In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Tag: Mid-East

Imprisoned and Deported for Rape

For being raped, that is.

Sixteen-year-old Isma Mahmood was deported to Pakistan last month after serving six months in shackles and handcuffs in a prison in Saudi Arabia. Her crime: being raped by a Saudi man.

Some crime.

“It’s difficult for me to talk about what happened to me, from rape to prison and from prison to deportation,” Isma said in the office of a rescue trust in Karachi where she sat with her sister Muna, 18, who was also deported.

Isma’s parents, originally from the central Pakistani city of Multan, were trafficked to Saudi Arabia around 20 years ago. “Though both of us were born there, we are Pakistanis,” Isma said.

Human rights groups say that hundreds of people, particularly young women, are still trafficked from South Asia every year, with many going on to face a life blighted by physical and often sexual abuse.

This is a good example of how things like trafficking have generational impacts. Yet too many countries — including the United States — don’t have proper procedures for dealing with trafficking victims. Like in this case, they’re often charged with prostitution and then put through an unsympathetic criminal justice system, or simply deported. Of course, the criminal “justice” system in Saudi Arabia doesn’t even approach just.

The women prisoners were mostly Pakistanis, Indonesians, Bangladeshis and Nigerians. Most of them came to Saudi Arabia through trafficking networks and were charged with prostitution, she said.

“No one would believe what it was like,” Muna said.

“When I used to protest against the ill treatment they beat me on my back,” Isma added. “We were chained all during this period. The only time jail officials removed the chain was during lunch or when anyone went to the bathroom or at prayer time,” she said.

“Once a jail official offered me help and assured me I would be released if I agreed to sleep with him … There was a Pakistani woman who was over 40 years old and developed Aids in prison, but she remained in chains before she was deported to Pakistan,” she added.

Read the whole thing.

Middle East Democracy Slowed

Well this is promising.

Steps toward democracy in the Arab world, a crucial American goal that just months ago was cause for optimism — with elections held in Iraq, Egypt and the Palestinian areas — are slowing, blocked by legal maneuvers and official changes of heart throughout the Middle East.

Analysts and officials say the political rise of Islamists, the chaos in Iraq, the newfound Shiite power in Iraq with its implication for growing Iranian influence, and the sense among some rulers that they can wait out the end of the Bush administration have put the brakes on democratization.

Read More…Read More…

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

A really interesting policy paper (pdf) evaluating the power of the pro-Israel lobby in influencing U.S. foreign policy. It’s been making some waves, and is definitely worth a read.

My thoughts: I can see why this paper is upsetting a lot of people. The authors’ choice of language unfortunately smacks a little too much of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, like the Elders of Zion or ideas that Jews control the media/banks/government/whatever else they supposedly control. However, that doesn’t make the facts that they present untrue, and they’re fairly clear in explaining that they aren’t suggesting that this is a big conspiracy — just that the pro-Israel lobby works like any other lobbying group, except it’s far more well-funded and well-organized, and not challenged in any real way.

That, though, leaves me to question exactly what the problem with the lobby itself is. Lobbying groups exist for just about everything. Some happen to function more effectively than others. Is the pro-Israel lobby “bad” simply because it happens to be better organized and better funded than just about any other lobby? Isn’t the onus on politicians and policy-makers, not lobbying groups, to resist pressures that are damaging to U.S. interests?

There are a great many lobbying groups whose goals I don’t like: the NRA, the “moral majority,” the anti-choice lobby, or big oil. But I can’t fault their existence any more than I can fault the existence of the AARP, or the AFL-CIO, or the pro-choice lobby. I can, however, fault politicians and policy-makers for folding to demands from special-interest groups. That’s how the modern American political system works. We can certainly criticize the existence of lobbying groups in general, but it seems a little ridiculous to criticize one particular lobbying group because (a) we don’t agree with everything it advocates, and (b) it’s really, really good at what it does.

I may not always love what the pro-Israel lobby pushes for, and I do think it’s problematic that there is no other group pushing back the other way or even balancing out the conversation. The authors of this paper posit that the pro-Israel lobby is simply too intimidating and too powerful for any other group to take a stand against them, lest they be labelled anti-Semitic. And I think they have a point there — questioning Israel’s policies as a nation is too often conflated with arguing that Israel’s very existance is unjustified (something that almost no one is saying), or with anti-Semitism in general. That’s problematic; it’s further troubling that we can’t even have a public conversation about it.

Israel should be treated like any other country: If they’re our ally (and they certainly are), then we should work together for our mutual interests. I don’t have a problem with sending aid to Israel, as we send aid to many other countries. But that aid should be accounted for, like it is in every other nation. And we should use our financial influence to push Israel — and all the other countries we’re invested in — to uphold human rights norms and democratic values. We should not be compromising our own interests and values for another nation.

Anyway, check out the article. It’s long, but worth a thorough reading. I’d love to hear more thoughts about it.

Thanks to Kyle for the link.

Daily Stupidity

What would international politics be without some nutbag (often godbag) doing something completely inane? Well, friends, today is no exception, as a Pakistani cleric has now offered a $1 million bounty on the head of the cartoonist responsible for those offensive Mohammed illustrations. I wonder if he realizes that the cartoons were drawn by 12 different people?

In the northwestern city of Peshawar, where riots left two dead and scores injured on Wednesday, prayer leader Mohammed Yousaf Qureshi announced the bounty for killing a cartoonist to about 1,000 people outside the Mohabat Khan mosque, where worshippers burned a flag of Denmark and an effigy of the Danish prime minister.

He said the mosque and his religious school would give $25,000 and a car, while a local jewelers’ association would give another $1 million. No representative of the association was available to confirm it had made the offer.

“This is a unanimous decision of by all imams (prayer leaders) of Islam that whoever insults the prophet deserves to be killed and whoever will take this insulting man to his end, will get this prize,” Qureshi said.

Which is a great plan, you know, when you live in an economically struggling nation where you still haven’t totally recovered from a major natural disater — offer a million bucks to kill some guy for drawing a picture instead of, say, getting clean water to a rural village or educating some of your kids.

Of course, it’s not exactly a big secret that Pakistani president Pervez Musharaff and his government funnel money to terrorist organizations, while simultaneously acting as a friend to President Bush and the United States (and, to be clear, I’m actually not being too critical of the Bush administration here — they do need a strategic alliance with Pakistan, they just need to do a better job at it). Of course, the terrorist groups funded by Pakistan spend most of their energy launching attacks on India and in Kashmir, though terrorist extraordinaire Osama bin Laden has certainly spent some time in Pakistan trying to get his hands on nuclear technology. (And as a slight sidenote, if the words “nuclear” and “crazy godbag government” scare you when used together in the same sentence, you might want to avoid reading this). But back to Pakistan: The bottom line is, when you create a culture where the government tacitly endorses these groups, you can’t be surprised when they extend beyond your borders.

Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, chief of the radical group Jamaat al-Dawat, became the first religious leader detained by authorities since protests began in Pakistan early this month. He was due to make a speech in Faisalabad, about 75 miles away.

Intelligence officials have said scores of members of Jamaat al-Dawat and assorted militant groups joined protests in Lahore on Tuesday and had incited violence in a bid to undermine President Gen. Pervez Musharraf’s government.

And you can’t be surprised when they turn on you.

Thanks to Lauren for the link.

Translating Arabic Into Injustice

Take this scenario: NYU grad student works as a translator. He is hired by a local attorney, and translates numerous conversations between her and her client. While doing so, he does research for his graduate dissertation. She breaks a court order, and releases a statement from her client to the public; the translator was never asked to agree to the order that the lawyer was bound by. The lawyer gets in trouble for breaking the order, and gets a slap-on-the-wrist punishment. The issue, we think, is settled.

A few years later, the Department of Justice re-opens the case, and decides to punish the lawyer again — only this time, they prosecute her on terrorism charges. They additionally decide to prosecute her translator for aiding and abetting terrorism, simply because he did his job and translated the conversations between the lawyer and her client.

Sounds implausible? It isn’t.

Mohammed’s diligence as a translator and an academic researcher would cost him dearly. In April 2002, he was arrested, along with Stewart and one of her paralegals. They were accused of conspiring to provide material support to terrorists. Two years earlier, Stewart had told a reporter that the imprisoned Abdel Rahman opposed a cease-fire that his supporters had negotiated with the Egyptian government. Though no act of violence ever resulted, the U.S. government claimed that Stewart had not only violated government regulations — which she had agreed to follow — restricting communications with Rahman but that she had also abetted terrorism.

Whatever Stewart may have done, however, it is hard to see how Mohammed can be held responsible for her actions. As a government-approved translator, he was never even asked to agree to the regulations Stewart was accused of violating, and he had no reason to question the lawfulness of his employer’s instructions. During the trial, prosecutors made contradictory arguments. They insinuated that Mohammed had knowingly broken the law in order to further his scholarly research, and even that he was an acolyte of Abdel Rahman. But they also acknowledged that Mohammed had never advocated violence or Islamic fundamentalism. My guess is that the real reason they went after Mohammed was to get Stewart: She knew no Arabic, and Abdel Rahman knew very little English, so without including Mohammed in the alleged conspiracy, prosecutors wouldn’t have had much of a case.

Mohammed, shellshocked by what has happened to him, faces sentencing in March, though appeals will surely follow. Many lawyers have rallied to Stewart’s defense because they believe that the government targeted her in order to deter other lawyers from zealously defending clients accused of terrorism, and because they feel that her case raises serious constitutional issues. Mohammed’s prosecution raises somewhat different, though equally disturbing, questions. Should a translator be sent to prison for following his employer’s instructions, especially when the prosecution failed to prove that he intended to break any law? Can a graduate student’s dissertation research reasonably be construed as contributing to a conspiracy to help terrorists?

Read the whole thing. This is outrageous.

More on religion, free speech, and those cartoons

I touched on this issue a few days ago, focusing mostly on the stupidity of criticizing Muslims’ boycott of Danish products as an assault on free speech. But given the fact that this situation is much broader than just that, I should probably clarify what I actually think.

1. Running the cartoon was racist, bigoted, and stupid. The editors and the paper staff absolutely knew that this would cause an uproar; they would have had to be incredibly dumb not to. If they had any taste or common sense, they wouldn’t have run the cartoon — not out of fear, but for the same reasons that we generally try and avoid running editorial content that is explicit bigotry. However,

2. Their right to run a cartoon like this should not be infringed upon, and the fact that I have to be clear on that point is a little sad. That right should include the ability to run the cartoon without legal punishment, as well as without intimidation by way of violence. And,

3. The people who are rioting, burning embassies and consulates, and demonstrating their discontent either through violence or tacit approval of that violence (hello, Syrian government) deserve full and thorough condemnation. But,

4. It would be a mistake to write them off as “crazy Arabs” and not seek to understand, at least a little bit, why this cartoon has spawned such a reaction. That isn’t to say that in the future newspapers should review their editorial content based on what they’re sure won’t make anyone angry, or that this kind of violence is at all justified by trying to understand it. I just think that major boil-overs like this one are never the result of a single incident; like the LA riots after the Rodney King trial, they’re usually the result of a long-brewing frustration and anger over many little events, which finally explodes after a final straw. When we don’t bother to look at all the smaller issues underlying these boil-overs, we miss valuable opportunities to prevent them in the future. Finally,

5. A simplistic view of this issue — either “The Europeans brought this on themselves” or “Anyone who thinks this cartoon shouldn’t have been run is like an anti-choice zealot” — is a big mistake. For the record, I agree more with Steve on the basic idea that Europeans should be more respectful of multiculturalism and their fellow citizens. I don’t think he’s even coming close to saying that European newspapers should be legally barred from running cartoons like this in the future, or that their right to free speech should be infringed in any way. I also partially agree with this (edited) comment of Jeff’s:

The point is, there is a balance you have to strike between fidelity to your faith-based beliefs and living in a pluralistic society.

Which is why many Muslims resist pluralism… But when they start making demands that violate the letter and spirit of the social contract that allows for actual tolerance, things get hairy. Ditto when they use their religion as a doctrine of expansion.

I think the issue is how one goes about making these demands. I’m not sure that it is problematic to demand that your faith, race or other characteristic not be thoroughly disrespected, as Islam was in that cartoon. I think it’s perfectly valid when Jews call people/publications out on anti-Semitic content; I think it’s pefectly valid to call homophobes and homophobic companies out when they institute anti-gay policies; I think it’s perfectly valid to criticize racist editorial content. The line, of course, gets drawn at the point where you are no longer just criticizing or calling attention to or shedding light on — it gets drawn when you’re trying to legislate your own morality/offensive level, or when you’re trying to forcibly remove someone elses’ rights in order to suit your own. That’s why Jeff’s abortion analogy in the post fails. And that’s why, if people had simply criticized these cartoons — heck, if they had raised hell and written in thousands of letters to the editor, if Muslim leaders had gone on TV and renounced this kind of bigotry, if they had organized a protest outside of the newspapers’ office, if they had used their own right to free speech to raise a big stink — I’d be all for them making their demands, as members of a free society who deserve to be respected. I have little patience for those who exercise their own free speech rights, and then complain when their speech is answered by others’.

But violence crosses the line, big time. Let there be no mistake about that. I just think it would be foolish to write the whole situation off as “Crazy Arabs” and not examine the deeper discontents and how we can all deal with them.”

UPDATE: Amanda says it perfectly.

Democracy Is Great, Until We Don’t Get What We Want

Here’s the problem with democratic elections in the Middle East: The most America-friendly, liberal, secular-minded politician isn’t always going to get elected. So we can support free elections, even if we recognize that we will sometimes be troubled by their outcomes, or we can install dictators and prop up corrupt but America-lovin’ regimes. What do you think the We *heart* Democracy GOP shills think about this one?

Well, friends, I give you Ben Shapiro.

This week, the terrorist group Hamas won an overwhelming electoral victory in the Palestinian Arab parliament election. Hamas, an organization that pledges to seek the destruction of the State of Israel, now holds 76 out of 132 seats in the relatively powerless legislative body.

This election gives the lie to two fallacious yet extremely influential ideas upon which American foreign policy has been based. First, the Arab/Israeli dispute remains intractable not because Palestinian Arab leadership is corrupt or evil (though it is), but because Palestinian Arabs, like their Muslim brethren across the globe, hate Israel and want the Jews thrown into the sea.

All Muslims hate all Jews. Why do I already doubt him?

Read More…Read More…