Portraying a Terrorist

Two scenes of art uneasily imitating life unfolded in "Paradise Now," the Oscar-nominated foreign language film from Palestine. The first involved actor Kais Nashef, 27, who plays a bomber who travels to Tel Aviv to complete his suicide mission. Director Hany Abu-Assad cast local Israelis as the doomed passengers on a bus. "That was the toughest for me," said Nashef, a Palestinian, who makes his home in Tel Aviv.

The other involved Nashef's costar, Ali Suliman, 28, who plays a fellow bomber. At one point, Suliman's character must videotape his last statement before a planned attack. When the scene was filmed, the set was filled with spectators from West Bank city encircled by Israeli checkpoints. "When I finished my speech," said Suliman, a Palestinian who lives in Nazareth, "it was so still, so quiet. And then all the people were crying. They saw themselves in the speech."

The above is from an interesting article on Middle Eastern men playing terrorists, (real or imagined) on film, and is well worth reading. As for the films themselves, I haven't seen United93, and thought that Munich was good to start off with, but stagnated after a while. Meanwhile, Syriana had some interesting concepts but wasn't a great piece of film-making. Paradise Now on the other hand is brilliant and deserves to be seen by as many people as possible. I'll hopefully post some comments on it later. 

Another Muslim Tennis Player

In case you're wondering what the fuss is about, I forgot to add the female part. Off the Baseline has the story of Aravane Rezai, a 19 year old French-Iranian athlete who has impressed in qualifying for, and then winning two rounds at this year's French Open (She lost today to precocious Czech teenager Nicole Vaidosova).

Unfortunately press coverage has focused as much on her temperamental father Arsalan, as it has on the quality of her game. Of course 'tennis dads from hell' aren't a new phenomenon. The Hall of Fame includes the like of Peter Graf, Jim Pierce and the incomparable Damir Dokic.

More interesting is the fact that Aravane has twice competed (and won) in the Muslim Womens Games in Tehran. The MWG is supposed to create a sphere where women can play sports and dress accordingly, without being subject to a male viewing audience. This is largely positive as it allows women who wouldn't be comfortable playing in an open environment to pursue their sporting interests.

However Ms Rezai's case reminds us that events such as the MWG aren't the end point for all women. Some may want to maximise their talents and test themselves against the world's best, and we should encourage them if they choose to do so. Its similar to the hijab in that while a lot of women wear it because they want to, for some there is no choice involved.

As its almost impossible to discuss this topic without mentioning Sania Mirza, I would suggest that it may be a good thing for her if she participated in the next MWG. Schedule permitting, it would give her some good press and show to other women she meets that rather than being some sort of scandalous woman, she is after all just a normal teenager.

From Worse to …

After Guantanamo, Baghram, Abu Ghraib and Fallujah, we now have Haditha (For a detailed account click here). The Telegraph reports that a senior U.S. commander has ordered 'fresh legal, moral and ethical training'. Surely the time for training has long gone and America has to be seriously evaluating its options regarding withdrawal right now.

Debate and Deception

Debate

Given how everyone seems to acknowledge how intractible the Israel-Palestine conflict is, it's incredible how little this complexity is reflected in the news media. For an informed and engaging discussion of the issue, be sure to read or listen to this debate between Dr Shlomo Ben-Ami and Prof. Norman Finkelstein. Although certain differences were inevitable, one gets the feeling that if these two gentleman were negotiating a settlement, an acceptable solution would eventually be arrived at.

Given that Dr Ben-Ami was Israel's chief negotiator at both Camp David and Taba, it is legitimate to question why Camp David in particular didn't achieve anything. The AIPAC perspective is that the offer made at Camp David was a generous one and that Arafat betrayed Clinton and Barak by rejecting it. However Dr Ben-Ami says, 'if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well'. Instead he cites Taba and the rejection of the Clinton parameters as Arafat's biggest mistakes.

However, even this is not a sufficient explanation of what went wrong. As Finkelstein points out and Ben-Ami concedes, both sides made reservations to the Clinton parameters and Taba was doomed by the upcoming Israeli elections. Of course Arafat must take his share of the blame for the way in which he ran the P.A. Particularly interesting is Dr Ben Ami's argument that after the first gulf war Arafat was a collaborator 'in order to suppress the genuinely democratic tendencies of the Palestinians.'

I think one can draw some insights from this discussion. In particular, how when placed in a political position, a genuine historian with seemingly noble intentions such as Dr Ben-Ami is still subject to political pressures. As Finkelstein says, 'when Dr. Ben-Ami wears his historian's hat, he gets everything right; when he puts on the diplomat's hat, he starts getting things, in my opinion, wrong…'.

Deception

On the other hand if Prof. Alan Dershowitz were in charge of negotiations, it is difficult to conceive of anything positive coming about. In their debate, Finkelstein calmly takes apart some of the shoddy scholarship in Dershowitz's book, 'The Case for Israel'. Rather than illuminating the issues Prof. Dershowitz resorts to unfortunate ad hominem attacks on Finkelstein. Since then, he has also accused Finkelstein's mother as being a 'kapo', or Nazi collaborator during the holocaust, incredibly relying upon Finkelstein's own writing.

——

For Finkelstein/Ben-Ami, click here.

For Finkelstein/Dershowitz, click here.

Both debates were moderated by the excellent Amy Goodman of Democracy Now.

Coming Soon

Dressing In Drag…In Pakistan!

This is required reading (and watching I assume – I’ll be sure to check it out the next time I’m in Karachi). Also if the neocon drumbeat ever comes around to Pakistan (think! nuclear weapons, taleban type government in some provinces, bin laden sympathisers, state sponsor of terrorism, millitary dictatorship – oh how easy it is to make a seemingly rational claim for war), then Begum Nawazish should serve as conclusive proof that Pakistan does not need invading.

Civil Society In Musharraf’s Pakistan

The military is so secure in its rule and the official politicians so useless that ‘civil society’ is booming. Private TV channels, like NGOs, have mushroomed and most views are permissible (I was interviewed for an hour by one of these on the “fate of the world communist movement”) except a frontal assault on religion or the military and its networks that govern the country. If civil society posed any real threat to the elite, the plaudits it receives would rapidly turn to menace.

This is from a very interesting column by Tariq Ali on the World Social Forum’s stop in Karachi. Particularly biting is his critique of NGO’s operating in Pakistan. However in this post I would like to focus on his comments on Pakistani civil society.

In my opinion, liberal democracies are successful when there is a diverse and resilient civil society which resists authoritarianism. All governments have authoritarian tendencies, but whether or not they succeed in establishing and maintaining total control is dependent on if those concerned with society are significant enough a presence to prevent it from happening.

I believe this is one of the reasons why Fareed Zakaria’s analysis of liberalism before democracy works. A period of liberal authoratarianism allows civil society to develop in a way which is not possible in countries which rush towards democracy before the basic elements of a stable and tolerant society are in place.

It is in this context, that I’m not as skeptical of the current role of Pakistani civil society as Tariq Ali. It is true that today that the TV media in particular are relatively reluctant to openly criticise the government and it’s policies.

However in the past year, we have witnessed at least two events where an internal conflict amongst the elite has opened up. Firstly and tragically was the Earthquake, when the TV media in particular could not help but report on the hopeless inadequacy of the government in leading the response effort. Secondly, we saw the lampooning of Musharraf after the seeming failure of President Bush’s visit to Pakistan to achieve anything other than some funny pictures and a meaningless speech.

Of course there are problems in Baluchistan, parliamentary politics is a farce and a catastrophic event would in all likelihood set civil society back another ten to twenty years. However for now, the fact that the WSF is in Pakistan at all, gives me reason to hope for what in many ways is still a very flawed country.

Is Democracy Western?

The belief in the allegedly “Western” nature of democracy is often linked to the early practice of voting and elections in Greece, especially in Athens. Democracy involves more than balloting, but even in the history of voting there would be a classificatory arbitrariness in defining civilizations in largely racial terms. …[T]there is reluctance in taking note of the Greek intellectual links with other civilizations to the east or south of Greece, despite the greater interest that the Greeks themselves showed in talking to Iranians, or Indians, or Egyptians (rather than in chatting up the Ostrogoths).

The above quote is taken from this article by Amartya Sen (via 3QuarksDaily). He makes important arguments, addressing both non-Westerners and the West. For me the two key themes are,

a) Democracy isn’t Western and
b) The West doesn’t own democracy.

These overlap nicely to create a coherent critique of the false west/non-west dichotomy. That democracy isn’t just a western concept is an important argument for those who aren’t western.
Sen provides interesting examples, and these need to be emphasised, of leaders such as Mandela and Gandhi who combined modern notions of democracy with their own ‘native’ traditions which, which while not containing voting, were similar to a democratic system in many ways.

This is not to say all desi’s should rely upon such a fusion (although I feel that those who don’t are missing out). If some would like to become 100% westernised, that is their choice. However for those who want to continue some of their cultural heritage, adopting concepts such as public reason should not make them feel as if they are ’selling out’, or being brainwashed to think in a certain way.

This is where the second point comes in. As Sen points out, seeing Iranian dissidents as ‘ambassadors for Western values’, is both incorrect and counter-productive. To take an example, why should the Afghan convert to Christianity not be executed for apostasy? I would suggest because as Muslims, we should not consider it either a humane or rational thing to do. This is not to say that the West has nothing to contribute to this discourse – they should make their voices heard. However this should preferably be done in the spirit of reflection rather than conversion.

Cross posted on Pickled Politics.

RSS Feed Now Setup

Click on the button on the left to get the feed’s link to this blog’s feed. For those of you not acquainted with RSS, Svend White had a good tutorial and lots of other useful tips a while back. The easiest way to setup a feed for your own blog is to go to www.feedburner.com.

A Letter To Reformist Muslims

“It is conceivable, yes, that there are those in the West with as much sadomasochim (or courage, if you will), as the reformists of Islam; with as great a penchant for human rights as the reformists of Islam; with as great a willingness to face off against the edifice of a corrupt theology as the reformists of Islam. We must embrace them as our brothers, be they Latino, Black, or dare I say, white; be they Hindu, Jew, Christian, or dare I say, secular-humanist”

Click here to read the full piece

The extract is taken from an open letter written by Ali Eteraz to fellow reformist muslims. His argument is that while there may be some ‘Westerners’ with ulterior motives, to be successful the reform project has to accept those non-Muslims who show an interest in changing the world for the better.

Overcoming the threat of those with ill-intent, is a powerful idea which is applicable not just to non-Muslims. One finds it amongst those who are reluctant to let ijtihad devolve outside the exclusive preserve of religious scholars. There is an understandable fear that if religion is to be democratised then there would be widespread chaos which would undermine the basic tenets of Islam.

However as Ziauddin Sardar has eloquently put, when engaging with religion and making progress we must not be constrained by the banks of a river. Instead the future should be imagined as an ocean, where every assumption may be challenged and people can shape their own destiny.

Of course this may lead to the conversation within Islam occasionally veering towards areas which are uncomfortable. Mistakes will definitely be made, but this criticism makes the assumption that things are fine the way they are right now, they are not. In a way, Ali’s piece demonstrates that for reformists to be both consistent and successful, we need to open their movement to those who are willing, just as we argue that the application of Islam should also become more open.