Who is Ezra Nawi?

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot be simply defined by religious, racial or historical terms. It is dangerous for a non-Israeli or a non-Palestinian to take sides because the situation is extremely layered in complexities.

Moreover, it is impossible to view in the situation in terms of black and white or moral and immoral. The Palestinian side is divided, the most famous of which is between Hamas and Fatah.

What you don't often see in the cable news channels is the divisions among Israelis. The media has failed to present the folks who do not readily subscribe to the prevailing notion of an Israeli Jew.

One account is Ezra Nawi. In an article in The Nation, he reveals the "culture of deceit that has taken over all official discourse relating to the Occupied Palestinian Territories," in Israel. His account is deeply moving and a provocative reminder of the ongoing strife that is continually difficult to deal with.

Despite petitions on Nawi's behalf, he will be sentenced in July after the courts found him guilty of "assaulting two police officers in 2007 while struggling against the demolition of a Palestinian house in Um El Hir, located in the southern part of the West Bank."

Even more tragic is that he was found guilty by the same bodies that promote and enable grave injustice against humanity. He elucidates:

Was I the one who beat young Palestinian children?

Did I hit the elderly?

Did I poison the Palestinian residents' sheep?

Did I demolish homes and destroy tractors?

Did I block roads and restrict movement?

Was I the one who prevented people from connecting their homes to running water and electricity?

Did I forbid Palestinians from building homes?

Over the past eight years, I have seen with my own two eyes hundreds of abuses such as these and exposed them to the public--therefore I am considered a provocateur. I can only say that I am proud to be a provoker.

Because I am a provoker, the police together with their allies have threatened me, beaten me and arrested me on numerous occasions. And when I continued to "provoke" them, they did not hesitate to out me as a gay man; indeed, they spread rumors among the Palestinians with whom I work that I have AIDS.

One of the reasons I have been singled out has to do with who I am. It is difficult to explain, but as a Mizrahi Jew (descended from Jewish communities in the Arab and Muslim world), a gay man and a plumber, I do not belong to the elite of Israeli society and do not fit the stereotype of the Israeli peacenik--namely, an intellectual Jew of Ashkenazi decent. Actually, the police officers who constantly arrest me and I are part of the same social strata. I was programmed like them, have a similar accent, know their jargon and our historical background is comparable. And yet, in their eyes I am on and for the other side, the Palestinian side.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has proven itself to be so enduring, that it even outlives plagues and wars. Even in the spirit of hope, Pres. Obama does not seem to be a promising agent of change in this foreign policy area.

"They only happen because this whole country is just full of people, who when these things happen, they just say these things happen,"

"and that's why they happen!" (It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World)


I don't feel bad for Gov. Sanford and Sen. Ensign. But I do sympathize with their families (especially the kids!) and their friends.

And it must suck to be in the Republican Party right now.

Via The Stakeholder, polls conducted this month show approval ratings for the Republican Party between 29-36%:
And I doubt these recent events will bode well for the GOP, since good ol' fashioned family values is seem to constitute a significant reason for the Obamas' popularity.

I'm not surprised at all by Ensign's and Sanford's recent admissions, since I've come to believe that those God-fearin' types (or those that align themselves with,) that fiercely propagate family values of "Pro-America," commit the most insane abominations in the political and social spheres.

Upon learning about Sanford's extracurricular activity in Argentina, I was quickly reminded of comments Angie Harmon gave in an interview with Foxnews.com:

I think one of the greatest things about the Republican Party is the understanding, we don't point fingers and we have class...

Classy means:
-cheating on your wife
-cheating on your wife with a staffer
-cheating on your wife with a staffer who's husband is also one of your staffers
-giving your mistress/staffer a raise
-"disappearing" to meet with your Argentinian mistress

Seems like the GOP is very empathetic since the question of resignations have yet to be discussed.

---
After reading John Dickerson, I want to clarify some things. Cheating on your spouse is not a GOP thing. Obviously. It's endemic among people in power. But I think it proves that social/religious values should not be integrated in politics.

Don't tout family/Christian values and use it to defend your position on abortion & same-sex marriage. The Bible has a special place in your home or church, but not in Congress.

Even good people make huge mistakes. But if politicians want the public to trust them based on merit alone, then don't stuff religious values into policy-making.

We won't mess with your personal lives, if you don't mess with ours.

Repeat Assault

My ears embraced the sounds of The Deadly Syndrome live on two occasions, and as a result, they are my favorite indie band. And the melody of this song is hammered into my head:

Major wagging of the finger

The dorms at UCLA already look like the Bellagio as it is--now they're saying they are: "Army of workers rush to turn dorms into conference digs for summer."

But I do miss the dorm food (trust me, the meals are exquisite).

"This is not about the United States or the West, this is about the people of Iran, and the future that they-and only they-will choose."

Obama held a press conference today and his first topic of discussion (and the bulk of the questions afterward) focused on Iran. John Nichols of The Nation blogged about the fine line Obama must walk:

More bluntly than at any point yet, Obama decried the violence.

"The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings and imprisonments of the last few days," he declared. "I strongly condemn these unjust actions."

Even that may not have been so bold a statement as Obama's Republican critics have been calling for -- and that some European leaders have issued. But the president's other statements on the crisis offered a reminder of the tightrope the president is walking with regard to Iran.

Because of the US invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and because the Bush-Cheney administration so frequently poked at Iran -- rhetorically and practically -- the United States is seen as a manipulative player in the region.

We don't know what will happen in Iran, but Obama is treading the waters cautiously and with the cunning we have come to expect.

Word?!!

Los Angeles Times | June 22, 2009 | 10:20 p.m. PT
---
Iran's Guardian Council won't nullify election
It said it could find no evidence of any "major" irregularities, according to the website of state-owned Press TV satellite news channel.

Council says most alleged problems took place before the election.

“There's something happening here / What it is ain't exactly clear / There’s a man with a gun over there / Telling me I got to beware”

As promised, I’m here to deliver my opinion on whether external players, especially President Obama, should intervene in Iran. I believe he shouldn't. In fact, I implore the President to not do so.

Quite a few smart people have been saying so, like Trita Parsi, the president of the National Iranian American Council.

Obama shouldn’t (and hasn’t) taken bold action on the situation. So far, the president has only delivered a strongly worded statement on Iran, urging the authorities to quell the violence against the protesters:

The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

Martin Luther King once said - "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.

In this statement and in his actions (or lack thereof thus far on the issue, he has proven his political acumen and his knowledge of American-Iranian history.

Prior to 1979, the West didn’t have a great reputation with many of the people of Iran, especially the ulama (religiouis scholars). In brief, below is a rundown of some of the events that created the basis of anti-Western feelings in Iran and part of the basis for establishing the Islamic Republic.

(Caveats: a) I'm an history/political science enthusiast, not expert, b) Brief really means brief. - So please let me know if I'm a total d.b. for posting inaccuracies or for withholding vital information.)

When the Qajars were in power (1794-1925), two important incidents highlight the reason for the anti-western flavor that existed in some elements of Persian society.

The Reuter Concession & the Tobacco Revolt: The Qajars developed a rep for being corrupt. At times, they conceded aspects of their economy (like giving the British a monopoly on their tobacco industry) to fund their selfish and flamboyant desires at the expense of Persia. (Kim Jong-il must have picked up a thing or two about from the Qajars.) But the ulama united with the merchants (and the general public) to fight the unjust concessions and were successful. Thus, authorities who dabbled with the West did not always sit well with the ulama and general population because they did not seem to serve the public interest.

And then the US literally steps in when the CIA unseats Mossadeq: After WWI, a coup put the Pahlavis in power. Pahlavi Shah (a secular modernizer along the lines of Ataturk) gave the West access to one of the country’s most vital resources—oil. Essentially, this development begat the rise of Mohammad Mossdeq and the National Front.

Mossadeq had the support from the ulama because he was anti-Western and wanted to nationalize Iranian oil. When the Shah of Iran (Muhammad Reza) tries to dismiss the popular Prime Minister Mossadeq, a national revolt transpires in discontent. The ever-resourceful and conniving CIA unseats Mossadeq and the Shah returns to power (in 1953) and is very pro-Western in his policies. Then, by the 1960s and 1970s, Iran becomes a police state.

While the Shah is in power, a religious cleric, Ruhollah Khomeini, is boiling with frustration. Khomeini studied under the leading ulama in Iran and was very interested in philosophy and mystical thought. Khomeini developed the doctrine of vilayet-i faqih (guardianship of the jurist) which became the basis for an Islamic state. It is written in his book, Hukumat-i Islami (Islamic government).

It says:

• Political authority should lie in the ulama because they are the trustees of the authority of the imams, who are the vice regents of God, duh.
• The unity of the umma (Islamic community), the liberation of the Islamic homeland from occupation and the imperialists, and the unity/freedom of Muslims depend on overthrowing imperialist-backed, oppressive government. Because of this, an Islamic government of justice must be installed.

So, as we know, the protests were intense and the Shah fled. After he threw in the towel, Khomeini made a triumphant return to Iran and the rest is history.

Given the history of Western oppression and intervention in Iran (politically and economically), and the principle of vilayet-i faqih, President Obama’s tacit response on Iran is right on point.

A bold response or action would play into the rhetoric of the Iranian authorities, especially the most conservative elements who don’t give a rat’s bum for democracy. A response would only serve to feed the legitimacy and the basis of the Islamic Republic’s foundation—Western oppression and interference. And this would hold major ramifications for the protesters.

It is unclear at this point what is going to happen. We don’t know if it’ll be a repeat of 1979, with a complete turnaround in government and the end of the Islamic Republic, or a Tiananmen-style crackdown that hushes the opposition.

I do believe we are witnessing a pivotal point in the history of the Islamic Republic. The truth will prevail, in shaa' allaah.

"Use truth as your anvil, nonviolence as your hammer and anything that does not stand the test when it is brought to the anvil of truth and hammered with nonviolence, reject it." - Mahatma Ghandi

"Sleep is a symptom of caffeine deprivation." -Unknown author (via @anncurry)

In college, I consumed coffee like a panda consumes bamboo (20-30 lbs of bamboo a day!). Sometimes, I found myself replacing meals with coffee (the lowest points of my life.)

These days, I only need one glass of coffee a day to keep me vibrant.

I'm bringing this up because I sort off miss the carefree days of college where the main sources of stress came from upcoming exams and research papers yet to be started the night before the deadline. And I miss finding creative ways to study at work, volunteering with PREP, and especially the PREP students!

But most of all, I miss the ladies of BMV. The apt. has to be emptied by the end of the month. I lived with those lovely ladies for three wonderful years. And in those three years, we laughed incessantly, cried together sometimes, inebriated ourselves to the point of no return, and supported and encouraged each other everyday.

I also can't think about BMV without mentioning the guys upstairs who practically lived with us and basked with us in Westwood with our rose-tinted glasses.

Together, we are "Friends" incarnate. Maybe better.

"I'm a movement by myself but I'm a force when we're together."
- Ptolemy (j/k...)

X-mas before we instituted the $1.00 per gift rule.

After the hike, we went to Arby's.

O Bar

Our last hurrah together before M. moved to Chicago and before I migrated North.


The cutest and most provocative member of our family, Julian.

"Tobias was a never-nude, which is exactly what it sounds like."

I am profoundly sorry that I have not posted a follow-up piece on the tumultuous situation in Iran. I promise to post a caustic and historically accurate piece tonight!

My absence is due to season 1 of "Arrested Development," which I purchased for a paltry $17. (What a steal!)

I've also been [somewhat] fierce on the job-hunt and I'm still working through my old Arabic work. Peet's is very conducive to productivity.

In the meantime, I urge you all to follow the #iranelection on Twitter and the NYT coverage of the situation.

Ma'a Assalama!

Let's hope they don't bring out the army tanks

Iran’s government keeps digging holes for themselves. The more they try to silence journalists, photographers, and protestors, the more they’ll have to answer later.

Should the Islamic Republic want to continue, they need to at least appear concerned and interested in the welfare of their people, especially the protestors. If over 60% of Iran’s population is less than 30, the Iranian government needs to do more to appeal to them. They are more technologically savvy, more exposed to Western culture, and are too young to remember the revolution or were born after the revolution and can only rely on their parents’ memories and ideals.

Rather than roll out the tanks, Ayatollah Ali Khameini should be bolder and simply state that there were flaws that need to be addressed during the ballot count. A partial recount sounds ridiculous and a shameful way to appease the discontented crowds. The legitimacy of the Islamic Republic is already tarnished. But should Ayatollah Ali Khameini bring a hard crackdown on the protestors, the Islamic Republic will face an even bigger problem on their hands, that is, a new revolution.

Nobody wants to see college students crushed by tanks. More force will only create more disenchanted Iranians and even worse, a disenchanted generation of young people ready to fight back.

Overall, it's a hot mess:

“It is a very complicated situation,” said Abbass Abdi, a political scientist in Tehran. “People feel humiliated because they came and voted in large numbers. On the other hand, it is very difficult for the establishment to admit fraud because its legitimacy would go under question. - "Protesters Defy Iranian Efforts to Cloak Unrest," NYT, 06/17/09

The legitimacy of the Republic is already under question. But I doubt the authorities are even thinking about relinquishing their power. But, let us not forget: "The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is." -Winston Churchill

The Revolution Will Be Twitterised/YouTubed/Flickred/Blogged

I am ecstatic to see that websites with user-generated content are recognizing the imperative role they play in perilous times. Iran's government can try to contain the havoc by blocking Facebook and text messaging, but the voices of people's discontentment will persevere via computer geeks and anyone growing up as AOL rabidly sent software with 30-day free trials to every home.

I've been feverisly following the Iran's post-election coverage through all the possible outlets. It's insane. I wish I knew what the student protesters of Tienanmen Square are thinking about all this.

Who suffers more?

How do you measure and compare the plight of two different groups subjected to the most inhumane suffering?

In Obama's historic speech in Cairo on Thursday, he compared the plight of Palestinians to the racism and inequality experienced by Black Americans in the post-slaver and pre-civil era. He goes on to say that the Palestinians have a legitimate aspiration to have their own state.

Obama was even-handed in his speech, reminding audiences that the Jewish people faced humiliation and persecution for centuries in Europe and were subjected to one of the worst genocides in modern history.

But not everyone was happy with his speech. Some decided to cling to some aspects of it and simultaneously forgetting other parts in order to add legitimacy to their baseless arguements. There were a lot of negative comments floating around after the speech. But the one that stifles me the most is this:

via NYT:

“I understand Palestinian suffering, it is terrible,” said Abraham Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League. “But it is not on the other hand to the Holocaust.”

But how do you compare suffering?

Does the group that suffers the most deserve a homeland?

Does the group that suffers the most have more legitimate aspirations?

Can you place a numerical measurement on suffering and heartache?