Shameless bragging: Overall, I've had over 5,000 hits on my blog since it was first created, it's not quite comparable to YouTube, but it's a start.
Secondly, my friend Tim did an amazing stand-up comedy routine last night at an Arab cultural night thrown at Georgetown.
Here are the links below: (Not for young children or those offended easily... honestly)
Part 1:
Part 2:
Back to the research papers...
Israel's 60th Marked by Party, Protest
Yesterday marked the 60th anniversary of Israel’s creation as an independent state. On Copley Lawn, the Georgetown Israel Alliance hosted a birthday party. There was free food, hookah and a moon bounce.
And there were protesters.
About 30 demonstrators, many of whom were graduate students, wore black shirts, tape over their mouths and, in many cases, neck scarves. They did not speak but handed out quarter sheets with a cartoon and short message; one held a poster-sized version of the quarter sheet which began, “Our presence is a gesture toward the many for whom the passing of these 60 years is not marked by celebration.”
“We did not want this event to be summarized by conflict,” GIA Co-President Roy Daiany (COL ’08) said. The goal of the event was to celebrate Israeli culture and independence; organizers wanted to show what Israel is like and make it more accessible to people, Daiany said.
The protest began in Red Square, where the silent demonstrators were blocked from the Israel Alliance’s festivities by barricades set up by the Department of Public Safety. After a few minutes, event organizers allowed the protesters to walk onto Copley Lawn and to sit on the grass surrounding the event as long as confrontation did not ensue. The protest remained silent and nonviolent.
Harald Fuller-Bennett (GRD ’09), one of the organizers of the protest, said the idea for the demonstration started when he saw a poster for the event in Lauinger Library reading, “Israel: Still Sexy at 60,” which he found “offensive.”
In response, Fuller-Bennett made 8.5 by 11-inch flyers that said, “Whatever you think about Israel, whatever you think about Palestine, is this sexy?” which he put up next to the Israel Alliance’s posters. On Fuller-Bennett’s poster were two pictures: one of a wounded Israeli soldier and the other of a dead Palestinian child.
Fuller-Bennett said the word “sexy” was withdrawn within a few days.
“It was kind of a marketing slogan,” said David Denker, co-president of GIA. “We didn’t want to offend anyone.”
Denker said members of the Students for Justice in Palestine group approached the GIA and said the slogan was offensive. Denker said GIA members were “surprised and disturbed” that people were offended and that GIA appreciated that they came forward. The phrase was not used in any future advertisements.
Fuller-Bennett said he thought the protest was a success.
“I think we did a good job representing the people who have been displaced by this,” he said. “People saw us and saw what our message was.”
Daiany said that GIA supports free speech and that he thought the event was a success. “We ordered food for 500 people, and we were out by the end,” he said.
Debbie Reichmann, Jewish outreach coordinator in the Office of Campus Ministry, said she recognized the long-standing conflict surrounding Israel.
“There has been loss on all sides and there has been pain,” she said. “Solutions are not easy.”
Reichmann said the students involved in the celebration reacted appropriately to the protests. She also said that protests are part of the learning experience at a university.
“Hopefully there’ll be a lot of lessons learned,” she said.
The Middle East
The Gaza Bombshell
After failing to anticipate Hamas’s victory over Fatah in the 2006 Palestinian election, the White House cooked up yet another scandalously covert and self-defeating Middle East debacle: part Iran-contra, part Bay of Pigs. With confidential documents, corroborated by outraged former and current U.S. officials, David Rose reveals how President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Deputy National-Security Adviser Elliott Abrams backed an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and leaving Hamas stronger than ever.
by David Rose April 2008
Condoleezza Rice and George W. Bush
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804?printable=true¤tPage=all
2008-04-02
The Controversy Over the Cartoons
We must find a way to get out of the vicious cycle by refusing to add fuel to the fire. Only then can we enter into a serious and level-headed debate. Essentially, we must recognize that the controversy does not symbolize a conflict between enlightenment and religious principles, but that what is needed is for believers and atheists alike to engage in rational discussion, says Noureddine Jebnoun.
Inalienable Dogmas Against Unassailable Values
Public opinion’s level of tolerance is extremely inconsistent. No respectable journalist would publish a cartoon that makes fun of the blind, homosexuals, or Jews—more out of fear that it would be considered in bad taste than of a lawsuit. The case of the Danish cartoon showing the Prophet Mohammed with a turban shaped like a bomb demonstrates that bad taste is more easily tolerated when it comes to Islam. What shocks the average Muslim is not the depiction of the Prophet, but the existence of this double standard.
After the cartoon’s publication, governments eager to prove their loyalty to Islam and legitimize themselves in the eyes of their constituents fanned the flames of resentment among Muslims, while European politicians, intellectuals, journalists, and advocates of freedom of expression quickly presented themselves as ready to battle religious fundamentalism in the name of Western values. With these polarized positions, we find ourselves faced with a gross oversimplification: a supposed clash of civilizations in which the idea of the inalienable right of freedom of expression and the principle of the unassailable sphere of the sacred confront each other. Presented in these terms, the debate has turned into an arm-wrestling match. Muslims want apologies, and threaten European interests and lives. Western governments and journalists refuse to fold under such threats, and media outlets take turns publishing the cartoon. Most of the world observes it all with confusion.
We must find a way to get out of this vicious cycle by refusing to add fuel to the fire. Only then can we enter into a serious, profound, and level-headed debate. Essentially, we must recognize that this controversy does not symbolize a conflict between enlightenment and religious principles, but that what is needed is for believers and atheists alike to engage in rational discussion. What’s more, the cultural division at play is not between the West and Islam, but between those who know how to affirm who they are without blindly attaching themselves to faith or reason and those who let themselves get carried away by absolutes, stereotypes, and hasty conclusions. Such character traits are equally shared in both Western and Islamic societies by intellectuals, religious scholars, journalists, and others. In light of the serious divisions that the latter group can create, the call for sensible dialogue is all the more urgent.
Islam forbids the portrayal of the Prophets under any circumstances, not only because of the fundamental respect owed them, but as a means to avoid all temptations of idolatry. Plain and simple, portraying a Prophet is a serious transgression. If, in addition, we recognize the utter thoughtlessness in the Danish portrayal, we understand Muslims’ widespread shock and rejection of it, even from those who are not religiously observant. It was therefore appropriate that Muslims express themselves and be heard in light of this controversy. Yet, it was also important that they not forget that for three centuries, Western society has grown accustomed to mockery, irony, and criticism when it comes to religious history and symbols such as the Pope, Christ, and even God. Though Muslims do not share this attitude, it is imperative that they learn to consider it with intellectual detachment and refuse to be dragged into an ill-advised radical fervor. What impedes Muslim communities today is the obsession with excuses, calls for boycotts, and threats of physical and armed repression. Such tactics are completely out of proportion, and should be rejected and condemned. The best course of action would have been for Muslims to educate the public—without making a fuss—about their principles and values, while waiting for a more appropriate time for calm debate.
However, those who invoke freedom of expression to give themselves the right to say anything, by any means, against anyone, is an equally irresponsible—and erroneous—attitude. It is simply not true that all is permitted in the name of this freedom. Each country has laws that allow, for example, the condemnation of racial slurs, as well as a body of more informal regulations that correspond to the culture, traditions, and collective psychology of the society. Such rules regulate relations between individuals within a diverse nation and impose respect. Yet Muslim immigration has changed the makeup of European societies, and with this change has come a pronounced acceptance of Islamophobia and a carelessness in how Muslims are portrayed in both word and image.
Rather than invoking freedom of expression as a way to allow any type of statement, would it not be better to call on citizens to take into account sensibilities that make up our contemporary societies? It is not a matter of adding laws or restricting free speech. We should simply ask everyone to use their rights in a reasonable manner by exhibiting thoughtful civil behavior. Muslim citizens are not asking for more censorship; they are simply asking for more respect. We do not issue legal decrees for mutual respect; we teach it in the name of a liberal, responsible, and reasonable citizenship.
We are at a crossroads at which we have an urgent need for mutual trust. The time has come for us to resist false divisions and, instead, build bridges between two worlds that have more principles in common than they do differences. We should affirm freedom of expression but, at the same time, advocate a sense of restraint as far as its use is concerned. This can be accomplished by promoting necessary self-criticism and condemning excessive truths and blanket statements.
The cartoon crisis shows us a worst-case scenario in which two camps do not hear each other and continue to invoke stereotypes—and which extremists have not hesitated to exploit. If the men and women who cherish liberty, who understand the importance of mutual respect, and who are aware of the necessity for critical and constructive dialogue do not commit themselves more visibly and resist the divisive forces of our time, then it is with certainty that I believe a dark and painful future awaits us. At the end of the day, it is for us to decide.
Noureddine Jebnoun is an adjunct professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Contemporary Arab Studies.
It’s amazing to me how listening to a familiar song can transport me to a different time and place, a place associated with a catchy tune or an emotion-stirring beat. I associate Baba O’Riley from The Who’s album Who’s Next with Vernazza, Italy. The first time I really started listening to that CD was during a trip with my Dad to Italy in the summer of 2001. Italy still used the Lira for its currency, and Cinque Terre still had more Italians than tourists.
Arriving by train our first day in Vernazza, we wandered the streets until a little old lady named Signora Baranca invited us to stay in an extra room in her house. The room was small and cozy, with a double bed reserved for the larger of the two travelers… Old Man Helms. Attached to our room was a little balcony with steep metal stairs leading up to the rooftop garden where our signora grew plants and did her laundry in the morning as she sang melancholic Italian songs in her decaying voice. Our balcony looked over a little alleyway where chubby Italian children played soccer in the morning in between bites of pastries.
Our first night there, I decided to sleep on the roof as the bed was too small and its occupant a bit too gassy. Hiking up the steep stairs against the wishes of my father who envisioned me sleep-walking over the rail and into the alley four-stories below, I grabbed my sheet and settled into a lounge chair on the roof. This is where my music-induced memories begin.
Warm summer Italian nights, swirling masses of starts in the Italian sky, century-old church bells punctuating the calm of the night, and the warm sea breeze drifting in from the nearby shore. As the song ebbs and flows in my ears I see the dewy sunrise, and smell the delicious scents of baking pastries and freshly ground coffee beans. Signora Baranca nearly has a heart attack as she arrives to do laundry in the morning unaware of my presence. The din of breakfast utensils hitting ceramic plates drifts my way punctuating my morning dreams along with eccentric songs of an aging Italian man.
The slower melody of the song picks up again as the song nears its end. Beats swirl faster and faster and images hold pace; hiking the surrounding countryside, butterflies in my stomach as I leap from the cliffs into the sea, strange Italian women putting their toe in my ear, parades, soccer matches, loud music, anchovies, quicker and quicker.
And then the end of the song… silence, only the sweet sound of church bells ringing in my ears as I return to my desk in rainy DC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
