Mid-East – Page 4

Where were women in Obama’s Cairo speech?

Peter Daou has a great piece up at UN Dispatch about Obama’s speech in Cairo, and the emptiness of his rhetoric surrounding women’s rights. Obama is certainly not in an enviable situation: The previous administration paid lipservice to women’s rights as an excuse to invade entire nations, and framed gender equality as a Western invention that we were going to bring to the backwards, barbaric Middle East by force. As a result, American talk of feminism is understandably met with skepticism and even hostility, and local women’s rights movements in places like Afghanistan, Iran and Egypt have experienced profound setbacks, as men in power are increasingly able to argue that feminism is a colonialist import and a tool of destruction. So I can’t blame Obama for not hammering the gender equality point, and I’m a big believer in providing quiet support for local women’s movements instead of “offering” equality at the barrel of a gun.

But all that said, Peter is right to point out that human rights (and women’s rights) shouldn’t be ignored just because the previous administration used them as weapons of war (and because the previous administration was remarkably hypocritical in their total disregard for human and women’s rights at home). Peter writes:

Take the issue of women’s rights, addressed in Obama’s Cairo speech with the most tepid language:

“The U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.”

“I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.”

“Now let me be clear: issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.”

“Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity – men and women – to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.”

Is that a joke?

With women being stoned, raped, abused, battered, mutilated, and slaughtered on a daily basis across the globe, violence that is so often perpetrated in the name of religion, the most our president can speak about is protecting their right to wear the hijab? I would have been much more heartened if the preponderance of the speech had been about how in the 21st century, we CANNOT tolerate the pervasive abuse of our mothers and sisters and daughters.

I return to the example of Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow:

“13-year old Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow was stoned to death in Somalia by insurgents because she was raped. Reports indicate that was raped by three men while traveling by foot to visit her grandmother in conflict capital, Mogadishu. When she went to the authorities to report the crime, they accused her of adultery and sentenced her to death. Aisha was forced into a hole in a stadium of 1,000 onlookers as 50 men buried her up to the neck and cast stones at her until she died. When some of the people at the stadium tried to save her, militia opened fire on the crowd, killing a boy who was a bystander.

A witness who spoke to the BBC’s Today programme said she had been crying and had to be forced into a hole before the stoning, reported to have taken place in a football stadium. … She said: ‘I’m not going, I’m not going. Don’t kill me, don’t kill me.’ “A few minutes later more than 50 men tried to stone her.” The witness said people crowding round to see the execution said it was “awful”.”

Enough with the perpetual campaign. True justice, true peace, these are earned through courageous decisions and bold actions. Real truth to power.

If we are to fix America’s image in the world and if we are to heal the planet’s myriad ills, it will not be done through contrite kumbaya speeches about how we are all one world and how we should all coexist peacefully, no matter whether the remarks are delivered in Cleveland or Cairo. It will be done by leading through example, by righting the many wrongs here at home, by seeking justice and fairness for all, by doing what is right, not saying what sounds pleasing to the media elite and the pliable punditocracy.

Exactly. It’s time for Obama to start setting an example on human rights issues.

In the Name of Honour: An Interview with Rana Husseini

Natalia has conducted a wonderful interview with Rana Husseini, one of my feminist heroes. Husseini is a journalist who has long covered “honor killings” in Jordan. The whole thing is worth a read, but this is my favorite part:

N: And what about the “it’s their culture” argument? I’ve had highly educated people say that to me when honour killing is brought up, as in “it’s their culture, you can’t change it, you’re a bigot for even thinking about it in these terms.”

R: First of all, I would say to you – violence against women is part of global culture. It’s not isolated to any religion, class or country. However, some societies develop quicker than others and have better mechanisms for coping with it and discouraging it, and people there can’t ignore the struggle going on around the corner.

We need to remember that we are all human beings, and honour crime goes against human dignity. Ending this violence means a better world for everyone.

“Murder in the Name of Honour”

TRIGGER WARNING. Discussion of violence to follow.

Hello! Today, Jill is generous enough to let me guest-blog about Rana Husseini’s new book – Murder in the Name of Honour. I attended the Jordanian launch last night, and finished the book within the space of a few hours. Reading it took precedent over biological functions such as eating and sleeping. I couldn’t put it down.

Rana Husseini is a Jordanian journalist and human rights campaigner. When she first started investigating honour crime, she had the pleasure of sifting through death-threats in her mailbox. She pressed on, and her badass determination served as an example to others. Murder in the Name of Honour speaks of years of struggle on many fronts.

Abu Ghraib Abuse Allegations Include Rape

By now, you’ve likely heard of the most recent allegations regarding U.S. soldiers’ abuse of Iraqi prisoners: they include rape and other sexual assault, of both female and male detainees, and there may be photographs of the assaults among those which Obama has recently decided not to release. You can read the details here — it probably goes without saying that they’re immensely disturbing.

It’s hard to know what to say to this. I’ve spent the last day trying to figure it out, to come up with something intelligent. Instead, all I can muster is seething rage, crushing sadness, and unbearable shame. I’ve never been a patriot. Honestly, I don’t even understand patriotism. And I’ve certainly been ashamed of my country before. But this is certainly a new low. As a rape survivor myself, particularly.

I think that Jennifer Pozner hit the nail pretty much right on the head in under 140 characters on Twitter. Rape is a part of war. And U.S. soldiers have been raping the “enemy” ever since the U.S. military was established. It’s one of the many reasons I oppose war. That doesn’t surprise me, though it doesn’t lessen my rage, sadness or shame.

What is shocking (if not surprising), and only magnifies that rage and shame, is the fact that all of these abuses were seemingly sanctioned by our government. The soldiers who committed other abuses at Abu Ghraib claimed that they were following orders. While that in no way absolves them, seeing the government’s stance on torture, we also have little reason to doubt them. And I see little reason to believe that these rapes and sexual assaults were somehow vastly different. What’s shocking is that in the 21st century, the U.S. government is condoning and possibly even promoting rape as a war tactic.

Of course, the Obama administration is trying to deny that the photos exist. The automatic response to that is, the only way we’ll ever know is if you just release them like you promised. At the same time, Mark Leon Goldberg makes an excellent point that these victims have rights. And it is indeed pretty damn difficult to justify releasing photographs of rape and sexual assault to the public without the victims’ consent.

So I don’t know where to go from there, on any of this. I guess I’ll just open up the floor to all of you.

ETA: Ashley has some good and difficult thoughts over at the SAFER blog.

300 Women March for Rights in Afghanistan

I’m sure that you’ve already seen this elsewhere, but it’s certainly worth posting again.

Yesterday, 300 women in Afghanistan marched in the streets to protest a new law which affects the Shia minority of the population. It says that a woman cannot leave or work outside of the home without her husband’s permission, that she cannot refuse his requests to “make herself up,” and also that marital rape is a-okay. The women were met with 1,000 male counter-protesters, who hurled verbal abuse at them, threatened violence, and actually enacted violence in the form of throwing stones at the women:

The young women stepped off the bus and moved toward the protest march just beginning on the other side of the street when they were spotted by a mob of men.

“Get out of here, you whores!” the men shouted. “Get out!”

The women scattered as the men moved in.

“We want our rights!” one of the women shouted, turning to face them. “We want equality!”

The women ran to the bus and dived inside as it rumbled away, with the men smashing the taillights and banging on the sides.

“Whores!”

But the march continued anyway. About 300 Afghan women, facing an angry throng three times larger than their own, walked the streets of the capital on Wednesday to demand that Parliament repeal a new law that introduces a range of Taliban-like restrictions on women, and permits, among other things, marital rape.

It was an extraordinary scene. Women are mostly illiterate in this impoverished country, and they do not, generally speaking, enjoy anything near the freedom accorded to men. But there they were, most of them young, many in jeans, defying a threatening crowd and calling out slogans heavy with meaning.

With the Afghan police keeping the mob at bay, the women walked two miles to Parliament, where they delivered a petition calling for the law’s repeal.

“Whenever a man wants sex, we cannot refuse,” said Fatima Husseini, 26, one of the marchers. “It means a woman is a kind of property, to be used by the man in any way that he wants.”

Like everyone else, I am astounded at the bravery of these women and their activism.

Afghanistan’s President Karzai seems to be softening his stance and indicating that “the most controversial parts of the law” might be repealed, as the law has not yet been officially published and can therefore be changed. But it seems that the women are demanding a full repeal of the law, period. And it also seems that’s the absolute right stance to take.

President Obama has thus far indicated that he thinks the law is “abhorrent,” but has done nothing to stand with the women who oppose the law or to pressure Karzai to listen to them. You can sign a petition telling him to do just that.

ETA: Commenter Forrester has decided to match the first $1,000 of Feministe donations made to RAWA in solidarity with the women who took place in this march. If you donate online, forward those receipts to cara.kulwicki at gmail dot com so that I can verify with Forrester that they were made!

Iran and Women’s Rights

This article published last week in the NY Times provides a run down on both the advancements that have been in Iran with respect to women’s rights, and the many pervasive setbacks that women still face:

Janet Afary, a professor of Middle East and women’s studies at Purdue University and the author of “Sexual Politics in Modern Iran,” says the country is moving inexorably toward a “sexual revolution.”

“The laws have denied women many basic rights in marriage and divorce,” she wrote in the book. “But they have also contributed to numerous state initiatives promoting literacy, health and infrastructural improvements that benefited the urban and rural poor.”

[. . .]

Despite the gains they have made, women still face extraordinary obstacles. Girls can legally be forced into marriage at the age of 13. Men have the right to divorce their wives whenever they wish, and are granted custody of any children over the age of 7. Men can ban their wives from working outside the home, and can engage in polygamy.

By law, women may inherit from their parents only half the shares of their brothers. Their court testimony is worth half that of a man. Although the state has taken steps to discourage stoning, it remains in the penal code as the punishment for women who commit adultery. A woman who refuses to cover her hair faces jail and up to 80 lashes.

I certainly don’t have anything insightful to add; but I thought that for those of us like myself who are more ignorant on the subject than we ought to be, it’s an interesting and informative primer on the issues that Iranian women are up against, and where progress is being made. Check it out.

Rape and Recruiting Suicide Bombers

Feministe commenter Tom Foolery sent me this article with a note to read paragraphs 3 & 4. I’d suggest you do the same.

Thoughts?

Justice, Justice You Shall Pursue

A guest post by Rebecca of City of Ladies

Peace and hello. The Feministe crew have generously invited me to guest-post here about the Israel-Gaza conflict. I’ll spare you the biography and just say as background that I’m a blue-state Reform Jew with an Israeli-born mother who’s about ready to disown me (not literally) because I support peace in Gaza. (How about that ceasefire, eh.)

This post is in three parts: Israel-Republicanism, One State, Two State, Multiethnic State, Jew State, and Shalom/Salaam.

—

Israel-Republicanism

While I discuss below issues that are more specifically related to the current war, I’d like to first counter, somewhat obliquely, David Schraub’s earlier posts on anti-Semitism.¹ I agree when David says that, as with other forms of bigotry, it’s the victims of that bigotry that should get to define what is and what is not anti-Semitism.

However. Criticism of Israel’s actions is not, in and of itself, anti-Semitic. Period.

Most American Jews I know are, if not always liberal, at least consistent Democrats. (Except for my uncle. Does everyone have a Republican uncle?) Which is why it confuses and saddens me when so many of them adopt what I call a Republican position with respect to Israel.² Meaning they take as their motto the saying “My country, right or wrong” without adding the coda that liberals do: “if right, to be kept right; if wrong, to be set right.” Rather than seeing the conflict as the complex and nuanced situation it is, they see it in black and white – “you’re either with us or against us.” In short, large numbers of American Jews that are progressive about American politics are total right-wing nutjobs when it comes to Israel.

Why is this? Why this willful blindness, this Israel-Republicanism? Does it stem from religious conviction? Anti-Arab racism and Islamophobia? A belief that Jews have just been persecuted enough? Simply a facet of American privilege? I suspect it’s all of these.

“What is bad for the Jews is better for Zionism.”

The Holocaust Is Over; We Must Rise From its Ashes by Avraham Burg
(Palgrave Macmillan)

When liberals and radicals discuss the occupation of Palestine, two soundbites tend to emerge: “How can Jews persecute Arabs when they themselves were persecuted? They know better!” and “It’s like when an abused child grows up to abuse their own children. It’s just something that happens.” There are elements of truth to both assertions, but each one shaves off so much of the complexity behind Israeli aggression that neither one is very useful in understanding how to end it. Auschwitz survivor Ruth Kluger, in her memoir Still Alive,, addresses the idea that “Jews should know better” in a scene where she takes a group of university students to task for comparing Israel to the Nazis. “Auschwitz was no instructional institution,” she scolds them. “You learned nothing there, and least of all humanity and tolerance.” And it’s true. When you experience violence, you learn violence. The idea that genocide turns people into enlightened beings is preposterous.

However, the opposite assertion – that Israel is like an abused child – can be shallow and insulting. A human being operates on emotion and impulse just as much as logic and rationality; we forgive individuals for acting without thinking. A government, on the other hand, must be held to a higher standard. To say that Israel is just an abuser and that’s all there is to it is to give up on Israel’s capacity for good, and to give up on that is to dismiss the possibility of a Palestinian state and peace in the region.

Avraham Burg, former speaker of the Knesset, doesn’t flinch from the complex web of trauma, pride, anger, sadness, and paranoia that has led Israeli citizens to condone the slaughter of Palestinians. The Holocaust is Over; We Must Rise From Its Ashes doesn’t address the manipulation of Holocaust remembrance by Israeli and American politicians, the Christian Zionist movement, global anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim sentiment, or the other external factors that fuel Israel’s various military endeavors; instead, his half-memoir, half-polemic dissects the psychology behind Israel’s preference for violence over diplomacy, and makes the case for why Israel cannot achieve peace and stability until it stops seeing every threat as a potential Shoah.

It just keeps getting better

I keep saying that between going to the inauguration, watching all the great stuff Obama has been doing, and finding out that coffee is good for the brain, this has been my Best Week Ever. Well, the week is supposedly over today, but Mr. President is still sending a special envoy to the Middle East on a listening tour. I guess he figures that people out there may have some interesting things to say, and probably better to address those views than simply bomb them all to hell.

It’s a small step and one that should have been taken a long time ago, but damn it feels good to have a president who finally takes diplomacy seriously.