Let’s Put Our Emotions Aside and Think Logically

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010

One of the things I often love to do on my iPad is checking out a photo app, called “TheGuardian Eyewitness.” Today, I came across one of the photos that kind of struck me and encouraged me to share it on my Facebook profile.

The photo was of a group of shirtless, masked Palestinian teenagers being run over by an Israeli car driver in the mostly Arab east Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan. The kids, as the photo caption states, were throwing stones at Israeli cars.

Sharing the photo on Facebook created some kind of intense debate between me and a good high school friend of mine, who expressed his anger against the Israeli driver who was being attacked by the teenagers.  The comment was very aggressive, demonizing and out of context that forced me to debate it.

Like many Iraqis and Arabs who care about their Palestinian “brothers,” my friend wrote something in which he indirectly implied that the car driver was the terrorist. He mentioned in a sarcastic way that, “Netanyahu also released a statement for killing the militants and promising that Israel would continue pursuing terrorists anytime and anywhere,” ending it with four exclamation marks.

That was not surprising, as unfortunately most Arabs let their emotions control their actions. I used to be that one too. I used to refuse everything against the Palestinians, and I used to let my emotions speak before my brain thinks. But not anymore!

I couldn’t take sitting back and not respond. I knew what his answer would be. I even knew that responding was not going to do any good, but I decided to better try than not.

I looked at the photo over and over and it was very clear who was being attacked. So I said, “The kids were the ones attacking the car drivers. Besides, if I were the driver and got attacked by anyone, I would do whatever I can to get away from them. Since the kids were hit in front of the car, it’s possible they threw themselves there to harm the man. This is not even a tank!!!!”

That intensified the heated debate. At the end, my friend accused me of being biased and that I shouldn’t be weak and if I don’t believe in my “Middle Eastern principles” I should suck it up (which I think he meant to ‘shut up’ basically).

But I did not shut up and I did not suck it up. I think it’s about time to say what needs to be said, which I wrote in my replies to him.

I believe in a two-state solution. This would end the suffering and the struggle and let the peoples of Palestine and Israel live in peace. For saying that, I know some people will call me a traitor, ameel (agent), anti-Arab, anti-Palestine… etc.

Not that I need to defend myself, but no, I’m not all of the above! I very much sympathize with the Palestinians. I call for ending their struggle, and I look forward to seeing them having a great nation some day. Saying what is not wanted to be heard should not turn into accusations of loyalty.

Enough is enough. Fighting is not a solution for both sides. They have been doing this for decades. What have they achieved? The Palestinians have been resisting Israel and calling for wiping it off the map. It’s not gonna happen and neither will the disappearance of Palestinians from their lands, which the Israelis are trying to achieve by expanding their settlements.

It’s time to stop and look back. It’s time to look at their situation, at themselves, and think! And it’s time my fellow Arabs sit back and think logically before letting their emotions block the voice of reason that could be the very solution for that crisis.

Digital Manipulation Blunder and Defiance

A serious journalism ethical question was recently raised in the Middle East after Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram published a doctored photograph, falsely depicting President Hosni Mubarak leading the Middle East peace talks.

The photograph was first spotted by Egyptian blogger Wael Khalil who posted the doctored photo, showing Mubarak in the front and the original one that shows he was in fact walking behind Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Jordanian King Abdullah II, as American president Barack Obama led the men to a media event at the White House.

In a front-page Op-Ed, Al-Ahram’s editor-in-chief Osama Saraya was shamelessly defending the fabrication, explaining the doctored photo was an “expressional” picture showing Egypt’s historic role in the peace process.

“The expressional photo is a brief, live and true expression of the prominent stance of President Hosni Mubarak on the Palestinian issue, his unique role in leading it before Washington or any other,” he wrote.

It is really shameful that such statement comes from the editor-in-chief of the newspaper himself. Mr. Saraya appears to be worried about satisfying the totalitarian regime, rather than reporting the truth.

Even if Mubarak, as Saraya claimed, is leading the efforts to achieve peace in the Middle East, wasn’t it better for the paper to portray that in words and facts, rather than a fabricated photograph spotted by bloggers?

I must say I am very disappointed with how some professional journalists present the information to their people, and I’m very much impressed with the role the Egyptian bloggers are playing in working as fact-checkers and monitors to the Egyptian press!

American Jews in Jerusalem use racist words against Obama

Israeli newspaper Haaretz published an op-ed about the shocking footage of the reaction by some Israelis and American Jews in Jerusalem to Obama’s speech to the Muslim world.

Read full op-ed here and see the video below.

Unbelievable…

Obama in Cairo: Extending the Olive Branch

Nothing better illustrates the change Obama is trying to do with the U.S. policy towards the Muslim world than his speech today in Cairo.

By addressing the Muslims in Egypt, Obama opened a door that was closed for eight years due to the Bush administration’s horrible approach with the Arab and Muslim countries. Walking through that door, Obama was greeted respectably and lovingly by those who once hated his country to the bone.

The fact that Obama is approaching the Muslim world through such a speech is very similar to someone carrying the olive branch, in my opinion. He is seeking peace for the world, unlike Bush who sent bombs instead, not to mention his administration’s black-or-white attitude that led to ongoing wars.

In this speech, Obama didn’t show signs of weakness or humility like how some conservative republicans view it. In my opinion he was the most powerful person. He initiated approaching the Muslim world by extending his hands to combat the stereotypes and the mistakes committed by his predecessors. In it, I viewed the other good face of America. In fact, I saw that the American administration can actually be nice to the others!

Fair could also describe the speech as well. For instance, when he mentioned how Muslims and the Americans should not perceive each other depending on stereotypes. Another example is when he criticized both Palestinians and Israelis for being responsible for the horror happening in their region. I agree the Israeli settlements should stop and also agree that threatening to destroy Israel will not bring the Palestinians any good and that it should stop.

The other thing that attracted my attention was when Obama indirectly criticized what the Bush administration did. The fact that the American president acknowledges that the Iraq war was “a war of choice” is enough to say that Bush did not have to invade Iraq, yet he did. However, he stated that Iraqis are “better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein,” which I agree and disagree with at the same time. It was good to get rid of Saddam, but the life of the Iraqi people was wrecked by the ignorant policies that were made by the Bush administration. We can’t really say that our lives are better off now than under Saddam, because it’s still a complete wreck compared to that before the invasion. I’m hoping that it won’t last like this and by then Obama’s statement would fit.

Bush and his henchmen believed in imposing the Jeffersonian democracy upon the countries they invaded. It’s amazing how for the first time I hear Obama admitting that “no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by another.” When I heard that, I said, “THANK YOU!” Was it hard to acknowledge such a simple, yet powerful fact? That’s what Bush did not understand or did not want to understand. You can’t impose democracy; you teach it; you increase people’s awareness of it, but not force it the way you like, ignoring the background of that country.

Overall, I saw that the speech came in a time when tension between the Muslims and the West has reached its peak. It’s very nice to see that Obama took the initiative of extending hands. I know this speech may not leave a big impact on many Muslims and Arabs but I think it’s like baby steps. By course of time, things will change to the better hopefully if Obama continues his positive and peaceful attitudes. It’s a long road but the thousand-mile road starts with one step.

Anti two-state demonstration in front of the White House

Anti two-state demonstration in front of the White House, originally uploaded by baghdadtreasure.

As I was heading out to get some lunch with my coworkers, I came across this anti two-state solution demonstration in front of the White House.

Click on the picture to see more.

Why the children of Gaza don’t deserve to be killed?

Simply because they are children…

Watch this video that was made by Saudi blogger, Raed, author of Falsafat.

Reaction on this topic can be found here.

blog.bassamsebti@gmail.com

Shoe and Awe

Foreign correspondent and editor Magda Abu-Fadil wrote a very interesting blog post that was published in today’s edition of the Huffington Post.

In her post, Abu Fadil detailed how the Bush shoe incident left an impact on the worldwide fury against the recent Israeli war on the Gaza Strip.

It was bound to continue. The shoe has been transformed into a weapon of protest and fury at Israel’s onslaught on Gaza, and by extension George W. Bush’s unconditional support for the Jewish state.

The post also includes an interesting anthology of cartoons published in Arab newspapers and Web sites regarding the Israeli attacks and Bush’s end of presidency.

Read the entire blog post here.

Blog.bassamsebti@gmail.com

Israel’s New War: Stopping Attacks or Gaining Back Lost Reputation?

It feels like the same war Israel carried out against Lebanon in 2006 again. Doesn’t it? Bombardments, slaughter, complete destruction and civilian killings—all under the banner of “fighting the terrorists.”

So what is Israel trying to say in this war? Gaining its reputation it lost back in 2006 after Hezbullah triumphed, became more powerful and now became part of the Lebanese government? Or is it truly trying to stop Hamas’ attacks against its civilians?

I blame the carnage and the horrible death of the Palestinian civilians on both sides. Israel is so arrogant and indifferent to human rights that it had been slaughtering millions of civilians since it was created in the recent history and this war is no different than any of its former ones. And Hamas is even worse. Instead of laying weapons down and creating a stable and indepndent state along with the other Palestinian political factions, they have put their own people in this situation where they knew that messing up with Israel would lead to such a war. None of the both sides have actually thought about human rights and that of course led to the death of civilians on both lands.

Now, what are we going to make of this whole mess? More violence to happen, of course. Hatred will also increase against the Israelis across the Arab world- as if it has not been enough- and the fact that having a peaceful atmosphere in that regions seems moving farther and farther.

So what’s the solution to stop this carnage now? There isn’t, I guess. Israel has managed to break Hamas’ backbone. But what about the innocent civilians who lost their loved ones? Won’t they grow up with the will to take revenge, like those in Iraq and Lebanon? Doesn’t violence breed violence? And wasn’t that what has been happnening in that region since ever?

Blog.bassamsebti@gmail.com

The World Through the Eyes of a Solo Reporter

I usually write my reviews about books after I finish reading them, but this time I wanted to share my opinion with you before finishing it.

This time the book is about conflict all over the world: In the Hot Zone: One Man, One Year, Twenty Wars by solo journalist, Kevin Sites. Which one of us doesn’t remember the U.S. soldier’s image shooting an unarmed insurgent in a mosque in Fallujah during the 2004 Fallujah battle? It was Kevin Sites who shot that controversial footage.

I bought the book from Borders bookstore a few days ago after leafing through its pages. I have heard a lot about Sites, but never had the chance to read his reports. Along with the book, came the DVD documentary “A World of Conflict,” a must-see film that I watched last night.

We all know that our world is turning upside down with violence somewhere and economy collapse somewhere else. It is indeed a world of conflict which sometimes drives me to the question of whether the science-fiction movies we see about the destruction of earth would become true some day.

Watching the world’s conflicts, Sites came up with an idea, a one that led to an important project: covering twenty wars in one year.

Sites’ first chapter of the book and the introductory part of the documentary was about the Fallujah mosque shooting and his time in Iraq. He describes how he was labeled as a traitor by those who don’t accept facts and who do not want to admit that war is ugly and that crimes happen from both fighting parties. The insurgent who was shot might deserve what had happened to him, but the way he was killed was, of course, against the ethics of fighting in war zones. It’s sad to see that those who sent Sites threatening letters and text messages do not understand that he was just doing his job and had not expressed in no way ever his own, personal opinion regarding what happened. He let the world judge and it did.

I see Sites as a good example of balanced, sincere and extremely honest journalism. His words and the video footages he took in the countries he covered had an imprint of humanity. Throughout his travels as a solo journalist in conflict zones, the sense of humanity in his dispatches and reports was strongly evident, having it covered away from politics. There was a scream of horror that he wanted to let the rest of the world hear.

There were stories from Afghanistan, Nepal, Lebanon, Sri Lanka, Congo, and other places in the world. Sites was successful in detailing in a summarized way what the cause of violence was and how it took its toll on the human beings there. The things that blew me up the most were the stories from the Congo, Lebanon and Afghanistan. In the documentary he interviews a woman called Marie (not her name, as he mentions in the book). She was raped several times in front of her husband by militiamen who killed her children before her eyes and then mutilated her husband’s body after killing him. The worst part was asking her to chew his cut flesh. “They use rape as a weapon of war,” she told Sites. “They have guns, but this is worse than the guns.” The entire interview in the documentary brought tears to my eyes.

His coverage of the Israel-Lebanon war in the summer of 2006 was noteworthy. He was there when Israel shelled entire buildings with civilians in them. The image of the woman weeping after their loved ones died and the image of the children covered with blood is unforgettable.

Reading the book now after watching the documentary makes me picture all those who were interviewed. Reading the words and comparing them to the people’s faces makes my heart ache. So much violence out there, so many wars, and so much pain and sorrow in the hearts and minds of people. Like Sites, I believe this violence aims to kill civilization and most importantly humanity. The worst part of all, in my opinion, is that there are people out there benefiting from all of this, encouraging more and more violence and causing the deaths and the suffering of millions of people across our cursed planet.

blog.bassamsebti@gmail.com

The Bullies’ New Fight

When Saddam said he would fight the Americans fiercely if attacked he was just bluffing. He didn’t have anything to fight them with. Iran’s officials are saying the same if attacked by the U.S. and Israel. However, the equation is not similar. Iran is not Saddam’s Iraq. It’s much stronger.

Last Saturday, The Independent reported that Iran would attack back if attacked. The paper quoted the head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, Mohammed Jafari saying, “Iran’s response to any military action will make the invaders regret their decision and action.” The same thing was mentioned in an interview conducted by the Washington Post’s Thomas Erdbrink’s with Mojtaba Samareh Hashemi, special adviser to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. “As has been said before: Any government that tries to invade Iran will regret its actions,” said Hashemi.
Is that possible? I guess it is. Since the end of its war with Iraq in 1988, Iran has not been directly involved in any war. During all these years, their industry-militarily and socially- grew greatly due to the self-sufficient policy the country has adapted. It’s a wealthy country and is easily capable of depending on this wealth to improve their military.

If attacked, I believe Iran would really retaliate. Their military is not as ill-equipped as Iraq’s under Saddam. Let’s not forget that Saddam’s air force was banned and that was one of the strongest reasons why he lost when Iraq was invaded by the U.S.-led forces. Iran, on the other hand, does have the ability to fight the Americans or the Israelis by air force. If so, the results would not be easy or simple. Iran can easily fly over Iraq and bombard American military bases, while others would spray Israel- which is not far from Iran- with a string of rockets and missiles that would horrify the Jewish nation’s people who are already terrified of the small rockets launched by Hezbollah and Hamas.

Iraq, of course, will be in the middle. There is nothing more to be done by then. I suspect the Americans would regret the day they supported Maliki, his government and the Shiite-majority parliament. Maliki has just said his stance on all of this fuss: his government would not allow Iraq to become a launching pad for an attack on its neighbor. Of course, it wouldn’t. Iran has been a major role player in the Iraqi politics since Saddam was even in power. When he was ousted, Iraq became officially in the hands of the Iranian regime like candy in a basket. Very simple, and yet the Americans still do not get it. In his book “War Journal,” Richard Engel wrote about this issue which most Americans did not even consider worthy thinking about. The war made Iran very happy because they toppled their long-term enemy and brought their fellow Shiites to power. Now, if the Americans launched strikes from Iraqi lands, this would make the Americans big liars because they stressed on the fact that Iraq is sovereign and no longer occupied by them. It’s not like Qatar, Kuwait or Saudi Arabia whose governments did let them launch their rockets from their lands. I doubt Maliki or any Shiite politicians approve attacks from Iraqi lands. But if they do, Iranians will consider them betrayers of the nation that hosted them during their struggle against Saddam.

In the end, not only Americans and Israelis would suffer the hard strikes Iran would launch, but also the Iraqi people would because they are going to be stuck in the middle. It’s been five years since they never felt peace, and more wars would drag them again into another well of bombardments and strikes. I believe Shiite militiamen who have been well-trained by Iran would not sit back and watch. They will be on their trainers’ side, of course. That’s the whole objective of why they were trained, in addition to weaken the Americans in Iraq. Along their side, I think Sunni insurgents would seize the opportunity of the Americans’ vulnerability and fight them fiercely. They hate the Shiites but as it is said, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Then, Iraq would be dragged again into another wave of disasters, wiping off all the efforts to stabilize it.

The problem in this issue is that all sides involved (Iran, Israel and the U.S.) are arrogant bullies. It looks like fourth grade kids fighting outside their school’s yard, except that this one may include rockets, tanks, and warplanes. None of them understands that they will all hurt their people. In my opinion, they should sit down and negotiate before they drag the world into another bloody war. The world has witnessed enough wars and needs a break. It really does.

blog.bassamsebti@gmail.com