An Iraqi Girl Smiles ...

I took the below picture at an anti-war public display last year (in October 2007). This is Ulia Tahi, age 9, who was killed around 17-20 June, 2005. Next to her picture-frame are her shoes and a candle lit in her memory. This particular image made me very sad and has stuck in my mind since then. It makes me somber every time I see it.

Today I was searching for some image on google and came across with this wikimedia link. To my surprise, this link contained this exact picture, but with the caption "Iraqi Girl Smiles". The picture was taken on 7 March, 2003. Ulia was still alive then...

This finding renewed the grief. I felt as if I am seeing her smiling and cheerful standing right in front of me. And I felt as if her life from the moment that picture was taken on 7 March, 2003 to 17-20 June, 2005 played like a film in her curious eyes within a few painful instants. I could see the US invasion in Iraq that happened within couple of weeks, on 20 March, 2003. The declaration of "mission accomplished" in the following May. The capture of brutal Saddam Hussein in Dec, 2003. The everyday bomb explosions and violence, the death and destruction in the following two years. Ulia must have spent her last days in the middle of all that chaos, until...

Was she even able to smile during those fearful days? How did she die? How was it for her parents to see her leave this world so young? Were they alive to see her die? My heart wondered about these questions. No answer. Just a painful sight for me in that picture.

Here is what the author of this picture wrote when she uploaded it on wikimedia (dated: 5 Feb 2005):

Iraqi Girl Smiles
Iraqi girl living next to Al Daura Oil Refinery in Baghdad pauses for a smile amongst jostling children.



"I managed to snap a picture of this stunning looking Iraqi girl while I was touring Al Daura Oil Refinery as part of the Human Shield Action to Iraq. I took this photo, and many more, of the children living next to the refinery where their parents worked. They were all quite enjoying themselves and I managed to get mobbed a couple of times. I often look back on this photo and wonder if she, and her friends, are still alive. I hope to go back one day and find out." —Christiaan 11:58, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ulia was alive when Christiaan posted that picture online. The wikimedia page says that this image was selected as a picture of the day for March 15, 2005. Ulia was still alive then. She is not with us anymore though. But wherever she is now, I am sure she is happy and smiling, inshallah.

Some estimate that a million have already died since March 2003. Add another million or so who died under Saddam's brutal rule and as a result of international sanctions. Ulia's story is but one of those many thousand stories that need to be told.

Stop the war. Stop this injustice. Do some thing. Anything!

Berkeley Teach-in Against the Israeli War on Lebanon

The following clips are from a Berkeley Teach-in which was organized after the Israeli war on Lebanon in Summer 2006. I came across with them just recently. I think the insights offered are still relevant and helpful to understand the macro and micro politics in the region.

These short clips could also serve as a useful starting point for discussions in your educational gatherings. Below, I have added titles and my brief comments for each of the presentations.

(Click on each title for the corresponding clip)

Political Process in Lebanon and the Israeli Invasion

Saba Mahmood opens up the session with a brief overview of Lebanese politics. She talks about the increasing maturity of Lebanese politics over years, as seen in the formation of political ethics of sorts and the shared efforts toward preserving sectarian harmony. One of the primary motives/resultant of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006 was to damage this political process.

The Utility of the War on Terror for the Empire

Charles Hirschkind sheds light on the utility of the war on terror for the empire. He argues that instead of targeting Al-Qaeda, the war on terror is more focused on targeting anti-imperial movements in certain Muslim countries, and protecting pro-US dictatorial regimes. In a cautious tone, he also emphasizes the importance of understanding the context in which violent tactics of certain resistance organizations emerged. You may not agree with everything he says. I for one do not. But he surely offers some critical insights that many of us would appreciate.

Jewish Teachings Require Criticism of Israeli Brutalities

Judith Butler describes the circumstances of Lebanese war and the political-legal maneuvering by international peace keeping bodies. She inquires into the politics surrounding UN resolutions and their implementation. Outlines the strategic aims of Israeli War on Lebanon in 2006. She finally argues that criticizing the Israeli entity is not anti-semitism. That a true understanding of Jewish teachings makes the criticism of Israel not only possible but also obligatory.

A History of Hezbollah

Zeina Zaatari starts with sharing some ethnographic quotes from her research in Lebanon in 2001. She then presents a history of Lebanese-Israeli relationship. Argues that Hezbollah, although supported by Iran-Syria, is very much a Lebanese phenomenon. Briefly alludes to Syed Musa Sadr's involvement, formation of Amal, Syed Fadlallah's role in educational activities and his perceived connections to Hezbollah, and finally comes to the formation of Hezbollah. Her description of Vilayate Faqih may not be fully accurate, but, that shouldn't distract one from the main theme of her talk. She describes Hezbollah's organizational capacity, social welfare projects, outreach avenues, all of which were targets of Israeli bombardment in Summer 2006. She also describes the dynamics of Hezbollah's influence among its following. Although she warns against seeing these dynamics in instrumental terms, she still focuses on clientalism, and does not give sufficient value to identity attachments and religious commitments of the followers among the Shias and the support from well-wishers from among the general Lebanese population and beyond Lebanon.

The Arrogance of ZioNazis

Beshara Doumani addresses the question "Why Can't They Get Along (in Middle East)?" The answer, according to him is that they can't along because of decades-long dispossession of one group by another, which has only intensified recently. Using a number of anecdotal examples, he argues that the arrogance of ZioNazis is directly responsible for the intensification of violence, the failure of many international interventions for peace, and the suffering of the Palestinian people. He seems to believe in the two state solution; he was subsequently questioned on that in the Q&A session.

Q&A Section

I especially liked the comment/question on co-existence with the right to return as a solution, which is also advocated by Edward Said, among others.

The "Muslim Smear": Question the Question First

Here is a nice piece by Naomi Klein on the (ab)use of the label "Muslim" in the American political discourse. She questions not only the answers, but also the question itself. On that note, see a somewhat related post here.

Read the whole article at guardian.co.uk



It's no slur to be called a Muslim

The turban photos affair was a missed chance for Obama. If he really is to repair the world, he must tackle this Islamophobia

Naomi Klein
The Guardian,
Saturday March 1 2008

Hillary Clinton denied leaking the photo of Barack Obama wearing a turban, but her campaign manager says that even if she had, it would be no big deal. "Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely."

Sure she did. And George Bush put on a poncho in Santiago, while Paul Wolfowitz burned up YouTube with his anti-malarial African dance routines while World Bank president. The obvious difference is this: when white politicians go ethnic, they look funny; when a black presidential contender does it, he looks foreign - and when the ethnic apparel in question is vaguely reminiscent of the clothing worn by Iraqi and Afghan fighters (at least to many Fox viewers, who think any headdress other than a baseball cap is a declaration of war on America), the image is downright frightening.

The turban "scandal" is all part of what is being referred to as "the Muslim smear". It includes everything from exaggerated enunciations of Obama's middle name (Hussein) to the online whisper campaign that Obama attended a fundamentalist madrasa in Indonesia (a lie), was sworn in on a Qur'an (another lie), and if elected would attach speakers to the White House to broadcast the Muslim call to prayer (I made that one up).

So far Obama's campaign has responded with aggressive corrections that tout his Christian faith, attack the attackers and channel a cooperative witness before the House Un-American Activities Committee. "Barack has never been a Muslim or practised any other faith besides Christianity," states one fact sheet. "I'm not and never have been of the Muslim faith," Obama told a Christian News reporter.

Of course Obama must correct the record, but he doesn't have to stop there. What is disturbing about the campaign's response is that it leaves unchallenged the disgraceful and racist premise behind the entire "Muslim smear": that being Muslim is de facto a source of shame. Obama's supporters often say they are being "Swift-boated" (a pejorative term derived from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign against the 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry), casually accepting the idea that being accused of Muslimhood is tantamount to being accused of treason.

Substitute another faith or ethnicity, and you'd expect a very different response. Consider a report from the archives of the Nation. Thirteen years ago Daniel Singer, the magazine's late Europe correspondent, went to Poland to cover a presidential election. He reported that the race had descended into an ugly debate over whether one of the candidates, Aleksander Kwasniewski, was a closet Jew. The press claimed his mother was buried in a Jewish cemetery (she was still alive), and a popular TV show aired a skit featuring the Christian candidate dressed as a Hassidic Jew. "What perturbed me," Singer said, "was that Kwasniewski's lawyers threatened to sue for slander rather than press for an indictment under the law condemning racist propaganda".

We should expect no less of the Obama campaign. When asked during the Ohio debate about Louis Farrakhan's support for his candidacy, Obama did not hesitate to call Farrakhan's antisemitic comments "unacceptable and reprehensible". When the turban photo flap came up in the same debate, he used the occasion to say nothing at all.

Farrakhan's infamous comments about Jews took place 24 years ago. The orgy of hate that is the "Muslim smear" is unfolding in real time, and it promises to greatly intensify in a general election. These attacks do not simply "smear Barack's Christian faith", as John Kerry claimed in a campaign mailing. They are an attack on all Muslims, some of whom actually do exercise their rights to cover their heads and send their kids to religious school. Thousands even have the very common name Hussein. All are watching their culture used as a crude bludgeon against Obama, while the candidate who is the symbol of racial harmony fails to defend them - this at a time when US Muslims are bearing the brunt of the Bush administration's assaults on civil liberties, including dragnet wiretapping, and are facing a documented spike in hate crimes.

Occasionally, though not nearly enough, Obama says that Muslims are "deserving of respect and dignity". What he has never done is what Singer called for in Poland: denounce the attacks themselves as racist propaganda, in this case against Muslims.

The core of Obama's candidacy is that he alone - having lived in Indonesia as a boy and with an African grandmother - can "repair the world" after the Bush wrecking ball. That repair job begins with the 1.4 billion Muslims around the world, many convinced that the US has been waging a war against their faith. This perception is based on facts, among them the fact that Muslim civilians are not counted among the dead in Iraq and Afghanistan; that Islam has been desecrated in US-run prisons; and that voting for an Islamist party resulted in collective punishment in Gaza. It is also fuelled by the rise of a virulent strain of Islamophobia in Europe and North America.

As the most visible target of this rising racism, Obama has the power to be more than its victim. He can use the attacks to begin the very process of global repair that is the most seductive promise of his campaign. The next time he's asked about his alleged Muslimness, Obama can respond not just by clarifying the facts but by turning the tables. He can state that while a liaison with a pharmaceutical lobbyist may be worthy of scandalised exposure, being a Muslim is not. Changing the terms of the debate this way is not only morally just but tactically smart - it's the one response that could defuse these hateful attacks. The best part is this: unlike ending the Iraq war and closing Guantánamo, standing up to Islamophobia doesn't need to wait until after the election. Obama can use his campaign to start now. Let the repairing begin.

A version of this article appears in the Nation (thenation.com) naomiklein.org