Rage Becomes Her - gender roles

Every woman knows these things. 
Every man needs to read this book: Rage Becomes Her

This is so vivid for me. I didn't see myself in the supporting role in ET, Flight of the Navigator or Neverending Story. Being a tomboy, which is kind of a stupid name for it, I was forced to grapple with things like what's wrong with me? and do I really want to be a boy? As it turned out, I did want to be a girl, I just didn't understand why adults felt uncomfortable with everything I liked. I just chalked it up to adults being adults - they did so much that I felt had larger meaning but I was at a loss for understanding anything but the immediate and tangible. I still don't understand their discomfort. I did eventually, slowly, painfully, conform mostly to gender norms, but I hope that didn't entirely crush my spirit. I wish I still had a child's obliviousness sometimes so that I could press on with what I wanted instead of giving others what they expect from me.

There is a picture of me at age 5 or 6 wearing a pink frilly dress and clunky brown ET shoes, representing a concession. My mom was extremely disappointed that I wouldn't wear dresses to school like all the other girls. I unsuccessfully fought it every Sunday. She was so happy to have a girl as her first child so she could dress me up. I was thinking only that I couldn't play soccer, run and hang on the monkey bars if i wore those things, not about gender norms or anyone's expectations. That was before I learned not to stand up for myself, I guess... I was allowed to wear pants except to church, it just came with the baggage that i was making someone unhappy for reasons i couldn't comprehend. It seemed completely arbitrary to me, so I fought for the functional.

quote on girls' cultural irrelevance:
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9465940-every-girl-learns-in-varying-degrees-to-filter-herself-through

quote on living in the cracks of a world made for men:
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9576684-as-women-we-are-continuously-told-to-live-in-the

#YesAllWomen and the combat zone that is our life

Again, a truth mostly unrelated to the topic I came on here to highlight:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/22/hillary-clinton-europe-must-curb-immigration-stop-populists-trump-brexit

**********************************************

Unladylike Episode 14: How to Shoot a Gun

https://unladylike.co/episodes/014/shoot-gun

In the first half of the podcast, they interview Dana of Trigger Warning, a Queer and Trans gun club in Atlanta and what she said struck me

At around 11 minutes, she talks about how the military's advice for going out during combat is the same advice we give girls and women about going out at all anywhere and about how that constant state of vigilance causes stress and messes with your head (after the quote, they talk stress).

"...what we tell our daughters and our sisters and our wives and our mothers to how to defend themselves and be aware of when they leave the house is the same mindset that we teach our soldiers to do when they go out on combat on patrols. And that's fucked up. When you go outside your house, pay attention to your surrounding at all times: head on a swivel. Be paying attention to your gut. Every place you go to judge whether that's a safe place to go. When people come to speak to you, be polite and respectful, but you always have to be thinking and preparing for if this dude freaks out and pulls a knife, what are you going to do."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My listening to this podcast now ties in perfectly with the book I'm reading - Rage Becomes Her by Soraya Chemaly. It really puts a name and words to much of the female identifying experience - the rage of inequality, not being "allowed" to express it or being told we're lying, and the stress that results from the erasure and denial.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9567707-in-the-classroom-it-was-almost-certainly-the-case-that

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Educated by Tara Westover

I finished Educated in just a few days. I was reading two other books, but put them aside for a few days and blew through this one. I couldn't put it down.

It was brilliantly written and it's absolutely amazing to see someone go through everything she did, the violence and physical abuse, bad luck and bad choices of her parents and come out the other side not only just alive but succeeding and creating.

If you had a religious upbringing, as I did, you may find it hard to read for other reasons. It really hits at the core of those beliefs and makes you reexamine. One quote really hit me hard.

She's talking here about one of her brothers' regular abuse, both verbal (calling her names like whore) and physical in contrast to how another of her brothers made her feel:

Suddenly that worth felt conditional, like it could be taken or squandered. It was not inherent; it was bestowed. What was of worth was not me, but the veneer of constraints and observances that obscured me.

But this is really very likely a common feeling for women and maybe women "of faith" as I was. Purity and chastity are drilled into you at every opportunity. Don't wear spaghetti straps, they're immodest. Your skin might cause a brother to stumble (the implication being- and then, well, it's your fault). Don't go to dances, you aren't allowed to move your body that way or let boys touch you (again, your fault is implied). There's no real sex education, just DON'T. Until marriage. Godly men are supposed to marry a virgin, so don't have sex. Do they have to be a virgin? No one really cares, they are preparing to be providers, so any indiscretions we'll sweep under the rug. Girls who have sex though, they are marked, they have a past, they are impure. And you grew up with the story of how Adam and Eve sinned and they got tossed out of the garden and Adam paid by having to work for a living and Eve by pain in childbirth. So there you go, there's your family structure. Created flawed by God so he can punish you your entire earthly life. 

Add to this the doctrine that salvation is conditional (2Peter 2:10). It's a hot topic in the religious world. But I associated salvation and baptism with love an acceptance of my parents, peers and church - basically the sum of my little world. It's supposed to have implications in the next world after death, but it entirely defines your view and interactions on this planet as well. Be saved and enjoy love and acceptance of church family and blood family or don't and be considered a sinner, an object of pity and embarrassment only to be associated with if the mission is to bring you back.

What I learned was that my worth was entirely dependent upon my modesty, virginity and compliance with church beliefs. There's no room for inherent worth there. There's no unconditional love. On the contrary, I grew up hearing every other Sunday that other liberal churches taught TOO MUCH about God's love. We don't talk about the consequences of sin enough. We don't preach about hell enough. We should talk about the hard things, not just love and peace all the time. Too much love??? Who on earth gets too much love or hears too much about love? I wish I'd been brave enough to scream I NEED TO HEAR ABOUT LOVE. Instead, I listened to sermon after sermon about hell and disfellowshipping unbelievers in our midst and faithfulness and the consequences of failing, of false prophets coming to us in sheep's clothing. I worried incessantly about staying home sick, hoping that I wouldn't be accused of forsaking the assembly (Heb 10:25). I nervously read letters from the elders when they ejected a person from the congregation for some sin or another, knowing they could really mount a case against anyone and that person would be gone. How much or how little did one have to do to get one of these? Who knew. The elders are in charge and what they say is law. Don't breathe. 

I grew up knowing for certain that life is a balancing act and I was worth nothing inherently, my value was bestowed, as Westover observed. Bestowed by my creator? Sort of. Conditionally. If I was a faithful servant of God. Who judges that- my dad, the church elders, the church collectively? My worth is bestowed. I am defined by constraints I didn't choose- be "modest", don't dance, don't have sex, don't drink, don't be a liberal. Virginity, attending services three times a week, no instruments in worship- those are the things with value. As long as you value these things, you too can have value.

Married to Another Man

Married to Another Man 

by Ghada Karmi

I did actually read this just after Pappe's The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. They are very similar, but from slightly different perspectives. Pappe gives a lot of background on the Israeli failings and Karmi gives more background on Palestinians that is typically known or acknowledged.

Karmi discusses Arab peace overtures that are often overlooked or totally dismissed. She also touches on the issue of connection or association (or lack thereof) between Israelites of the Bible and Jews of today. A very interesting part of the book was the discussion of the various peace efforts- we rarely heard what Arabs offered or thought, so it was fascinating to read something other than the US/Israel filtered news. Finally, the thing that drew me in was the promised discussion of a one state solution.

One thing that I vaguely remember and couldn't find when I went back to look for it in the book was that Soviet Christians were let into Israel as Jews. That would be interesting to find more about. I knew about them going to remote areas in Peru and things and converting people to bring into the country to "combat the demographic threat".

The vicious cycle was alluded to- The US calls Israel a strategic interest in the region, but if Israel weren't there or tried to integrate, those problems the US deals with wouldn't be there.

We are conditioned to assume that Palestinians won't stop terror, won't come the the peace table, and Israel has no partner for peace and that's why negotiations stall and the conflict isn't solved. This book can help you understand the whole picture and why things tend to stall.

At the beginning of chapter 7, she lays out all the advantages of two states versus two that I have listed in the past about settlers not having to go anywhere and refugees and Jewish immigrants being able to all be citizens, everyone has access to holy sites, everyone has freedom of movement, etc. I really hadn't thought much about the type to state, but she really goes into detail on different one state models, which was very interesting.

A binational state would imply some degree of separation. This would apparently be more palatable, but she also suggests it could be a phase on the road to a secular democracy (one person-one vote). I know very little of the Belgian, Czech and Swiss models, but it is interesting how they blend these on state models to fit the needs of their population.

Palestinians have advocated for one state before the renewed push of the 90s or 2000s. At that time, Israel accused them of trying to commit genocide or the equivalent when Palestinians should have been commended (by the international community) for wanting to share versus desiring a fair solution where the invaders/colonizers were sent packing. I myself have said something like this. I like this Karmi :)

The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe

The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe

See also:
Bab al Shams Elias Khoury- epic novel about Nakba
Possibly called Gate of the Sun?

This is a fascinating, but not necessarily easy read. Everything Israel has said Palestinians have done or wanted that is evil and immoral, Israel has actually done to the Palestinians. It's kind of an eye opener. I have always heard the counter claims to the Israeli myths or standard line, but I honestly didn't know what was true or not, so I took it with a grain of salt... but this book makes one take a hard look at what many people consider to be Palestinian propaganda--you'd be surprised how much of it is in fact true.

Americans maybe won't believe Pappe, or will call him a self hating Jew or a traitor, but he dispels Israel's founding myths (of victimhood especially) and leaves no doubt that Israel was and is engaged in ethnic cleansing and has even succeeded in cleansing history. The proof of the latter you sill find in talking to Israelis and Americans about the likelihood that ethnic cleansing or war crimes were committed by Israel in it's founding or currently. The proof of the former is apparently readily available in diaries and other historical records, yet everyone seems to ignore these. With operations named Broom and Scissors and your ethnic cleansing operations are referred to like tihur (cleansing), biur (as in get rid of the leavening agents for Passover) and nikkuy (and cleaning), the intent is obvious. Co-existence and peace were never really in the plan.

The first similarity that struck me between Israel's past and present crimes was how the leaders told one story of a second Holocaust and existential threats to the public and another story, one of knowledge of a superior military might and confidence was written in diaries, correspondence between leaders and private meetings. It essentially does the same today with complete success with the "Palestinians want to push Israel into the sea" myth and reference to it's offensive moves as retaliation.

There is apparently a pervasive Israeli history myth that April 1948 was a turning point in the so called "war" where Israeli troops switched from defense to offense after a near annihilation. In reality, Dec 1947- end of March 1948 saw the completion of the first stage of Plan Dalet and the attacks on Palestinians were more widespread than before.

It is commonly said that the Hagana was the regular army and wasn't privy to any ethnic cleansing- that was the splinter groups of the Irgun and Stern Gang who differed with the Hagana. This is to enforce the myth of "most moral army in the world". That's only part true- in the beginning. At the start, the Irgun would go off and do more than requested (attack rather than retaliate for a small offense or get additional villages not on the list) and maybe there would be an apology, but later it would be included in the Hagana's list of victories, so there was approval after the fact. The more extreme methods were even adopted by the Hagana and ethnic cleansing was spoken of openly as they encountered less resistance and the British left and Jordanians neutralized.

The methods haven't changed over the years either. Recently, settlers have been caught poisoning the water supply and there are known issues with the supposedly shared water supply getting mostly diverted to Israel and the settlements. In Acre and Gaza in 1948, they began that method. (p100)

Israel commonly contends that Palestinians left their land on their own. Pappe notes that the Hagana and other groups would blare such things from loudspeakers as "surrender or commit suicide" and "we will destroy you to the last man". With this and rumors of massacres, summary executions and waves of refugees/witnesses passing through various towns, I don't know how one could really call this a voluntary move. One of so many lies.

Another common Israeli myth is that is that Palestinians want to (or can) push Jews into the sea. What is tragic is that Israelis stole this, too. You see, in an effort to escape the massacres and "clearing" operations of the time, Palestinians were actually pushed into the sea and drowned by Hagana and other forces who would close in on 3 flanks and leave only one way open (when they chose to let people live). The population of 50,000 (plus refugees from other cleansed areas) tried to escape by the only route left open under heavy fire in small fishing boats.

One of many reasons Israel charged ahead with ethnic cleansing unchecked was that it decided to subdivide the Palestinian portion of the "spoils" and "share" with Jordan. That reminded me of the peace treaties Israel has made with Jordan and Egypt more recently than 1948. On both occasions they took out the main military force that could possibly match Israel. Then as now they felt free to broadcast inflammatory rhetoric, discuss transfer of Palestinians openly and threaten countries with military action with no adverse consequences whatsoever.

p111
Nasr-al-Din massacre near Tiberias
Tirat Haifa near Haifa
Ayn al-Zaytoun near Safad

p136
Tantura massacre- large city, 230 dead. They simply rounded up Palestinians and shot them dead because a soldier said lost a brother, cousin, etc. That is what we would call terrorism today. That's justice Israeli style- do unto others as is your whim today and others must abide by laws and international standards. The same double standard exists today.

p156
Count Folk Bernadotte stands out as one UN emmisary who stood up for justice. He insisted on the Palestinians right to return under international law and for Palestine to be re-divided more fairly. Israel initially agreed to let him mediate because he helped many Jews under the Nazis; when he tried to do the same for Palestinians, Israel assassinated him. Justice, Israeli style.

p162 Another bit of sad irony is that the peace camp took care of some old Arab houses surviving from ethnically cleansed villages, but instead of allowing Palestinians back or advocating for justice, they made an artists' colony out of them.

p196 Dawaymeh massacre was worse than the famous Deir Yassin and worst one until 1956 Kfar Qassim. Tantura, Safsaf, Sa'sa also had large numbers of atrocities. One observation I had here was that Jordan often gave Palestinians' land to Israel for peace and Israel kept cleansing it of Palestinians. A common Israeli refrain has been that land for peace doesn't work. I wonder if this is how it knows?

p202 The two realities- the same then and now. This really stuck with me:
Yisca Shadin's situation was given as a case in point for two reasons because people indicted for crimes against Palestinians aren't brought to justice and remain in power to afflict them. (Example: In 2000, Israeli police killed 13 Palestinians.)

p221 Several myths were created as Israeli towns were built on freshly removed rubble of Arab homes. This rubble, by the way was cleared by Arabs in labor camps. I was surprised to learn Jews employed this tactic. Again I am reminded that "never again" must not be inclusive... The myth of Israeli concern for the environment was spawned while planting on top of Arab villages and gardens. The popular "making the desert bloom" myth was also born while building on top of destroyed mosques, demolished architectural sites.

Near the end, Pappe tells how peace depends on recognition of 1948 and Israel's block of this and peace. He also offers insight into so-called peace negotiations like Oslo and the infamous Gaza pullout, how these are a way to sidestep the refugee issue, while continuing ethnic cleansing.

The last chapters offered some hope and said what many know, that the problem isn't Judaism, it is Zionism.

Nothing to Lose But Your Life: An 18 Hour Journey with Murad

Nothing to Lose But Your Life: An 18 Hour Journey with Murad
by Suad Amiry

I read Amiry's "Sharon and My Mother-in-law" first and loved the mix of explaining the Palestinian situation and humor and resilience. The first part of this one didn't hook me like that book, but the second part more than made up for it.

In chapter 10, she realizes they have been in the West Bank all this time (they are about to cross at The Wall) and the dangers, fear of arrest, running, bullets, hiding, etc happened on what is supposedly their own turf. Even for Amiry, who knows about things like this, the shock is palpable.

Chapters 11 and 12 struck me as out of place at first, but after some thought, they capture the situation perfectly. Chapter 11 is a fable or a few fables and 12 is about The Wall and a particular graffiti artist. I didn't realize at first that most of these images are actual Banksy "paintings" on the Wall; I only had seen a few in pictures. This chapter, like the art, is profound.

In chapter 14, this quote was great:

"I don't know what it is about Palestinians; they all believe they can pass for an Israeli, regardless of how typically Arab they look, the second they put on sunglasses."

It comes amid the various adjustments the workers are making to their appearance as they prepare to "blend" in with Jewish Israelis. I was aware of the plight of Palestinian workers, but not so much with this aspect. Very interesting.

Last sentence of chapter 14: 

"Only then did I realise that for me, and many others, Israel was virtual. For Murad, Israel was 'home.' Israel was a reality; a harsh reality."

At a cafe (deciding whether or not to continue), she defines the ultimate love-hate relationship, being out of ones' skin, out of place and history as being in her homeland Palestine.

Nearing the decision to quit the search for work for the day and distance themselves from the actual workers who they have slowed down some, they rest in a park and she tells a bit about what an Israeli park actually is- a peaceful green space that, by contrast, was taken by force from Arab villagers. For instance, most Palestinians are referring to Petah Tikvah as Mlabbis, it's original name.

This several pages long daydream about Mlabbis/ Petah Tikvah is brilliant. I wonder if she knew or researched the history, heard bits from Murad, or simply recounted the familiar 1948 Palestine or Nakba memory shared by many people and villages and retold by more.

In chapter 16, she talks about missing the Tel-Aviv (Lod) airport and the firman Sharon issued that no Palestinian from the West Bank or Gaza could use this airport. Also on this portion of the bus ride she remembers various Palestinian villages while looking for the rubble.

At the end, she takes off her worker's clothes and steps back into her life and reflects on the situation- real risks and dangers- that they face every day just to get a day's work. And the author's note! It is an article she reads the day she gets home about a worker getting shot doing what she just did.

Reading Lolita in Tehran

So I'm reading Reading Lolita in Tehran. It reminds me of separation of church and state rants I've done on the blog in some ways.

I had these thoughts while reading the first part of the book. She goes into some description of Iran and compares it with her life abroad. The recent republican debates, Eid stamp hysteria emails, sharia law hysteria, Muslim hearings in Congress, etc have also been in the background of my thoughts on church and state and extremes lately.

Voting according to religion is good, but legislating it is often not- be careful what you wish for- we may end up living up in a Christian version of Iran. Imagine if baptism was the law or baptized individuals received rights others didn't get. The state loses and religion loses. We need to vote our conscience; that is our right and duty. When we start to impose our (or certain) religious rules on others, it becomes a problem. Not only have we taken away their right to work things out for themselves, but it may very well backfire on us. We start with the good intention of shielding children and ourselves from immorality and then the balance of power shifts and suddenly others are telling us how to practice our religion and what's moral and who we can and cannot hire as a preacher (for example).

There is a bit of discussion on the veil in Iran in the book. Before the revolution when you could wear colors and read fiction and laugh in public, the veil was a symbol of a choice. When it became law, the power of the symbol was lost, though the intent of the law was no doubt a moral one. The veil changed from being a personal, religious symbol to one of oppression in a lot of ways.

Sorry- just getting a lot of hits on my Muslim stamp post and listening to the republican candidates and debate highlights (sharia law in the US?!) ...

And another thing occurred to me- about page 209. A thought about the Bush administration. Not to make a direct comparison between Bush and Iran or anything. (Seriously!) She spoke of a mood of resignation and tiredness with all of the bombings and interruptions of life (Iran-Iraq war) when they were forced to hear military marches, news of a "victory", or mourn a "martyr." And then she talks about the complete opposite attitudes of people in the street with anti-war sentiments and the government droning on- "the regime's ideal continued the play itself out undeterred." This sentence reminded me so much of the voices (many experts and former US officials) of doubt about Iraq's possession of WMD, yellowcake and Africa, link to 9/11, etc and the Bush administration's smug superiority when Bush, Cheney or the others would continue to repeat things (Bush doctrine, mushroom cloud, hit them there rather than here, Iraq has WMD, Iraq is linked to 9/11) with the same smug certainty when they were first only suspected as false (by liberals generally-and me, though I hadn't decided what I was at that point but plenty of people told me what I was...) as when they were increasingly known to all as false and maybe lies. I'm not calling Bush a dictator or anything, but there was that same distance so vast it was unbelievable and almost funny (tragic) between the public and the government in both cases. That sentence really struck me as extraordinarily applicable- especially Cheney's certainty and the way he quoted something picked up by the Times, leaked by the administration itself. Bush was always concerned about his legacy and history;  he can rest assured that he'll go down in it all right. Legendary.

Oddly enough , a recent event ties in somewhat. It's not the government, but still odd:

Did a Marriot Vacation Club survey and was asked a series of questions about vacations. Also included was a question about believing in 7 day creation and prayer in schools (?). We aren't members, but took a deal that offered a low rate in return to listening to the presentation and offer to do this timeshare thing, etc. I have no problem with discussing these things, but what is the motivation, here? It's none of their business. I am immediately suspicious and have less of a desire to join, not that it was high to begin with! This kind of gets at what I was saying- what if questions like these become routine for everything- businesses you want to enter and buy from, school admission, traffic stops.

Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions: The Global Struggle For Palestinian Rights

Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions: The Global Struggle For Palestinian Rights

(Comments so far)

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/3/4/bds

***This book brings up many excellent points.

The 3 point BDS Call goals:

1. End occupation, dismantle wall

2. Full equality for Arab Israelis

3. Right of return for refugees

***Three comparisons or terms frequently shunned are explained:

1.  People often strongly oppose the use of the word apartheid because Jews are not the minority oppressing the majority. The rest of the definition in the 1973 UN Convention concerning apartheid fits perfectly:

The Rome Statute defines apartheid as inhumane acts "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."

2.  They oppose the word genocide in many cases of collective punishment and siege because, though many acts of Israel toward Palestinians are described in the UN definition, the intent is not clear. A look at article II of the 1948 Geneva Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide leaves little doubt about what is going on. One of Barghouti's examples is that often cancer and disease incidence isn't recorded for Palestinian populations in Israel (by Israel). This is the only thing that causes environmental rules to force companies to stop contaminating groundwater. These companies end up relocating to Palestinian areas, thus causing more pollution and a much higher incidence of birth defects, fertility problems, cancer and other issues.

http://electronicintifada.net/content/never-against-european-collusion-israels-slow-genocide/7309#.Tqxzz4ZY1ko

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/01/200911321467988347.html

Soft ethnic cleansing is often forgotten or not classified as such. This is creating conditions on the ground that force Palestinians to live or work in other Arab countries and also imposing visa and other restrictions that do not allow them to come back to visit for long or live. Soffer has been a big proponent on this if you want read about demography, ethnic cleansing and someone who is proud to espouse these sorts of crimes.

3.  The comparison of Israel with the Nazi regime are often considered tantamount to anti-Semitism or at the very least massive exaggeration by most. What most who use this example are actually referencing are not the gas chambers, but the period before that with all of the racist laws. 

http://www.rense.com/general39/isrnewlaw.htm

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/israeli-academic-loyalty-oath-resembles-racist-laws-of-1935-1.318275

***Barghouti points out that the more extreme parties supporting armed struggle typically have the more favorable (maximalist) platform with regard to rights and so even though Palestinians have a history of nonviolent resistance, it has been rather weak. The nonviolent movement typically works with the West and has had to water down (minimize) its "demands" to gain an audience, such as allowing a symbolic number of refugees back only, allowing some settlements to stay, etc (refer to any accord the US has signed onto).

***He brings up the point that some one the Israeli left can only support boycott when it is in the context of "saving Israel from itself." This is exactly the attitude in the US that I have seen. When I've talked about it or posted about it, people never hit "like" and they tend to look uncomfortably at you as though you uttered a racial slur but they don't really want to confront you on it. In order to be confident that you will be listened to without people scrunching up their faces in discomfort, you have to talk about your concern for Israel, how the occupation is bad for their economy or society, etc. In this country, you can't just say you want Palestinians to be free from the occupation and have equal rights and be taken seriously. True, more people now realize Israel is not 100% right in all it does than 10 years ago, but you still get "looks" if you express your desire to see Israel sanctions and compelled to follow international law.

***Some think boycotts, ending the occupation, giving refugees their right to return home, giving Palestinians equal rights will destroy Israel. I've heard this many times. If this is true, the particular form of democracy needs to be scrapped. It wasn't worth saving if occupation, apartheid and demographic analysis to maintain ethnic or religious majorities are required to exist. This is considered unthinkable. Are we really going to maintain that Israel has the right to exist as it sees fit even if those conditions prevent others from having fundamental human rights?? This nonsense is the basis for "dialogue" and "peace negotiations."

***He brings up the point that some people argue that a boycott on cultural and academic institutions interferes with academic freedom. I find this objection to boycott rather ridiculous since Israel prevents and disrupts to varying degrees Palestinian education. We should advocate Israeli intellectuals' academic freedom more than Palestinians' right to education??

"Striving for peace divorced of justice is as good as institutionalizing injustice, or making the oppressed submit to the overwhelming force of the oppressor, accepting inequality as fate." (From the book and online here.)

***The concept of ending oppression first before endorsing dialogue, peace and reconciliation initiatives. He addresses the asymmetry between Israel and Palestinians so often forgotten in discussions about the conflict.

 ***This little tidbit sounds like conspiracy theory and unfortunately could breathe life into the stereotype that Jews rule the world... but it is a real campaign. Brand Israel is a propaganda campaign designed to counter the BDS campaign and bad press resulting from Israel's disproportionate uses of force, occupation, war crimes and collective punishment. It aims to send as many Israeli artists, dancers, authors, etc abroad so others can see Israel has side with culture and ideals, not just a brutal colonial side concerned with the Arab birth rate to genocidal extremes.

Putting Out a Contract on Art (referenced by the BDS book- proof of an actual contract with artists in the propaganda campaign)

EI article on Branding Israel

MIFTAH on Branding Israel

***The next point is controversial for me. I have always been pretty supportive of initiatives that bring Israelis and Palestinians together for scientific, art, dialogue, and whatever. I thought it would be good to get Israel to see Palestinians as human, but I can see the author's point that ignoring the occupation and not taking and demanding a definite stand against it is a big problem that results in its perpetuation. Barghouti makes a good case for the boycott of such things by bringing up UNESCO- pretty timely, I guess. After the ICJ ruling (1971) that S. Africa's occupation of Namibia was illegal, UNESCO convened several conferences on resistance against occupation, sports boycott, sanctions against racist South Africa, etc. There was a similar ICJ ruling in 2004 on Israel's wall and occupation, but no subsequent mobilization of the international community in support of the Palestinian victims. Just this week, UNESCO accepts Palestine as a member. What this means, I have no idea. But I am coming off a nasty sinus infection , so give me a chance.

It's Easier to Reach Heaven Than the End of the Street by Emma Williams

 It's Easier to Reach Heaven Than the End of the Street by Emma Williams

I'm only on the first chapter and I think I may have hit upon a book Americans can relate to and understand the whole of "the situation" at the same time. She has a respect and understanding for both sides (often said, but rarely the case in this thing) and cuts through and explains the propaganda and myths on both sides. I'm pretty amazed and impressed thus far...

I've finished now, so I'll put my overall impressions up here (I had "in progress, notes as I go" here initially). There are a ton of specifics that I either remember reading in the news when they happened, that I'm impressed she included, etc. I'll just leave them below as examples- I stopped noting them after the first half of the book anyway- there were too many.

This is not your typical memoir. But that's a good thing- and actually probably pretty typical when your memoir is set in Jerusalem and you are as thoughtful as she is and have access to UN, doctors on both sides, and officials. There is a lot of politics and references to historical events and recent events, but I can see this as a memoir because she's honestly trying to sort this out while she's over there. It is one of the most honest attempts I've seen. It is a little hard to tell what her own views are, which is kind of strange in a memoir, but appreciated in anything attempting to explain the conflict. When I first started reading the book, I interpreted the news items and her relating interviews and conversations with a pretty wide variety of people as her own.

My impression due to some of her commentary was that she related to Israelis most- that could be due to a suicide bomber blowing up outside her children's school and near it and in places she frequented. Unlike some who have a strong sympathy for Israel, though, she doesn't ignore or deny Palestinian humanity, rights, the fact that Israel is an occupier, the fact that Israel does wrong. I would be curious how she struck people she lived with in Jerusalem; there were a number of times when her friends would say something against Palestinians and she noted that she remained silent. She definitely seems pretty balanced in the book. She really seems to have sympathy for both people and understand the nuance of both sides' politics. Even if she has bias herself, at least she included pretty balanced historical info and accounts of the recent developments.

What also made the book so good was that it covers a wide variety of issues: Israeli denial of absolute facts- like IDF kills children, UN workers, etc; how she and others self censor depending on who they talk to; media bias; the Wall; American attitudes; among others.

I wondered what could make her so reasonable, besides being British :). Maybe I shouldn't wonder, just enjoy. But this is such a rare occurrence, this genuine sympathy and understanding of both sides, I can't help it.

Maybe being a doctor (she worked in many hospitals, Palestinian and Israeli, in her public health research while there) helped her not be able to ignore the facts. Seeing the maimed and hearing doctors' struggles on both sides must have had an impact on helping her see the similarity in the two sides, the brutality and senselessness of the violence, whatever the source.

Maybe being a UN worker's wife also helped her feel sympathy toward Palestinians. She tells of how an Israeli chased her up the street yelling obscenities in her face upon seeing her UN plates because many Israelis feel the UN is "on the Palestinians' side." I guess that could have driven home what kind of hate could be directed at Palestinians by Israelis, if she didn't get it by listening to her Palestinian friends' experiences.

***

Continuing with specifics...

In just the second chapter, the interviews and exchanges (p34 and 40, esp) she records relates so many things Western audiences would be shocked to know. I have been reading widely on this, so I'm not surprised by what she writes, but it was satisfying to see her refute all of the myths and reservations I hear people repeat when I dare suggest that Palestinians have (or should have) rights and a homeland.

People would call her from the States discussing the situation and tell her (who was eyewitness to the contrary) things like all the Palestinian deaths are terrorist deaths, Palestinians who were fired upon on Temple Mount after Sharon's infamous visit were all armed, Palestinian mothers push their children to the front lines- that's why there's a high death rate for them, Palestinians know Israel is militarily superior and will retaliate so it is actually Palestinians' own fault they are being killed, the occupiers are the victims, etc. People actually insisted they were right (b/c they read it in Time or this or that American outlet) and she, practically an eyewitness, was wrong!

One thing that absolutely disgusted me was hearing about the "game" soldiers would play shooting steel/rubber bullets into children's eyes. Apparently it takes precision. I'd like to show that to people who like to tell me that Palestinians teach their kids to hate and accompany it with a pic of a toddler dressed in military fatigues... And on the subject of pride in hate and destruction... she references this article in Yedioth Ahronoth as well: http://electronicintifada.net/content/i-made-them-stadium-middle-camp/4459. Yikes.

She tells about a French journalist friend who was aimed and shot at by a soldier with an M-16, just missing his heart. He explained that it would have hit his heart due to the angle he was standing at, had it not been for the flak jacket. Even more shockingly, Israeli friend of hers completely denied that it happened despite it being taped and played on the news. I hadn't realized the extent of Israeli denial of what goes on. I guess it's only natural that American denial of Israeli atrocities is so prevalent. I am frequently encouraged that Christians reject Christian Zionism and the Jewish claim to land today based on the fact that God said it's theirs- see the Old Testament. Frequently though, as I heard visiting at another congregation, they follow it up with but we should support them for political rather than religious reasons- we are allies, only democracy in the Middle East ??), etc- the usual. Why is it that people who can separate the political and religious still can't see that what Israel is doing is inexcusable. It is not security. It is revenge. It is punishment for wanting rights, a country, a homeland, a life, to live on the land that was stolen by victims of another war. Suicide bombing and killing Israeli civilians is wrong, but how can people so easily get behind targeting journalists, peace negotiators, shooting kids in the eye, shooting kids for sport (pdf), and many other atrocities?? If it's not religious, is it loyalty to the GOP? I can't help thinking that people just don't know what really goes on, but like the author's Israeli friend, if they did, they'd probably just deny it.

She relates another incident that I am familiar with while listening to the radio. The death toll for Palestinians rises exponentially compared to the Israeli one. Yes, I know that all deaths are bad, but this kind of lends credibility to the stories of IDF brutality. She was listening to the radio and the commentator saying that Palestinians must end the killing and violence. (a familiar, tired refrain) Just after that he reports a settler killed a Palestinian ( but of course a Palestinian could still be to blame even though a settler group claimed responsibility) and three Bedouin women were killed by Israeli tank fire. But, Palestinians must stop the violence.

She also tells in passing of one of many events that made her change her plans. I know people probably thought I was exaggerating when I relayed news (I remember, if not this incident, then ones like it) that the IDF bombed Palestinian towns with F-16s, targeting Palestinian police/security forces for a militant attack on an IDF post. What sense does that make? It says Israel considers Palestinian police (and civilians for that matter) militants and does not want Palestinians to make any progress in self governance that agreements supposedly are trying to promote.

In chapter 8, she delivers her baby at Holy Family in Bethlehem. It had been bombed once or twice before she delivered and she described the damage and several accounts of doctors. IDF officials she spoke to and heard from said the IDF is a humanitarian army; it doesn't do things like that. Another one said there was no tank activity there in October- pretty specific- a total lie. At the end of the chapter she talks to a Palestinian Christian who comments that the American Christians are so strange- they have no feeling for fellow Christians- where is their humanity.

I know I am mentioning quite a bit about the Palestinian side. This is because people rarely seem to believe that things are that bad for Palestinians or that the wacky things they hear about Israel, a democracy, doing this or that, isn't just propaganda. Peppered throughout the book are the author's experience with suicide bombings and her sympathy for Israelis who live in constant fear- I feel like people are pretty well acquainted with this- so it doesn't strike me as amazing as the understanding of the Palestinian point of view. The Israeli point of view is no less valid. Just want to make that clear.

Sharon comes to power or at least becomes very active during her stay in Jerusalem. I know I was completely dumbfounded by Bush's total complicity in crimes of the occupation and Sharon's knowing he can get away with murder and acting on it. I knew he was bad when it was happening. Looking back, I think I was probably kind in any analysis I may have done. Rereading the things that were said and done- it's unbelievable. He was a monster- worse than I probably thought back then. She mentions two things (p169 and p251) I remember I couldn't believe hearing and, further, couldn't fathom how things stayed the same after. Sharon stepped away from his carefully constructed straw man of Arafat (he wants the whole thing, wants to push Jews into the sea) and let slip that Arafat wanted to push Israel back to the 1967 borders (the horror!). The second was Sharon admitting there was an occupation and it was bad for everyone. Amazing- suddenly he was contradicting many fans in US government, AIPAC, etc. Through all of this, Bush never changed anything, never held Israel accountable. Those were truly hopeless times- for Iraq nonsense and for progress in the Palestinian Israeli conflict.

Miral by Rula Jebreal

Miral by Rula Jebreal

It was written in several parts: Hind, Nadia, Fatima, Miral, Hani.

At first I wasn't sure I'd like it. The first part, Hind, was written from a distant, omniscient point of view rather than stepping into any one character's shoes. It seemed more like instructions for the movie, but more prose than stage direction.  This sort of thing wouldn't have been so out of place in a memoir, but in a novel, it left me wondering when it was going to pick up or get a little more personal. It was hard to get into, but this first part was definitely necessary to set the story up. You need the info later. I wish there had been a better way to accomplish it, though. We do meet Miral near the end of this part, so I decided to hold on to see what happens with her.

In Nadia's section, Part II, there is an abrupt change. It seems to have no connection to anything else and I was totally confused. The story begins to be told from Nadia's point of view, which is a definite improvement. Maybe that is why the story grabs me at this point and I decide I will probably finish it.

Fatima's part is pretty much about Nadia. Fatima is in prison for a failed terrorist attack, which is an interesting perspective. Also a good part of this section is that Jebreal takes an opportunity through Nadia to explore an aspect of the identity question- are you Israeli, Palestinian, neither, etc.

Miral is Nadia's daughter and that is the name of the next section. Things are starting to be a little more connected. I thought it was interesting that Nadia thought everyone treated her with more respect because they thought she was in jail for what Fatima was (planning an attack). Jamal, Fatima's brother, moved Miral and Rania to Hind's school and changed their last name in part because the family name was tainted by Fatima's attack. Having to send them to the orphanage/school was so sad- as were the orphans' stories.

The way Haifa is described was something I had heard of Jerusalem (Kai Bird's book) pre-1948 or 1967- Arabs and Jews together, many nationalities, politics consciously ignored, harmony, parties, etc. I had never heard that of Haifa; maybe different cities experienced their times of peace at different times. 

I enjoyed the strong, beautiful, independent women with a variety of perspectives as main characters throughout the book. The book focuses on women who don't trust men, who don't follow the predictable path and who want the freedom to find their own way.

One thing I felt was left hanging was that we never really found out what happened to Nadia's first child. She left it with her mother after forgiving her, with the guarantee that her sister and her husband would look after her. In one way, I guess that's enough, but I kind of wanted to know what happened to her, if Miral met her, if she could have been worked into the story- she did find out about her having a different father than Rania. Also, I would have liked to have heard more about Ruba, Nadia's youngest sister. It makes sense that she was much younger and so wasn't as close with Nadia and Tamam, but I wonder if she was abused as well and if she ever saw her mother, Nadia or Tamam.

The personal stories stood out to me. We often group Palestinians into one or two neat categories- Palestinians or Israeli Palestinians, extremist Palestinians or moderates, diaspora or Palestinians in Palestine. This book gives us some food for thought that there are many different reactions to grief and tragedy, different reactions to the occupation, different ways to think of identity. There is occupation related tragedy and the same abuse and death all of us are familiar with (sometimes compounded by the occupation).

Edit:
I ended up really liking the book. I got the movie from Netflix soon after and it was also great, but reading the book first was extremely helpful. I hadn't realized the book was at least partly autobiographical. That added a lot, IMO. I tend to like a memoir more than a novel anyway.  :)

This has an interview with the author:

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2011/03/25/mirals-rula-jebreal-the-palestinian-woman-who-wrote-the-book-that-started-this-big-screening-war/

Baghdad Burning by Riverbend

This book, Baghdad Burning (I), is the publishing of Riverbend's blog. She's a girl from Iraq and I wish I'd have found her blog at the time of the invasion. I had visited some of the blogs she did, The Angry Arab and Raed in the Middle and Juan Cole, but I don't think I ever saw hers. She really breaks things down (what we did and how it affected Iraqis) and explains customs.

With the whole Gay Girl in Damascus hoax (two more links here and here) and anonymity of the internet, I do wonder sometimes if she's too good to be true and not who she says she is. Either way, I agree with her assessments, but one always wonders...

This will probably be less a review than random things that stood out to me. I've got 4 pages of notes, so I hope it doesn't get long and boring. It brought back some thoughts and feelings I had at the time of the invasion and highlighted things I'd not thought of or forgotten. All those things I didn't know or have forgotten definitely added insult to injury or injury to injury. Each event that came next was more ridiculous than the first. The invasion on false pretenses was bad, but everything that came after...wow. The mismanagement descriptions I heard were very, very kind indeed! Especially when you figure in that some of it was probably intentional. A sad, sad time for the US and Iraq, not to trivialize Iraq's reality at all.

***

The way she describes the idea of the rotating presidency is great. I probably didn't understand a lot of the detail that was going on after the initial attack. I had the luxury of not really having to be invested in the outcome- I opposed the war after all. What was I thinking?!

My major moment was when it was proposed that we were going to attack Iraq. (Probably because I didn't have to see everyone dying and being taken away for questioning, though.) I knew there was serious doubt on the WMD and later 9/11-Al Qaeda link, but I wanted to believe what people told me when I voiced my fears- that the president has more information than us, that we were right in attacking, etc. War is serious, but the quick way it came about with the ridiculous 48 hour ultimatum, virtually no real opposition, no serious journalistic scrutiny left me absolutely stunned. I really thought we'd come to our senses before an attack actually happened- there's be troops for show and a behind the scenes deal of some sort. I woke up to news that we actually did attack Iraq and time stood still- it was an alternate reality- this wasn't supposed to happen. Either that day or that weekend, I remember being at a restaurant with family and hearing the reports of bombings and seeing the video footage. I kept staring- flinching at the explosions. I was so mad I wanted to throw something. It wasn't supposed to happen. Thinking back, being at a restaurant with family while they were getting bombed should have been equally infuriating...

I have forgotten a lot of the details because when I heard about Iraq, I thought of how I opposed it or what I could have done to stop it (stupid, I know) rather than listen to the reports. I'm glad to read them in Riverbend's blog now and get some context on things I may or may not have had an opinion about at that time.

She mentions the firing of the army and people who worked in the government ministries. I do remember sharing her opinion that it was absurd. I couldn't believe how shocked they were that some undesirables infiltrated the border- DUH! I think the subject of talk/news was theories on how/why there was chaos and violence and such and I remember thinking how stupid that was. When you fire all the people who used to run stuff, nothing gets done, people will cross borders. Easy.

National Day. This is one thing I don't remember so well, but I definitely share her disgust about Bush (or whoever is carrying out his wishes) declaring April 9, the day Iraq was invaded (I'm thinking this was March) or Saddam removed, a day Iraqis should celebrate. Of course Bush would see it as an accomplishment, but to make Iraqis celebrate a day in which they were invaded, killed, occupied and bombed to the preindustrial age is crazy. Shows how little we thought about Iraqis in the whole process. Fitting in the backwards, Bush way. It made me think of the way birthdays of leaders in N. Korea are made to be such a big deal and celebrated by everyone with special performances and everyone is supposed to be so happy about it and yet these are the people responsible for the poverty and isolation of the country... National Day should be a day Iraqis take pride in being Iraqi. They should choose some day that has meaning to them- like the day they boot us out or something that doesn't have anything to do with military.

Her descriptions of watching Bush and Rumsfeld are similar to the way I felt back then. I do remember not being able to look at their smug faces, but I had to see what they were saying- I couldn't turn it off. I appreciated getting her view of the consequences of their actions that I didn't have before. I only knew they were wrong and I was infuriated no one here bothered to put any real questions- the media slept- or turned into Bush's mouthpiece. Not too much different than the countries we criticize for no freedoms- yet we did that to ourselves!!

I also didn't realize there was a 9/11 memorial service in Tikrit in 2003! The nerve! She thinks it may be used as proof in the future of the missing 9/11 link-   these scenes will be superimposed on the past and treated as evidence for that. In 2011, I say impossible. When I'm old and telling my grandchildren people today (2060) are delusional if they think 9/11 was the reason for the Iraq invasion, I wonder if they'll smile and nod and think I'm totally off my rocker. So I guess the jury's still out.

Earlier in the book she mentions Americans taking over the palaces of Saddam Hussein. It angered me at the time. It still does, but now I see it was pretty fitting since we acted no better and probably worse than Saddam Hussein himself. It kind of set the scene for the US plan for Iraq- take the best for yourself and totally disregard everyone else. But then again the US plan for Iraq also says a lot- our plan for governing a place that isn't ours and supposed to be free...

September 29, 2003 She has an entry about sheiks. I don't recall hearing about this as it happened. The Americans gathered a bunch of them together and wanted them to "cooperate" with them since sheiks have a lot of influence/respect over large groups of people. In return they wanted a timetable for withdrawal and expected they'd get to participate politically, since they won't be able to get their people on board (rightfully so) if they get nothing in return for the bombing, killing, raids, detentions, etc. Jay Garner said no to both. Americans called it a conference and the sheiks' response was that it was just giving orders, no conference. They were then blacklisted and targeted for raids by the Americans. She made the good point that humiliating sheiks hurts democracy more than Iraq's "tribal tendencies." She uses herself and her pre-war job and freedom as an example of how tribes are family and order, not backwardness and chaos.

She says the world is waking up (p91) and gives this ebook or site: Embedded: Weapons of Mass Deception by Danny Schechter at www.channelmedia.org . Another site mentioned is www.malcolmlagouche.com (September 25 post). Apparently some company sells or sold a toy Iraqi house with blood on the walls and a proud American soldier. It's called Forward Command Post? Sickening. I checked snopes- it's no joke. I don't remember this at all. One of the article rightly offers- what if Afghan kids played with burning and collapsing twin towers? The animosity toward "the other" is represented; the only difference is that the average Afghan doesn't support Al-Qaeda, but most Americans support our troops. In looking up the links, I read people saying it was no big deal; kids play with GI Joe and army men... The toy was definitely a Middle Eastern style house and the way the "war on terror" is/was being fought- punishing Afghans for Al-Qaeda who was only loosely associated with the Taliban who weren't representative of Afghans, invading a country on false pretenses (Iraq)- it's more propaganda than a toy for a 5 year old.

She explains some about the significance of jewelry in this part of the world, which is very different from ours. It's the dowry, it's a family's savings (especially in places that become unstable due to conflict such that the value of their currency plummets). In American culture, it's more of a sign of affluence or preference (to have a lot of it) than anything like family savings. She said troops would steal/confiscate it because they thought it suspicious (they must have gotten rich dealing in weapons, drugs, terrorism) for them to have so much gold jewelry...which could be true if you apply American culture to Iraq and ignore the culture of the people. Still no reason to steal, though if it was pocketed by the soldiers. Kind of funny thought I had- their gold jewelry is used as savings and such, but it is more pure, and way more ornate than ours. Our gold is primarily decorative rather than for savings, but it is pretty plain- especially the more affordable stuff. :) I have a few things from the Middle East and they are my absolute favorite.

I enjoyed her description of tea making (p108). Theirs is flavored with cardamom. I didn't realize that. Cool. Earlier bamiya and other food I recognize and eat is mentioned. She describes it all as Iraqi; I had thought of some of it as more Palestinian/ Lebanese...  ;)

p112- She tells about an incident where troops have dogs searching Ministry of Oil employees and throwing Qurans to the ground. Outrage ensued. I'm pretty sure this is before the Abu Ghraib story broke. I don't remember hearing about searches and dogs and throwing Qurans except in the prisons. It could be selective reporting or my bad memory. I remember hearing so much about how soldiers are being made to learn about customs and culture so as to be "more effective" and not so ugly American- I wonder if all that press was before or after this? I really thought the troops were making an effort, but can you really teach or force people to hear what you're saying about others and respect others??

p130 Her recipes! I've got to check that out. Hope it's still around. iraqrecipes.blogspot.com

p152 The Bush visit on November 27, 2003. He wanted to show people it was safe, but the story she tells is one of daily dangers- still. I like how she puts it- she wants him to walk on the streets, not drop in on hand selected troops to show how "safe" it is.

p155 Iraq's Nuclear Mirage by Imad Khadduri. I don't remember this, but apparently he is a physicist who had some connection to the nuclear program and wrote a tell all book about how things were shut down in 1991 and teh current WMD things is garbage and everyone knew it.

p161 The Iraq Census Bureau wanted to have a census to have elections by September 1 or something like that and the US said no. I didn't remember that either.

p165 The capture of Saddam Hussein. It seemed like a big deal to Riverbend. I was expecting it not  to be I guess, since life under Saddam was better than occupation. There were pro-American demonstrations, which I remembered seeing along with footage of the statue being pulled over and the flag on his head. (Seems like there was some "scandal" where a US flag was on it first, then they decided it was better to put the Iraqi one there.) There were also anti-American and pro-Saddam demonstrations at which women and children were rounded up with men and arrested. I don't recall hearing about those.

p174 She describes Christmas in Baghdad, enjoying the lights and festivities with Christian neighbors. It was interesting to learn about Baba Noel (Santa). He dresses the same way, but doesn't come in to deliver gifts through a chimney because there aren't any chimney's and he's mainly a mascot rather than a FedEx- and no reindeer.

p207  This explanation of the bombing of a shelter full of women and kids in 1991 was so horribly tragic, like hearing about 9/11. And Americans replied that this was a legit target?? Unbelievable. She breaks it down with international law, which was great. I don't know what I thought then. I wasn't as up on world events and various schools of thought in 1991(I was a naive 13) as presently. Now it's clear the legit target thing is garbage.

She talks a few times about America punishing a whole city or area for action against troops. I guess I didn't realize that went on or went on so much. Maybe I have forgotten. War is inherently ugly and so I guess I didn't distinguish between horrors at times. I remember hearing about the 4 contractors that were dragged through the streets and treated brutally and all the outrage in the US. I remember some really sketchy stuff with Blackwater, how they do military tasks, but aren't held accountable in any code of justice and really are mercenaries and criminals. She connects Fallujah and the hundreds upon hundreds dead to this event. I'm not saying it's not true, but I don't remember this in our media. I absolutely believe that is the correct connection and that we called the women and children terrorists- unfortunately I believe it.

I completely can empathize or sympathize with her on the repulsion she felt about Bush speeches. He angered me. I didn't want to hear his voice or see that smug expression, but I wanted to see if he had come to his senses yet. I wondered if he'd ever "man up" and admit wrongdoing on ANYTHING or everything. No luck.

Riverbend explains things so well for us Americans. I have enjoyed the detail and context- not enjoyed descriptions of war- but you know what I mean- it fills in some blanks that were left intentionally by the government and media or my bad memory. It is a new context or perspective.

Two great observations from Riverbend:

1. p262 Americans are shocked at the Abu Ghraib scandal; Iraqis are well acquainted with the events already. Americans were outraged at Iraq showing American POWs on TV- thought Arabs were animals for showing soldiers alive and well, if tired, captive and reading from a script. Americans had no problem showing many images of Iraqi detainees as the recipient of dozens of compromising, embarrassing, immodest and disgusting abuses- what does that say about Americans?

2. Nick Berg (p264). She makes the point that beheading was probably chosen because this would horrify Americans like others things wouldn't (she makes a good point, doesn't she?). In a similar way, Americans chose sexual crimes against Iraqis because this is a fate worse than death to them. I would add the choice of dogs is the same due to the opinion of many Muslims about dogs. Both sides had the same thinking and did horrible, illegal, wrong things, but the US wanted to call Abu Ghraib a "stain" and get rid of it quick.

p276 The picture she paints surrounding her aunt dying of natural causes really got to me.  (Natural causes at that time is not so natural with the stress of living under occupation and raids, but that's relative...) It brings up issues I didn't really think about at the time it was happening- so many dead to bury, cemeteries filling up, scheduling nightmares for grief-stricken families. Things they shouldn't have to worry about. Misery on top of misery. As if war doesn't bring enough suffering and upheaval, room in the cemetery is limited, her aunt's space was given away due to necessity (war casualties) and they had to bury her where they didn't plan to. I also didn't think about the scheduling a wakes at mosques being tough because of so many dying that month from non-natural causes.

Her last post included in the first Baghdad Burning book made a good point. She describes a person dying and asks if it was 9/11/01. No, it was Falujah, 9/11/04. I hope it makes people think about what's permissible to do to others. Victims are victims.

My stuff from around the Iraq war, ~2003:

There is at least one letter to the editor about Iraq that I wrote on here:

http://notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2009/02/digging-in-my-virtual-closet.html

This is my first blog. Check out the second link in the old entries and you'll probably see some entries on Iraq. It's not organized well. Part of that is my fault and part of it is the pitas blogging site. You may have to use the search function because I'd talk about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and add something about Iraq on the end sometimes...Sorry about that!

http://propeace.pitas.com/

I had tried to find a bunch of emails I received when I emailed churches (same beliefs as me, not varying denominations) around the world to see if everyone's take was that the Bible says Bush is doing the right thing or that we must support him, etc, like the consensus in the US. They, like me, questioned the approach, attacking Iraq and considered verses about peace and not just submitting to government.

Here's my blog from ~2006-2007 or so. Yahoo has changed the address several times and annoyed me to no end, so I moved to Google blogger.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/y/blog

Finding Nouf by Zoe Ferraris

Finding Nouf was a Middle Eastern fiction I was able to find at my small town library. It was actually a really good story. Maybe bits here and there were contrived, but it really didn't bother me because I enjoyed the story.

I have very few complaints. I was a little put off at how quickly the conservative Nayir was interested in sticking his nose in the not-so-evident crime involving Nouf. The assistant examiner he had to have contact was a woman and his friend/ employer's fiance (he finds out later) that I hadn't expected him to want to get involved with (as in talking to, not romantically). Maybe this was because I hadn't yet gotten into the story. All in all, it was a slight interruption, but wasn't a big deal.

The other thing that stuck out as a flaw to me was the food was never really mentioned. Coffee and tea were often mentioned and that was essential, so I'm glad it wasn't left out, but I think descriptions of food seemed scarce. When we met the American at his house and food was offered, there was some elaboration. In the "families welcome" restaurant, "The Big Mix," the word lunch was used rather than any description of food. I realize food may have been left out because it wasn't the focus of the meeting, etc, but I think it's an essential detail to help us like the characters. What do they eat? What do they like? How does the food in front of them remind them of food from where they are originally from? How do the smells remind them of other experiences? It's an essential part of knowing the characters and it was missing a lot of the time. (Admittedly, the last fiction I read was Crescent, in which food was a major element- but, still!)

Also, it was handy that the main character's uncle happened to have some scientific equipment in his basement- a mass spec of all things and enough stuff to process crime scene samples. That was weird. And kind of unnecessary. Less obvious was Miss Hijazi's job as a tech in a crime lab. It made the story possible, moved it along, but wasn't contrived. It brought an element of women's lib to the table, so she was a great character.

As I mentioned, I did enjoy the mystery very much. I also enjoyed the glimpse into a slice of Saudi culture and the variety of people and attitudes that make up Saudi society. Royalty, the rich, the progressive, the truly and falsely devout, the religious police, vigilantes, Bedouins, and immigrants (the eye doctor and Nayir) were among those discussed.

Several subjects in Middle Eastern culture were woven into the story: hospitality; modesty; attitude toward Americans; helping the American would have been as bad as touching her skin; attitude towards immigrants- even from other Arab countries; contact between or segregation of men and women; women working- various attitudes about it; women driving, escorts/ drivers; concept of such constraints bringing on depravity they were meant to guard against; underground/ hidden brothels and bars; double standards such as it's not as bad to sleep with a non-Muslim prostitute as a Muslim one; there was an interesting but short discussion of the interpretation of the veil- what is should cover- face, bosom, etc (I'd never really heard that one before); there was some Arabic interspersed, which I enjoyed, but I could have done with more! Some of these I I was familiar with, a few were new, some I still didn't understand- all were well done.

I would definitely recommend it. The author is an American who was once married into a Saudi Palestinian Bedouin family. I thought the book was great considering this; I would still like to read more by Arab authors to compare and contrast treatment of various issues like women, religion, etc.