the loan shark letting the banana peel take the wrap for the broken leg.

Yet, the Iranians have flatly denied all three attacks in contrast to the Israelis who have remained silent on whether they were behind the assassinations of the Iranian scientists, much like their policy on whether or not they own nuclear arsenal.  Or whether they arm, fund and train the MEK, a terrorist organization, to conduct attacks in Iran – points which merely get a passing mention in the press, and have been drowned by the hysteria over Iran’s nuclear program — no real investigation, no indignation and most certainly no bold headlines demanding U.N. action.

It is not surprising that Israel should push for war in spite of its own best interest.  It is also not surprising that the likes of Lieberman and Graham should wish to rule out diplomacy and insist on a red line, sooner, rather than later, even as Defense Secretary Leon Panetta confirms there is no evidence that Iran has decided to make a bomb.    The US and Israel both have an interest in placating hard line elements in their administrations and of course, what could be better than war-talk to distract from real issues like jobs, economy, and illegal settlements in an election year.

The single-visioned focus on the nuclear issue has already sidelined the human rights tragedy and snowballed into “crippling” sanctions, tightening the noose on ordinary people.  Over 70 million innocent Iranians – men, women and children increasingly find it difficult to get access to basics, with staggering effects on health care, nutrition, education and basic livelihoods, rippling through years to come.   We only have to look to Iraq to see the devastating toll years of sanctions took as it impoverished and displaced hundreds of thousands even before Bush unleashed his war on “terror”.  It is ironic that the West should be repeating the same scenario and tightening the screws on millions of civilians in Iran, all the while rising up in protection of the same in Syria – as though civilians have ever been anything but tools of manipulation for politicians anywhere in the world.

One thing is certain.   The days of the chivalrous state warfare are long gone and countries now work in parallel with covert operations, targeted assassinations, unmanned drones, proxies and contraband arm deals through third parties to accomplish their objectives.   They leave the justifications to the media, then brutally repress dissent or deftly horse trade on the Security Council to block opposition.  Iran is no exception, but let’s ask the right questions and hang blame at the door of the appropriate aggressor.

We live in a realistic world – and power seeks to consolidate, whichever its face and whatever its cost.  It’s the media we count on to give us the facts and hold each party to scrutiny.

Press!  Do your job!  This is news — not reality TV.

Filed Under: Can We Talk?!!, Iran, Israel Tagged With: , , ,

“… in the mood for philosophy?” the Devil asked.

June 19, 2011 By Firouzeh Afsharnia 1 Comment
arab-spring1(2)

Barely six months into 2011 and I can hardly stand the excitement.  The Arab Spring; the crumbling of the peace process; elections across Africa followed by…well…. massacres across Africa then followed by unprecedented international interventions – not to mention the hunt down of the number one “Wanted” man in the world much to the dismay of warmongers who will now have to brand and market super monster 2.0 to keep their jobs in a multi billion dollar industry.

Some have quietly retreated to that beautiful Saudi oasis, otherwise known as the Club Med for dictators, while others have held on, teeth clenched and knuckles white, chanting Al Queida …Al Queida …Al Queida, so as to scare their western “partners” into throwing more money and reinforcements to protect them against their…uh… own people.

As a startling twist in story line, the US has abandoned a few long time allies to stand with the demands of the street while refusing to speak up in other cases leaving some to scratch their heads hoping for a surprise ending and others to cry: “hypocrite!”

More confusing — past revolutionaries have turned tyrants against their own people while supporting the cause of the oppressed and the downtrodden abroad blurring the lines between the good guys and the bad guys.

Is the world going through enlightenment pains, shifting old paradigms as it strikes a balance between self-centric interests and the need for global justice, or is this all just a cynical recalibration by the same players to preserve their interests by other means.

I find myself also on the sidelines scratching my head, searching for an answer amidst the madness. Where I wish to take a clear stance, I see instead equivocation as the only truism emerging from the chaos where good and evil seem to morph into one another as companion actors in the same theater defying clear judgment and confusing efforts to pin down a culprit.

Here is the question I see emerging from the chaos:  What is good and what is evil? In a Hobbesian world of existential threats and realistic responses how does the globalized new order craft its righteous narratives tempering human rights, strategic interests and international law to respond to future challenges that continuously test national, legal and moral boundaries.

Can an act in itself be defined as good or evil?  To kill or not to kill for example.  Is the killing of civilians in Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan as a result of drones as heinous a crime as flying any other lethal oversized object into say… the World Trade Center, annihilating almost 3,000 innocent lives? Or is it rather the rationale behind the act that determines its nature: i.e. shining the light of democracy into the furthest corners of the world –  by force if necessary; versus instilling divine tenants of right and wrong upon the same –  also by force.

Is this a debate surrounding the merits of one rationale versus the other, irrespective of the means to the end and if so, how does one temper the cause of democracy versus the word of God, both mortal interpretations of human constructs, both collective responses to increasingly complex social challenges of their time, neither one having delivered a just world to its disciples.

In spite of the alleged flatness of the world as perceived by neo-liberalists, free market positivists and other know it alls sitting in the West; is it not arguable that while Western paradigms of democracy have lifted many out of poverty, they have also increased disparity, leading many more into dead end situations of slave labor and exploitation, exposing them to new forms of colonialism – effectively co-opting democracy as a tool of consolidation of power for the powerful in a world of finite resources.

Or is it the intention behind the rationale that determines the ultimate essence of an action. Do the proponents of “just wars” advance their armies under the banner of democracy knowing that they have ulterior political and economic motives?  And do the Jihadists send their children to meet the welcoming virgin maidens in heaven knowing they are being used as pawns in their virtual empires?  In other words — does power subconsciously internalize its intentions as just and good or can it hold within itself the cognitive dissonance that its actions run contrary to its words – that its designs may be less than noble, serving only its own survival.   In which case, passing judgment would be a piece of cake – Chocolate at that!

To draw on recent controversies: Did the neo-cons invade Iraq under the pretext of a lie to secure the oil fields for domestic political gain or did they seize upon an opportunity to rid the world of a brutal dictator and secure a strategic region for the global good?

Do the likes of Mubarak and Saleh cling to power for the obvious benefits of one man rule, or do they truly believe in the imminent threat of state fragmentation resulting from ethnic struggles and Islamic fundamentalism? Or my personal favorite — Is Netanyahu haunted by the primordial trauma of Jewish persecution when he infuses every speech with references to the holocaust, or is he purposely manipulating Western guilt in order to maintain his fragile coalition with the hardliners in the Knesset?

Here’s more: Did Laurent Gbagbo refuse to relinquish power because he truly saw himself as the last line of defense between Ivorian sovereignty and French neo-colonial aspirations, or is the prospect of stepping down as the number one man of the world’s largest cocoa exporter in favor of a professorial position in the freezing cold at Boston University just not an option. Seriously — Boston?

At the risk of receiving hate mail from my Persian compatriots: Does the Islamic Republic view itself hero to the forgotten ranks; to the poor and the destitute in Africa; and to the oppressed in the occupied territories — in the process willing to exact a small sacrifice in the interest of Islamic solidarity from their “spoilt” bourgeoisie?

In other words, do internationally recognized evil doers see themselves as such?  Parallel narratives in their own worlds sing a very different tune to that of CNN, TIME and CNBC. The lack of support of the African Union for the NATO engagement against Gaddafi and the indignant chatter on African social networking sites means that at least a large swath of his own continent views him as a pan Africanist — a nationalist hero!

With Credit to David Low

If the Gaddafis, Bashirs and the Mugabes of the world view themselves as patriots standing against outside aggression, how then are they different from the Rumsfelds, Bushes and of late – the Obamas of this world.  Does it matter that the former wage wars against their own people and the latter against citizens of others, both claiming righteous intentions? Does it matter that hundreds of thousands died of famine to keep Mugabe in Power, versus hundreds of thousands who died of disease and malnutrition as a result of sanctions — to dislodge Saddam? Or that the people of Tripoli will die so that Benghazi will survive?

Does evil know it exists? And for justice to be served — should punishment come as a consequence of intent?  I wondered about the original culprit.

God created the Devil and he was his favorite angel. God created Man and asked his favorite angel to bow before him.

“I am of fire and Man is of clay,” said the Angel of Light, refusing to bow. “I claim allegiance only to you.”

Signed:  Yours Truly Not Religious at all.

Filed Under: Can We Talk?!!, Middle East and Beyond Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Egypt and The Israel Factor

February 19, 2011 By Ahmed Salam 1 Comment
Caption of the image...

Contributing Writer: Ahmed Salam
The attitude of Egypt’s future regime towards Israel has been a dominant theme on both ends of the commentary spectrum. The Arab masses (as articulated by both Islamic and progressive parties) expect swift action towards the annulment of treaties with Israel or, at the least, severing diplomatic and economic relationships. The Israeli government and ruling elite monitored the situation in evident apprehension weary of what’s to come especially if it was The Brotherhood. The United States government had the same fears (implied most of the time) joined by media pundits such as Walters and Friedman (who, after appearing apprehensive in DAVOS and urging Israel to sign with the Palestinians before the tide turns, opted in the end to embrace the democracy movement at Tahrir and postpone his fear). The Brotherhood spent the 18 days assuring the world of its democratic intent while (deliberately, and for reasons to be highlighted later) skirting the issue of the future relationship with Israel.
Best to look at this issue from the perspective of the newly reborn Egypt. The future government of Egypt is faced with a daunting task: Developing an efficient, self-sustaining, corruption-free economy capable of inviting foreign investment while untangling one of the world’s largest bureaucracies [meaning layoffs and unmasking the masked unemployment]. All of this entails multi-fronted battles and painful measures all being conducted under the gaze of 80 million, now-empowered, most likely impatient, watchful pair of eyes. This is an uphill battle that will deliver all future Egyptian politicians unto the temptation of waiving the “Down-with-Israel” campaign banner. The same banner that was waived by the military dictatorships that got the Arabs here in the first place.
Both (past dictatorships and future democrats) are full of the knowledge that no military solution to the issues with Israel is feasible. The Brotherhood is a stark example. Why would a spokesman dance around the issue of the treaty with Israel knowing full well how handcuffed Egypt’s hand is when it comes to annulment? Surely he was already thinking of future voters. Lacking a clear program of reform or, more accurately, the political will and courage to implement them, all politicians will change the “Israel is the enemy” slogan.
This is all not to say that Egypt will not take a stand against Israeli actions. It is natural for some of the democratic values that have come to the surface in Egypt to clash with Israeli actions. Egypt might also use its weight to tilt the balance of negotiations one way or the other. The overriding imperative will remain, hopefully, on putting Egypt’s house in order.
Written by: Ahmed Salam– Ahmed is a technology consultant; a global citizen who has worked and lived in the Americas and the Middle East.

Filed Under: News Talk! Tagged With: , ,

From Tunis to Egypt: Democracy in Subtitles

January 29, 2011 By Firouzeh Afsharnia 11 Comments
163630_147279308664078_100001460287782_275990_2626182_t

A simple fruit vendor sets himself ablaze in the sleepy hinterlands of Tunis as he finally snaps under the weight of the injustice of his life — and overnight nothing is as it was before. Martyr turned national hero, his scorched body triggers a deep pool of imbedded resentments from Algeria to Jordan and Yemen; and finally hundreds of thousands explode on the streets of Alexandria and Cairo, demanding change, screaming for justice and telling their unelected leaders to go home. Enough!


Captions across the international press are calling it the Tunisian “virus” – like a disease that is slowly taking contagion, putting long corrupt regimes on notice.

Algeria promptly took measures to step up grain imports on the theory that revolutionaries are less inclined to revolutionize on a full stomach; and Libya’s Ghaddafi, himself a 42 year veteran of a corrupt rule has denounced foreign plots and Wikileaks for being behind the intrigues.

Within days the 23-year patronage rule of President Ben Ali of Tunis came to an end as he and his entourage packed their Vuitton bags and boarded a plane for Saudi Arabia. What is it about this desert kingdom that makes it such a popular destination for dictators on the run?

After unprecedented curfew defying demonstrations across Egypt, Mr. Mubarak came out to face his people, promising a new cabinet. The old one he says was defective — a fantastic position in view of the fact that he is the one making all the decisions.

The winds of democracy have started to blow across a region whose demographic profile is textbook for such movements – young, unemployed, repressed and reviling their leaders. No wonder Allah is so popular in that part of the world — which brings us to the delicate balance of all things Middle East: The U.S. – Democracy – Islam and the Peace Process.

The Obama administration is admittedly in an awkward position, negotiating the balance between support for their anchor leader in the region and … well — the people of the region. The choices are to either abandon an ally and risk being thrown to the Islamic wolves; or walk the talk of Democracy, even if for no other reason than to prove to whoever is still listening that Iraq and Afghanistan were selfless adventures in nation building. They would be lucky if El Baradei is allowed political space before things get too out of hand. More likely, in a region where El Baradei and the U.N. is interpreted as U.S. influence, that prospect may be a delusion entertained by the same people clueless enough to think leaders like Mubarak could be viable allies in fostering peace.

Mubarak like others before him is making all the predictable arguments about the proverbial “fine line” between chaos and freedom – clichés used by every strong man from the Shah of Iran and Pinochet to the present day Saleh of Yemen and the Saudi family to justify repression. More important, he is the appointed regional crusader on the war on terror. Leaders of his generation are cartoon cutouts from the cold war era, simply having replaced the word “Communist Threat” by “Islamic Fundamentalist Threat” and pocketing military and development aid to suppress domestic dissent under its guise.

Meanwhile – two very large elephants look on from the wings. Iran’s position is no doubt as awkward as that of the United States. On one hand the Iranians rejoice at the thought of toppling one of the “moderate” Arabs who supports Israel, who has a strong alliance with the U.S. and who despises their “Islamic” brand. Framing the uprising as such, they hope that the crumbling of the Egyptian regime could open up a floodgate for the Muslim Brotherhood allowing Iran to forge stronger ties across such movements in the region.

On the other hand however, the Iranians shudder at the angry street images that are reminiscent of their own Green uprising in the summer of 2009 and fear the inspiration and renewed momentum that it could bring to a dormant but very real movement.

Time is running out as the protestors get increasingly angry, some asking the U.S. to take a more defined position against Mubarak whose only wining card is to stress his special role as the great stabilizer and “fixer” in the Israel-Palestine conflict. But upon taking a closer look at the power dynamics which have emerged, and as amply clear by the release of the Palestinian Papers, the peace process has long been defunct – duly reduced to a perpetual episodic reality show whose only aim is to sustain the livelihoods of the actors involved through billions in U.S. aid, and to sell a few items during the commercial breaks.

The sole reason for existence of players like the Palestinian Authority and Mubarak is precisely to perpetuate the illusion of a “process” in an orchestrated melodrama where the final act leaves the audience hanging for the next installment. To understand this point is to realize that once the play is resolved, the function of the likes of Mubarak and the PA will be over and the actors will have to go home.

The most interesting and revealing comment yet comes from Israel who is forever boasting of the strength of its own democracy, asserting that it is the only such state in the region. Remarkably, the Israeli Minister interviewed on condition of anonymity expressed his confidence that the Egyptian leader would prevail and said that “the Jewish state has faith in the security apparatus of its most formidable Arab neighbor to suppress the street demonstrations.” He further added, “I’m not sure the time is right for the Arab region to go through democratic process”.

Reading the subtitles on the concerns of all those involved, it makes one wonder — who is really not yet ready for democracy in the region.

Filed Under: Can We Talk?!!, Egypt, Elections, Iran, Middle East and Beyond, Politics, Conflict, Africa, Middle East, Yemen Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Of Rapes and Reports: With friends like this….

August 30, 2010 By Firouzeh Afsharnia Leave a Comment

Last week was eventful for avid Congo watchers like myself. First – a story about the violent rape of almost 200 women in Walikale, a contentious territory where Congolese battalions and ex-genocidaire FDLR compete over control of local tin and gold mines. What was curious about this episode was that the gang rapes took place over a four-day period a scant 20 miles away from a U.N. base, which only learnt about the incidents ten days after they happened.

Also interesting was that the day the rapes began, U.N. alerted the humanitarian groups operating in the area to the presence of armed rebels in the precise location where the attacks took place implying they should have known and secured the area. So this further confuses me. Were they scared and stayed away? Or did they simply not care? This would not be the first time. When General Nkunda marched into Kisangani in 2002 and massacred over a hundred and sixty people; and then again in 2004 when Bukavu was practically handed over, hundreds of peacekeepers were present but remained in their barracks. There are other examples.

Predictably, the familiar expressions of “outrage” and “concern” filled the airwaves followed by the usual demands that “all parties in the conflict immediately cease all forms of sexual violence and human rights abuses against the population in the Democratic Republic of Congo;” – not that anybody ever cares or listens to these declarations. If there is any reception, the rebels are more likely listening to the lively sounds of Soukous on Radio Okapi to set the proper mood as they go about their daily pillages. This must be especially frustrating considering the U.N. recently redubbed its Mission a “stabilization” force, implying that the worse was over.

And then – the explosive U.N. mapping report was made public detailing gross human rights violations between 1993 and 2003 in eastern DRC. The report focuses on a ten-year period that includes an alphabet soup of violations against many different groups – Katangans against Kasaiians; indigenous versus immigrants; soldiers against citizens — but what has been singled out are allegations of gross human rights violations perpetrated by the Rwandan Army against the Hutu population in the Congo in 1996-1997. And it uses the G-word. It goes like this: “ …the systematic massacres of Hutus on Congolese territories which could be constituted as acts of genocide….only if proven before a court.” It’s non-committal – but just enough to be trouble.

Kigali is incensed to say the least, in light of the fact that nobody bothered to interview or get their side of the story, and have threatened to pull their troops from various peacekeeping forces like the Sudan. Hutu groups still in exile since the genocide and not able to return – for good reason I may add – are ecstatic! Finally, they say, the real victims are identified and the Tutsi hoax is revealed!

Notwithstanding the rightful pursuit of justice, and the need to avenge every man, woman and child who has been murdered in this greatest of all African wars, I wonder if the wider impact of this report on the ongoing efforts to bring peace and stability to the unfortunate people living in the region who happen to be still alive was considered.

That the RPA murdered thousands as they marched on, consolidated their power, then raided and closed the camps is no secret. The story was not given oxygen in international media in an effort to present a clear picture of good versus evil, to mobilize international aid and assuage the guilt of bystanders who failed to act in the fateful 100 days of the Rwandan Genocide and now needed to make amends. But the use of the word genocide to describe the ongoing aftermath of the hostilities in Congo, when according to its own admission, the report is “not based on the same standards of evidence as needed in an international court;…..lacking sufficient admissibility,” questions its wisdom and wonders if all the elements needed to contextualize such a conclusion has been taken into account.

The report refers to AFDL/APR/FAB, which includes a myriad of Ugandan, Rwandan and Burundian forces. Yet the Rwandan Army stands out as the main perpetrator. Furthermore, an allegation of genocide necessitates proof of a command structure with the intent to destroy in whole or in part an ethnic group – namely the Hutu population in the Congo. Was there in fact a master plan backed by the RPA to annihilate the Hutus in the Congo in 1996-1997? If so, how do we account for the peaceful resettlement of hundreds of thousands more with the help and facilitation of the RPA as attested by UNHCR and relief organizations at the time. Indeed if identification of Hutus and their extermination was part of the retaliation plan, why the subsequent push to eliminate all ethnic classifications from identity cards?

The Rwandan genocide happened under the watch of the resident U.N. Mission who failed to act due to incompetence, negligence and political expediencies of its member states.

As over a million fled the violence across the border, international relief agencies under the umbrella of the U.N. failed to act to prevent the replication of Hutu Power in Zairian camps blindly following mandates that treated refugees and criminals alike.

As Hutu Power slowly resurrected in the refugee camps under the loving care of the U.N. and international NGOs, they regrouped and mobilized into a new military force – the FDLR, who continued to terrorize and massacre the local population, frequently targeting Tutsis.

By 1996, FDLR and the Hutu government in exile were conducting routine raids across the border, mining roads, attacking genocide survivors, murdering witnesses and those willing to be repatriated all the while presenting themselves as the real victims and denouncing the 1994 Genocide as a Tutsi lie. Kigali’s repeated pleas to dismantle the camps fell on deaf ears. The relief mandate continued blindly for all the displaced, including murderers fleeing persecution for crimes of genocide.

“Dismantle the camps, or we will” — It was in part due to yet another in a series of failures of the international community that the Rwandan forces finally invaded.

After sixteen years and billions of dollars spent, FDLR continues to be a menace in the region, arming and replicating, forming alliances with local warlords, militia and Congolese soldiers; making a living by killing and displacing civilians in order to maintain control of lucrative mining territories all the while presenting themselves as the victims of a Tutsi conspiracy and demanding to negotiate with Kigali.

At a time the U.N. is fixing to leave the Congo, this report comes to them as god sent, inadvertently providing much needed leverage to present the FDLR as the protectors of the displaced Hutus and as viable negotiating partners to Kigali – imagine — war criminals newly legitimized as victims by an official report of a respected international organization.

Going back to the recent rapes, the U.N. spokesman mentioned they were not informed; they did not know. It appears that the U.N. patrols twice passed through the main village where the mass rapes took place and still no one told them anything. Congo’s top U.N. official, Mr. Meece said he “could not explain the villagers’ silence” perhaps it was cultural shame, perhaps a fear of reprisal.

I think that after so many years of let downs by local and international authorities, perhaps they thought, what’s the point.

Filed Under: Africa, Can We Talk?!!, Congo, Rwanda, United_Nations Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,