Inside Outside.
I want to describe and share my experience Wednesday March 9th 2011 and itś Implications.
For the first time I was at Cinema City Mall Rishon Lezion which is very New Mall.
IBM invited us to an hours presentation of IBM Software Group with a lot of talk about Cloud Technology.
After that we saw "True Grit" the Cohen Brothers film on a very Large Screen and all the sound Effects.
When I arrived at the "City" it was rain and stormy weather. Inside we were cut off from the Outside News and Weather. Fully Air Conditioning and Heating. It was very Middle Class and I would say Upper Middle Class With big parking lots. You did not have too spend any Money but there are many attractions.
Now True Grit is very much Cowboyś and Indians period. But Texas is Texas and USA Federalism is basically the same for over 200 years. Texas is still very different to Massachusetts New York Chicago and California.
But I think the Cohen's (Coen's) are hinting on Present Law and Order, Lawlessness Power Violence and Politics Today. Karl Marx thought a revolution would happen in GB or Germany and he did not live to see it in Russia. All that Collapsed in 1989. Now we are going through the "Arab 1989" as some call it but the end results are not clear following the 2009 Crunch. And the Implications on the rest of the World, India, Pakistan and China too.
Inside I mean also those humans kept in Prison for Long Periods and In General living in "Bubbles".
Uncle Sam
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Information technology in transition: The end of Wintel | The Economist
Information technology in transition: The end of Wintel | The Economist
This is a printer friendly version of the page. Go back to the website version »
Information technology in transition
The end of Wintel
As Microsoft and Intel move apart, computing becomes multipolar
Jul 29th 2010
THEY were the Macbeths of information technology (IT): a wicked couple who seized power and abused it in bloody and avaricious ways. Or so critics of Microsoft and Intel used to say, citing the two firms’ supposed love of monopoly profits and dead rivals. But in recent years, the story has changed. Bill Gates, Microsoft’s founder, has retired to give away his billions. The “Wintel” couple (short for “Windows”, Microsoft’s flagship operating system, and “Intel”) are increasingly seen as yesterday’s tyrants. Rumours persist that a coup is brewing to oust Steve Ballmer, Microsoft’s current boss.
Yet there is life in the old technopolists. They still control the two most important standards in computing: Windows, the operating system for most personal computers, and “Intel Architecture”, the set of rules governing how software interacts with the processor it runs on. More than 80% of PCs still run on the “Wintel” standard. Demand for Windows and PC chips, which flagged during the global recession, has recovered. So have both firms’ results: to many people’s surprise, Microsoft announced a thumping quarterly profit of $4.5 billion in July; Intel earned an impressive $2.9 billion.
So now is a good time to take stock of IT’s most hated power couple. As The Economist went to press, Intel was on track to reach a settlement with America’s Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which would in effect end the antitrust woes that have plagued both firms. And Microsoft has recently strengthened its ties with ARM, Intel’s new archrival. This suggests that the Wintel marriage is crumbling.
Critics have often questioned both firms’ technological prowess. Yet Windows 7, the latest version of Microsoft’s operating system, is excellent, and customers have snapped it up. As for Intel, its manufacturing machine is peerless. Some of its transistors are so tiny that 2m would fit on the “.” at the end of this sentence.
Both firms have often co-operated, despite occasional crockery-throwing. Microsoft has been pushier: in the mid-1990s, for instance, Mr Gates leaned heavily on Andy Grove, Intel’s boss, to stop the development of software that trod on Windows’ turf. Intel backed down.
Monday, August 9, 2010
2010 Tel Aviv-Yafo - Chicago 1999
8th August 2010 Tel Aviv reminded me of Chicago 1999.
In Chicago when I went to most McDonalds and asked for a meal without French Fries- Chips they did not understand me as most of the workers where from Mexico.
In Tel-Aviv August 2010 escaping the Sticky Weather I found the same.
The Boss's are Israeli and all the Regular Workers are from all over the
World and do not speak Hebrew, sometimes English.
This is happening very fast.
Clothes are Cheap when Food is expensive. And Rent of Course.
In Chicago when I went to most McDonalds and asked for a meal without French Fries- Chips they did not understand me as most of the workers where from Mexico.
In Tel-Aviv August 2010 escaping the Sticky Weather I found the same.
The Boss's are Israeli and all the Regular Workers are from all over the
World and do not speak Hebrew, sometimes English.
This is happening very fast.
Clothes are Cheap when Food is expensive. And Rent of Course.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
2010 Egypt: A special report on Egypt: The best man always wins | The Economist
A special report on Egypt: The best man always wins | The Economist
ONE of the endearing things about Egypt is that although nearly everyone fiddles, breaks or ignores the rules, everyone gamely pretends to respect them. Elections, for instance, are an elaborate charade. Rarely does turnout exceed 20%, and this from a list of registered voters that, in 2005, covered only 40% of the eligible pool, by official count. Few people register because the legal period for doing so is short and comes many months before elections. Besides, registration involves a visit to a police station, which many Egyptians prefer to avoid. Foreign election observers are banned. The parties allowed to run for the People’s Assembly, Egypt’s parliament, are selected by a committee controlled by the ever-ruling National Democratic Party (NDP), which is headed by Mr Mubarak. Independents can stand, which is how the Muslim Brothers, banned as an organisation, field their candidates. But they risk arrest on some pretext, and harassment even without one.
The rest of this article on Linl Above
ONE of the endearing things about Egypt is that although nearly everyone fiddles, breaks or ignores the rules, everyone gamely pretends to respect them. Elections, for instance, are an elaborate charade. Rarely does turnout exceed 20%, and this from a list of registered voters that, in 2005, covered only 40% of the eligible pool, by official count. Few people register because the legal period for doing so is short and comes many months before elections. Besides, registration involves a visit to a police station, which many Egyptians prefer to avoid. Foreign election observers are banned. The parties allowed to run for the People’s Assembly, Egypt’s parliament, are selected by a committee controlled by the ever-ruling National Democratic Party (NDP), which is headed by Mr Mubarak. Independents can stand, which is how the Muslim Brothers, banned as an organisation, field their candidates. But they risk arrest on some pretext, and harassment even without one.
The rest of this article on Linl Above
Monday, May 17, 2010
2010 Yafo Haredim
Order the arrest of demonstrators who had broken in Jaffa
16/05/2010 13:16:33
At about 11:00 Louis Pasteur Street in Jaffa, which was held picket disturbed archaeological work carried out there on suspicion that instead of tombs, open space and asked police protesters to leave but these were not according to police, 17 protesters were detained for questioning transferred open space.
Revision:
Later reporting vigil at Louis Pasteur Street in Jaffa, just arrived two buses filled with protesters who violated the order, large police forces instead.
Revision:
During the demonstration held today Louis Pasteur Street in Jaffa against the archaeological work carried out in a suspicion that there are graves, some forty suspects arrested were detained for riots, attacks on police officers conducting an illegal demonstration. Further investigation in the open.
Revision:
During a demonstration at St Louis Pasteur Jaffa delayed Arrested 50 suspects for questioning, of which 23 suspects were released and 27 were jailed for questioning.
16/05/2010 13:16:33
At about 11:00 Louis Pasteur Street in Jaffa, which was held picket disturbed archaeological work carried out there on suspicion that instead of tombs, open space and asked police protesters to leave but these were not according to police, 17 protesters were detained for questioning transferred open space.
Revision:
Later reporting vigil at Louis Pasteur Street in Jaffa, just arrived two buses filled with protesters who violated the order, large police forces instead.
Revision:
During the demonstration held today Louis Pasteur Street in Jaffa against the archaeological work carried out in a suspicion that there are graves, some forty suspects arrested were detained for riots, attacks on police officers conducting an illegal demonstration. Further investigation in the open.
Revision:
During a demonstration at St Louis Pasteur Jaffa delayed Arrested 50 suspects for questioning, of which 23 suspects were released and 27 were jailed for questioning.
Friday, May 7, 2010
2010 Tel Aviv-Yafo. Tzipi Livni. Livni to Haaretz: Likud and Kadima must join forces for peace
Livni to Haaretz: Likud and Kadima must join forces for peace
Opposition leader: Parties must combine forces to reach peace agreement with Palestinians, bring about a social shift.
By Aluf Benn Published 01:14 07.05.10
Story Highlights
* Opposition leader blasts PM for 'paying off' ultra-Orthodox
* Says Netanyahu avoiding making decisions on peace process
Opposition leader MK Tzipi Livni (Kadima ) on Thursday called to combine the forces of "the two large Zionist parties in Israel" - Kadima and Likud - to reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians and bring about a social shift.
"The prime minister is the one preventing the change," Livni said in an interview with Haaretz. "The parties he called 'our natural partners' before the elections are his means of preventing the change. There is no connection between what they represent and the Zionist vision. Neither the one [Theodor] Herzl outlined nor [Ze'ev] Jabotinsky, whose civic doctrine they have cast aside."
Livni blasted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for "paying off" the ultra-Orthodox so that he could avoid making a decision on the peace process. She said Netanyahu is also evading a decision on social issues.
After the elections last year Livni met Netanyahu, who told her "the right-wing bloc won," she said. "I told him, there's another option, combining the two large parties' forces to advance peace [with the Palestinians] and internal agendas."
"Israel 2010 is a country in which women ride in the back of the bus, dry bones take precedence over saving lives, conversion is a mission impossible, the Zionist vision has blurred and defining the Jewish state has been given to a monopoly of ultra-Orthodox politicians that are taking advantage of the system and politicians. Society is divided into cloistered groups, each studying in its language - Hebrew, Arabic, Yiddish - the curriculum it sees fit," she said.
The public's attention has focused on the ultra-Orthodox community and core curriculum in recent days, Livni said, "and rightly so. We must act now, before the situation turns into mutual hatred that will bring no solution. Change is possible and the keys to change are in the hands of the Zionist parties representing the majority in Israel."
The change must consist of three co-dependent elements - education, military or national service and work, she said.
"The core curriculum is necessary from two aspects - creating a common basis reflecting Israel's values as a democratic Jewish state. Judaism and civic studies [must be taught] in every school. The second is providing every student with tools to join the labor force in the future and make a decent living. This is the only interpretation of equality - equal opportunity to students and a fairer distribution of the burden among the population. This, with joint values and vision, are critical to our existence as a society. Pluralism is not a substitute but complementary."
Livni said the state must cut off funding immediately for schools that don't teach core curriculum.
"Change is possible, but it will not be done with the agreement of the ultra-Orthodox parties. They have no reason [to agree], as long as Likud is the ruling party. Likud has bound its political destiny and all Israelis' fate to the ultra-Orthodox politicians' whims," she said.
"Kadima in my leadership refused to mortgage its world view. True, Kadima governments paid in the past. In my leadership it won't do so any more," Livni said.
Had Likud not dealt with the ultra-Orthodox, the two large Zionist parties could change the collision course Israel is on, both on the domestic and international fronts, she said. We could turn to a democratic Jewish-Zionist track, which protects individual rights in a democracy and creates a national common basis for the Jewish state, she said.
"The two parties could change the system of government to reduce the extortion power of the small parties, condition education funding on teaching the core curriculum and encourage anyone who can to join the labor force. They could also reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians based on two states. This is the only way to preserve the Jewish democratic identity," she said.
The peace goals and social goals are not contradictory, she said.
"In the past people used to say it was a matter of priorities, that it was worth paying and giving up [certain goals] to do the really important things, like a peace agreement. But this government is paying so that it won't have to reach an agreement. We can't wait and mend society only after we win all the battles. Otherwise it will be too late," she said.
by: Aluf Benn Haaretz
Opposition leader: Parties must combine forces to reach peace agreement with Palestinians, bring about a social shift.
By Aluf Benn Published 01:14 07.05.10
Story Highlights
* Opposition leader blasts PM for 'paying off' ultra-Orthodox
* Says Netanyahu avoiding making decisions on peace process
Opposition leader MK Tzipi Livni (Kadima ) on Thursday called to combine the forces of "the two large Zionist parties in Israel" - Kadima and Likud - to reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians and bring about a social shift.
"The prime minister is the one preventing the change," Livni said in an interview with Haaretz. "The parties he called 'our natural partners' before the elections are his means of preventing the change. There is no connection between what they represent and the Zionist vision. Neither the one [Theodor] Herzl outlined nor [Ze'ev] Jabotinsky, whose civic doctrine they have cast aside."
Livni blasted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for "paying off" the ultra-Orthodox so that he could avoid making a decision on the peace process. She said Netanyahu is also evading a decision on social issues.
After the elections last year Livni met Netanyahu, who told her "the right-wing bloc won," she said. "I told him, there's another option, combining the two large parties' forces to advance peace [with the Palestinians] and internal agendas."
"Israel 2010 is a country in which women ride in the back of the bus, dry bones take precedence over saving lives, conversion is a mission impossible, the Zionist vision has blurred and defining the Jewish state has been given to a monopoly of ultra-Orthodox politicians that are taking advantage of the system and politicians. Society is divided into cloistered groups, each studying in its language - Hebrew, Arabic, Yiddish - the curriculum it sees fit," she said.
The public's attention has focused on the ultra-Orthodox community and core curriculum in recent days, Livni said, "and rightly so. We must act now, before the situation turns into mutual hatred that will bring no solution. Change is possible and the keys to change are in the hands of the Zionist parties representing the majority in Israel."
The change must consist of three co-dependent elements - education, military or national service and work, she said.
"The core curriculum is necessary from two aspects - creating a common basis reflecting Israel's values as a democratic Jewish state. Judaism and civic studies [must be taught] in every school. The second is providing every student with tools to join the labor force in the future and make a decent living. This is the only interpretation of equality - equal opportunity to students and a fairer distribution of the burden among the population. This, with joint values and vision, are critical to our existence as a society. Pluralism is not a substitute but complementary."
Livni said the state must cut off funding immediately for schools that don't teach core curriculum.
"Change is possible, but it will not be done with the agreement of the ultra-Orthodox parties. They have no reason [to agree], as long as Likud is the ruling party. Likud has bound its political destiny and all Israelis' fate to the ultra-Orthodox politicians' whims," she said.
"Kadima in my leadership refused to mortgage its world view. True, Kadima governments paid in the past. In my leadership it won't do so any more," Livni said.
Had Likud not dealt with the ultra-Orthodox, the two large Zionist parties could change the collision course Israel is on, both on the domestic and international fronts, she said. We could turn to a democratic Jewish-Zionist track, which protects individual rights in a democracy and creates a national common basis for the Jewish state, she said.
"The two parties could change the system of government to reduce the extortion power of the small parties, condition education funding on teaching the core curriculum and encourage anyone who can to join the labor force. They could also reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians based on two states. This is the only way to preserve the Jewish democratic identity," she said.
The peace goals and social goals are not contradictory, she said.
"In the past people used to say it was a matter of priorities, that it was worth paying and giving up [certain goals] to do the really important things, like a peace agreement. But this government is paying so that it won't have to reach an agreement. We can't wait and mend society only after we win all the battles. Otherwise it will be too late," she said.
by: Aluf Benn Haaretz
Sunday, March 14, 2010
2010 Cairo 1999 Mona- Omar Sherif, French Law
From liberals and feminists, unsettling silence on rending the Muslim veil
By Mona Eltahawy washington post
Saturday, July 17, 2010; A13
The French parliament's vote this week to ban full-length veils in public was the right move by the wrong group.
Some have tried to present the ban as a matter of Islam vs. the West. It is not. First, Islam is not monolithic. It, like other major religions, has strains and sects. Many Muslim women -- despite their distaste for the European political right wing -- support the ban precisely because it is a strike against the Muslim right wing.
Some have likened this issue to Switzerland's move last year to ban the construction of minarets. On the one hand, it is preposterous to compare women's faces -- their identity -- to a stone pillar. Minarets are used to issue a call to prayer; they are a symbol of Islam. The niqab, the full-length veil that has openings only for the eyes, is a symbol only for the Muslim right.
But underlying both bans is a dangerous silence: liberal refusal to robustly discuss what it means to be European, what it means to be Muslim, and racism and immigration. Liberals decrying the infringement of women's rights should acknowledge that the absence of debate on these critical issues allowed the political right and the Muslim right to seize the situation.
Europe's ascendant political right is unapologetically xenophobic. It caricatures the religion that I practice and uses those distortions to fan Islamophobia. But ultra-conservative strains of Islam, such as Salafism and Wahhabism, also caricature our religion and use that Islamophobia to silence opposition. Salafi ideology, which is unapologetically misogynistic, has left its imprimatur on Islam globally by convincing too many Muslims that it is the purest and highest form of our faith.
The strains of Islam that promote face veils do not believe in the concept of a woman's right to choose and describe women as needing to be hidden to prove their "worth." Salafism and Wahhabism preach that women will burn in hell if they are not covered from head to toe -- whether they live in Saudi Arabia or France. There is no choice in such conditioning. That is not a message Muslims learn in our holy book, the Koran, nor is the face veil prescribed by the majority of Muslim scholars.
The French ban has been condemned as anti-liberal and anti-feminist. Where were those howls when niqabs began appearing in European countries, where for years women fought for rights? A bizarre political correctness tied the tongues of those who would normally rally to defend women's rights.
There are several ideological conflicts here: Within Islam, liberal and feminist Muslims refuse to believe that full-length veils are mandatory. In Saudi Arabia, where the prevalence of face veils is great, blogger Eman Al Nafjan wrote a post on Saudiwoman supporting the French ban: "I have heard Saudi women, who are conditioned to believe that covering is an unquestionable issue, sigh as they watch uncovered women on TV and say, 'They get this world, and we get the afterlife.' These are the women 'choosing' to cover, brainwashed into living to die."
But the problem is not just "over there." Feminist groups run by Muslim women in various Western countries fight misogynistic practices justified in the name of culture and religion. Cultural relativists, they say, don't want to "offend" anyone by protesting the disappearance of women behind the veil -- or worse.
For example, French women of North African and Muslim descent launched Ni Putes Ni Soumises (Neither Whores Nor Submissives) in response to violence against women in housing projects and forced marriages of immigrant women in France. That group supports the ban and has denounced the racism faced in France by immigrant women and men.
Cultural integration has failed, or not taken place, in many European countries, but women shouldn't pay the price for it.
Europe's liberals must ask themselves why they have been silent. It is clear that Europe's political right -- other countries have similar bans in the works -- does not care about Muslim women or their rights.
But Muslims must ask themselves the same question: Why the silence as some of our women fade into black, either as a form of identity politics or out of acquiescence to Salafism?
The pioneering Egyptian feminist Hoda Shaarawi famously removed her veil in 1923, declaring it a thing of the past. Almost a century later, we are foundering. The best way to support Muslim women would be to oppose both the racist political right wing and the niqabs and burqas of the Muslim right wing. Women should not be sacrificed to either.
Let's move away from abstract discussions and focus on the realities of women. The French were right to ban the veil in public. Those of us who really care about women's rights should talk about the dangers in equating piety with the disappearance of women.
Mona Eltahawy is an Egyptian-born writer and lecturer on Arab and Muslim issues.
Mona Eltahawy: Tea With Omar Sharif
The Jerusalem Report March 29, 2010
When I read that Egypt’s Journalist Union had punished two senior Egyptian editors – one a member of the country’s ruling party and the other an expert on Jewish affairs for violating its ban on contacts with Israel, I wondered if Omar Sharif ever thinks of me.
My nemesis wasn’t the once-heartthrob Egyptian actor but a State Security officer in Cairo whose nom de guerre was Omar Sharif and who, for six months in 1999, tormented me for moving to Jerusalem as a correspondent for Reuters. There is no law that bans Egyptians from visiting Israel but everyone knows that once you do, State Security will invite you over for “a cup of tea” – i.e., an interrogation.
I got Omar Sharif’s note inviting me for tea during a quick visit to Cairo the year I lived in Israel. “Miss Mona, an officer left this for you,” the doorman’s wife Umm Mokhtar said. An ebullient woman not easily intimidated, she was unusually subdued as she handed me the note, which I shoved absentmindedly into a jacket pocket. I was on my way to the airport, late as usual.
I did not think of him again until my next trip to Cairo a few months later, when my brother’s very anxious father-in-law took me aside. Once he mentioned the name Omar Sharif, I knew the surreal had kicked down the door into my life.
When I didn’t call Omar, he had gone to my apartment building and dragged Umm Mokhtar’s husband to the nearest police station for questioning as to my whereabouts. After the poor man convinced Omar that all he knew was that I was abroad somewhere, Omar went back to my apartment building where he spoke to the man from whom my parents had bought the apartment and who acted as de facto landlord.
He told Omar that all he knew about me was that I was a journalist and he offered the telephone number of my brother’s father-in-law who was looking after any matters regarding the apartment because my entire family lived abroad.
I told our relative I’d go in and see Omar. By the time we had our cup of tea, I’d resigned from Reuters and was back living in Cairo. Tall and bulky, Omar Sharif wore a shiny purple suit. He had a mustache and every sentence ended in an exclamation, usually not in my favor.
“Mona Eltahawy! Finally! You’re a real character,” Omar shouted. “Who on earth goes to Israel? I have to meet your father. If my daughter ever told me she wanted to go to Israel I’d break her neck!”
Stepping into his office, I walked into a thick wall of cologne; one of those Calvin Klein unisex scents fashionable about 10 years earlier. I didn’t know whether to feel flattered or worried.
“You see this file,” he said. “This is all you. Look – orders to have you followed, orders to tap your telephone. You’re a lot of trouble, you know.”
What had I been saying on the phone lately?
He left for a few moments to go and say his noon prayers. I sat alone in the room watching an Arabic language news channel that had the volume muted. I didn’t know if I was in trouble or not.
“So do you pray?” he asked when he came back.
“I do.”
“No way! You don’t look like the praying kind.”
“Who said religion had a look?” I ventured. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I was falling right into every trap he set for me.
“Well of course there’s a look to being religious,” he said. “Our religion is very specific about what’s wrong and what’s right. Take the traveling you like so much. A woman shouldn’t travel alone.”
I let that bait go. I was learning.
“Are you married? How old are you?” He continued.
“I’m 31. I joke I’m married to my job.”
“You can never get married. Who’s going to want to marry you with the life you lead, every day in a different city? You’ll end up with a man like my brother, a womanizer, who’ll cheat on you,” he said.
And so on and so forth till he got up, shook my hand and told me to call him if I ever needed help.
I tried to forget Omar.
A few months later as I visited my brother’s in-laws with my parents and sister – in town for a while – the telephone rang. It was Omar Sharif. He knew my father was in town. They spoke for a few moments. The next day, my father and mother said they wanted to talk to me.
“What did he mean when he said you were living a life that was not suitable for Egypt?” my father asked. After kicking down the door, the surreal was dancing on the rooftop of my life.
A distant relative, who had recently retired from State Security, was called. Omar Sharif’s paternalism had set the men in motion to save Mona.
“Mona, the guy’s already married,” the relative said after investigating. “I thought he wanted to marry you or something.”
“I know – he showed me his wife’s picture,” I replied.
He gave me the number of Omar’s supervising officer so that I could call him if Omar ever bothered me again.
About a year later, I pressed play on the flashing telephone answering machine.
“Peace be upon you Miss Mona. I’m just calling to see how you are. Give me a call when you hear this message. This is, of course, your ‘brother,’ Omar Sharif.”
By Mona Eltahawy washington post
Saturday, July 17, 2010; A13
The French parliament's vote this week to ban full-length veils in public was the right move by the wrong group.
Some have tried to present the ban as a matter of Islam vs. the West. It is not. First, Islam is not monolithic. It, like other major religions, has strains and sects. Many Muslim women -- despite their distaste for the European political right wing -- support the ban precisely because it is a strike against the Muslim right wing.
Some have likened this issue to Switzerland's move last year to ban the construction of minarets. On the one hand, it is preposterous to compare women's faces -- their identity -- to a stone pillar. Minarets are used to issue a call to prayer; they are a symbol of Islam. The niqab, the full-length veil that has openings only for the eyes, is a symbol only for the Muslim right.
But underlying both bans is a dangerous silence: liberal refusal to robustly discuss what it means to be European, what it means to be Muslim, and racism and immigration. Liberals decrying the infringement of women's rights should acknowledge that the absence of debate on these critical issues allowed the political right and the Muslim right to seize the situation.
Europe's ascendant political right is unapologetically xenophobic. It caricatures the religion that I practice and uses those distortions to fan Islamophobia. But ultra-conservative strains of Islam, such as Salafism and Wahhabism, also caricature our religion and use that Islamophobia to silence opposition. Salafi ideology, which is unapologetically misogynistic, has left its imprimatur on Islam globally by convincing too many Muslims that it is the purest and highest form of our faith.
The strains of Islam that promote face veils do not believe in the concept of a woman's right to choose and describe women as needing to be hidden to prove their "worth." Salafism and Wahhabism preach that women will burn in hell if they are not covered from head to toe -- whether they live in Saudi Arabia or France. There is no choice in such conditioning. That is not a message Muslims learn in our holy book, the Koran, nor is the face veil prescribed by the majority of Muslim scholars.
The French ban has been condemned as anti-liberal and anti-feminist. Where were those howls when niqabs began appearing in European countries, where for years women fought for rights? A bizarre political correctness tied the tongues of those who would normally rally to defend women's rights.
There are several ideological conflicts here: Within Islam, liberal and feminist Muslims refuse to believe that full-length veils are mandatory. In Saudi Arabia, where the prevalence of face veils is great, blogger Eman Al Nafjan wrote a post on Saudiwoman supporting the French ban: "I have heard Saudi women, who are conditioned to believe that covering is an unquestionable issue, sigh as they watch uncovered women on TV and say, 'They get this world, and we get the afterlife.' These are the women 'choosing' to cover, brainwashed into living to die."
But the problem is not just "over there." Feminist groups run by Muslim women in various Western countries fight misogynistic practices justified in the name of culture and religion. Cultural relativists, they say, don't want to "offend" anyone by protesting the disappearance of women behind the veil -- or worse.
For example, French women of North African and Muslim descent launched Ni Putes Ni Soumises (Neither Whores Nor Submissives) in response to violence against women in housing projects and forced marriages of immigrant women in France. That group supports the ban and has denounced the racism faced in France by immigrant women and men.
Cultural integration has failed, or not taken place, in many European countries, but women shouldn't pay the price for it.
Europe's liberals must ask themselves why they have been silent. It is clear that Europe's political right -- other countries have similar bans in the works -- does not care about Muslim women or their rights.
But Muslims must ask themselves the same question: Why the silence as some of our women fade into black, either as a form of identity politics or out of acquiescence to Salafism?
The pioneering Egyptian feminist Hoda Shaarawi famously removed her veil in 1923, declaring it a thing of the past. Almost a century later, we are foundering. The best way to support Muslim women would be to oppose both the racist political right wing and the niqabs and burqas of the Muslim right wing. Women should not be sacrificed to either.
Let's move away from abstract discussions and focus on the realities of women. The French were right to ban the veil in public. Those of us who really care about women's rights should talk about the dangers in equating piety with the disappearance of women.
Mona Eltahawy is an Egyptian-born writer and lecturer on Arab and Muslim issues.
Mona Eltahawy: Tea With Omar Sharif
The Jerusalem Report March 29, 2010
When I read that Egypt’s Journalist Union had punished two senior Egyptian editors – one a member of the country’s ruling party and the other an expert on Jewish affairs for violating its ban on contacts with Israel, I wondered if Omar Sharif ever thinks of me.
My nemesis wasn’t the once-heartthrob Egyptian actor but a State Security officer in Cairo whose nom de guerre was Omar Sharif and who, for six months in 1999, tormented me for moving to Jerusalem as a correspondent for Reuters. There is no law that bans Egyptians from visiting Israel but everyone knows that once you do, State Security will invite you over for “a cup of tea” – i.e., an interrogation.
I got Omar Sharif’s note inviting me for tea during a quick visit to Cairo the year I lived in Israel. “Miss Mona, an officer left this for you,” the doorman’s wife Umm Mokhtar said. An ebullient woman not easily intimidated, she was unusually subdued as she handed me the note, which I shoved absentmindedly into a jacket pocket. I was on my way to the airport, late as usual.
I did not think of him again until my next trip to Cairo a few months later, when my brother’s very anxious father-in-law took me aside. Once he mentioned the name Omar Sharif, I knew the surreal had kicked down the door into my life.
When I didn’t call Omar, he had gone to my apartment building and dragged Umm Mokhtar’s husband to the nearest police station for questioning as to my whereabouts. After the poor man convinced Omar that all he knew was that I was abroad somewhere, Omar went back to my apartment building where he spoke to the man from whom my parents had bought the apartment and who acted as de facto landlord.
He told Omar that all he knew about me was that I was a journalist and he offered the telephone number of my brother’s father-in-law who was looking after any matters regarding the apartment because my entire family lived abroad.
I told our relative I’d go in and see Omar. By the time we had our cup of tea, I’d resigned from Reuters and was back living in Cairo. Tall and bulky, Omar Sharif wore a shiny purple suit. He had a mustache and every sentence ended in an exclamation, usually not in my favor.
“Mona Eltahawy! Finally! You’re a real character,” Omar shouted. “Who on earth goes to Israel? I have to meet your father. If my daughter ever told me she wanted to go to Israel I’d break her neck!”
Stepping into his office, I walked into a thick wall of cologne; one of those Calvin Klein unisex scents fashionable about 10 years earlier. I didn’t know whether to feel flattered or worried.
“You see this file,” he said. “This is all you. Look – orders to have you followed, orders to tap your telephone. You’re a lot of trouble, you know.”
What had I been saying on the phone lately?
He left for a few moments to go and say his noon prayers. I sat alone in the room watching an Arabic language news channel that had the volume muted. I didn’t know if I was in trouble or not.
“So do you pray?” he asked when he came back.
“I do.”
“No way! You don’t look like the praying kind.”
“Who said religion had a look?” I ventured. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I was falling right into every trap he set for me.
“Well of course there’s a look to being religious,” he said. “Our religion is very specific about what’s wrong and what’s right. Take the traveling you like so much. A woman shouldn’t travel alone.”
I let that bait go. I was learning.
“Are you married? How old are you?” He continued.
“I’m 31. I joke I’m married to my job.”
“You can never get married. Who’s going to want to marry you with the life you lead, every day in a different city? You’ll end up with a man like my brother, a womanizer, who’ll cheat on you,” he said.
And so on and so forth till he got up, shook my hand and told me to call him if I ever needed help.
I tried to forget Omar.
A few months later as I visited my brother’s in-laws with my parents and sister – in town for a while – the telephone rang. It was Omar Sharif. He knew my father was in town. They spoke for a few moments. The next day, my father and mother said they wanted to talk to me.
“What did he mean when he said you were living a life that was not suitable for Egypt?” my father asked. After kicking down the door, the surreal was dancing on the rooftop of my life.
A distant relative, who had recently retired from State Security, was called. Omar Sharif’s paternalism had set the men in motion to save Mona.
“Mona, the guy’s already married,” the relative said after investigating. “I thought he wanted to marry you or something.”
“I know – he showed me his wife’s picture,” I replied.
He gave me the number of Omar’s supervising officer so that I could call him if Omar ever bothered me again.
About a year later, I pressed play on the flashing telephone answering machine.
“Peace be upon you Miss Mona. I’m just calling to see how you are. Give me a call when you hear this message. This is, of course, your ‘brother,’ Omar Sharif.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)