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.
Monday, August 9, 2010
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.”
Friday, February 19, 2010
1979 Jerusalem Cairo Peace, My De Chevau
1979 March Peace with Egypt after Saadat came Saturday evening 19th November 1977. My father Died before Purim 1978 and Peace Now was created in Jerusalem.
I had a Citroen 2CV which I will write about later.
Here is an Article By Tom Friedman 1977-1979:
Op-Ed Columnist
I had a Citroen 2CV which I will write about later.
Here is an Article By Tom Friedman 1977-1979:
1977 vs. 1979
Visiting Yemen and watching the small band of young reformers there struggle against the forces of separatism, Islamism, autocracy and terrorism, reminded me that the key forces shaping this region today were really set in motion between 1977 and 1979 — and nothing much has changed since. Indeed, one could say Middle East politics today is a struggle between 1977 and 1979 — and 1979 is still winning.
How so? Following the defeat of Egypt and other Arab armies by Israel in the 1967 war, Nasserism, a k a Arab nationalism, the abiding ideology of the day, was demolished. In its wake came two broad alternatives: The first, manifested by President Anwar Sadat of Egypt in his 1977 trip to Israel, was a bid to cast the Arab world’s future with the West, economic liberalization, modernization and acceptance of Israel. The weakness of “Sadatism,” though, was that it was an elite ideology with no cultural roots. The Egyptian state made peace with Israel, but Arab societies never followed.
The second Arab-Muslim response emerged in 1979. To start, there was the takeover that year of the Grand Mosque in Mecca by Islamist extremists who challenged the religious credentials of the Saudi ruling family. The Saudi rulers responded by forging a new bargain with their Islamists: Let us stay in power and we will give you a free hand in setting social norms, relations between the sexes and religious education inside Saudi Arabia — and abundant resources to spread Sunni Wahabi fundamentalism abroad.
The Saudi lurch backward coincided with Iran’s revolution in 1979, which brought Ayatollah Khomeini to power. That revolution set up a competition between Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia for who was the real leader of the Muslim world, and it triggered a surge in oil prices that gave both fundamentalist regimes the resources to export their brands of puritanical Islam, through mosques and schools, farther than ever.
“Islam lost its brakes in 1979,” said Mamoun Fandy, a Middle East expert at the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London. And there was no moderate countertrend.
Finally, also in 1979, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Arab and Muslim mujahedeen fighters flocked to the cause — financed by Saudi Arabia at America’s behest — and in the process shifted Pakistan and Afghanistan in much more Islamist directions. Once these hard-core Muslim fighters, led by the likes of Osama bin Laden, defeated the Soviets, they turned their guns on America and its Arab allies.
In a smart essay in The Wall Street Journal, titled “The Radical Legacy of 1979,” the retired U.S. diplomat Edward Djerejian, who led the political section of the U.S. Embassy in Moscow in 1979, noted: “Last year we celebrated the great historic achievements marked by the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent unification of Germany. But we should also remember that events in the broader Middle East of 30 years ago have left, in sharp contrast, a bitter and dangerous legacy.”
In short, the Middle East we are dealing with today is the product of long-term trends dating back to 1979. And have no illusions, we propelled those trends. America looked the other way when Saudi Arabia Wahabi-fied itself. Ronald Reagan glorified the Afghan mujahedeen and the Europeans hailed the Khomeini revolution in Iran as a “liberation” event.
I believe the only way the forces of 1979 can be rolled back would be with another equally big bang — a new popular movement that is truly reformist, democratizing, open to the world, yet anchored in Muslim culture, not disconnected. Our best hopes are the fragile democratizing trends in Iraq, the tentative green revolution in Iran, plus the young reformers now coming of age in every Arab country. But it will not be easy.
The young reformers today “do not have a compelling story to tell,” remarked Lahcen Haddad, a political scientist at Rabat University in Morocco. “And they face a meta-narrative” — first developed by Nasser and later adopted by the Islamists — “that mobilizes millions and millions. That narrative says: ‘The Arabs and Muslims are victims of an imperialist-Zionist conspiracy aided by reactionary regimes in the Arab world. It has as its goal keeping the Arabs and Muslims backward in order to exploit their oil riches and prevent them from becoming as strong as they used to be in the Middle Ages — because that is dangerous for Israel and Western interests.’ ”
Today that meta-narrative is embraced across the Arab-Muslim political spectrum, from the secular left to the Islamic right. Deconstructing that story, and rebuilding a post-1979 alternative story based on responsibility, modernization, Islamic reformation and cross-cultural dialogue, is this generation’s challenge. I think it can happen, but it will require the success of the democratizing self-government movements in Iran and Iraq. That would spawn a whole new story.
I know it’s a long shot, but I’ll continue to hope for it. I’ve been chewing a lot of qat lately, and it makes me dreamy.
Monday, February 8, 2010
2010 Feb 5th Haaretz Poll:One year on, most Israelis disapprove of Netanyahu
Last update - 11:45 05/02/2010 haaretz
One year on, most Israelis disapprove of Netanyahu
By Yossi Verter
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is losing altitude, according to the Haaretz-Dialog poll published here. The results show that, for the first time in a year, a majority of the public is dissatisfied with his performance and questions his suitability as prime minister. This is purely personal, not party-related. Likud under his leadership is actually stronger: If elections were held today, the party would get 35 Knesset seats, eight more than its current total and 23 more than it received in 2006. Netanyahu took a broken, shattered party that had been split and decapitated by the predecessor of his predecessor - i.e., Ariel Sharon - and brought it back to life. No one can take that away from him.
Every few months, this poll, conducted under the supervision of Prof. Camil Fuchs from the Department of Statistics at Tel Aviv University, checks the prime minister's political health. Since his election, Netanyahu had been in pretty good shape. There were always more people who were happy with him than those who were not, generally with an 8-10 point spread in his favor. In the new survey, though, that situation has changed. When it comes to suitability for the premiership, Netanyahu still ranks ahead of his rival, Kadima leader Tzipi Livni. But the gap is narrowing: Not in her favor, but to his detriment.
Two reasons for this leap to mind. One is the "Sara effect." In the past three weeks, Netanyahu has been buffeted by negative, embarrassing reports about his domineering wife and about him personally, as well as about how he is dealing with her and about developments in his bureau.
But the main reason for the drop in his popularity is his decision to freeze construction in the settlements - something no right-wing prime minister before him ever dared to do. The dry facts tell the whole story: Netanyahu is losing support among right-wing voters (though not in the Likud). At the same time, he is gaining popularity among the center and the left. The voters on the right side of the political spectrum are disappointed with him. They still backed him after he declared his support for the two-state solution, but once he took a concrete step they started to turn a cold shoulder.
The alternatives
After almost a year in the opposition, Tzipi Livni remains the only significant political alternative to Netanyahu among the three large- or medium-size parties - even though Kadima almost slipped through her fingers; even though she is in the midst of a struggle against the party's No. 2, Shaul Mofaz; and even though Kadima's impact as an opposition power is negligible.
Fully 89 percent of Kadima voters prefer Livni over Mofaz. This finding shows how cut off he is from Kadima's voters (or, in this case, from the party's registered members, who determine its leadership). If Mofaz stays in Kadima, runs and defeats Livni, he will transform the party into something completely different from what it is today - he will make it a pale copy of Likud.
But in the poll, Kadima loses three seats to Labor, which has nine sweet seats, as opposed to six in the last Haaretz-Dialog poll, in November (and 13 in the last election). The reason: internal wrangling in Kadima. But the new data also indicate that half of Kadima's voters - 14 Knesset seats - would consider voting for a new party led by journalist and television presenter Yair Lapid.
Lapid also would draw many people from Labor and Meretz: In total, based on this survey, nearly a quarter of the country's voters would likely consider giving Lapid their vote. At the moment, he is in a dream spot for a wannabe politician. He is the presenter of the most watched current-events television program on Friday night; he writes a column in the country's most widely read weekend newspaper magazine; he is perceived as a victim because of the proposed "Lapid bill," a move by his opponents to block him from running in the next elections; he is gaining points from the well-publicized troubles of Kadima and from the built-in wretchedness of Labor; and he has just published a book about his late father, which became an instant best-seller. All he has to do now is rescue two babies from a burning house and nothing will be able to keep him from being elected prime minister.
On his way into the political arena, Lapid has to keep in mind the experience of one person: Amnon Lipkin-Shahak, the former chief of staff. Before he ran in the late 1990s, at the height of his popularity, the polls gave a party headed by him 20-plus seats. But the moment he actually entered politics there wasn't a mistake that he didn't make. Lipkin-Shahak ended up as No. 2 in the Center Party, whose six seats faded away in the twinkling of an eye. Lapid would do well to give him a call before he takes a commercial break and doesn't come back.
The successors
Shimon Peres had Yitzhak Rabin (and vice versa) as his right-hand man. Afterward he had Ehud Barak. Ariel Sharon had Benjamin Netanyahu. Each of those prime ministers had a "natural" successor, someone who was considered - by the political arena, his party and the media - as the one and only possibility. Netanyahu has no one, no No. 2.
The Haaretz pollsters asked about potential successors in Likud and Labor after the era of Netanyahu and Barak; the question was put to voters in general and not to the registered members who will choose the party's leaders. In Likud there are three potential heirs: Vice Prime Minister Moshe Ya'alon, Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom and Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar. The three are almost neck and neck, both among the general public and among Likud voters.
Sa'ar, a young minister serving his first cabinet term, has leaped forward and is now positioned alongside Shalom and Ya'alon, with Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz faltering, well behind. In the face of Ya'alon's magnificent military record (he was chief of staff) and of the senior government posts Shalom held (foreign affairs, treasury), Sa'ar's success as education minister is highly significant.
Among Labor and Meretz voters, only one successor to Barak looms at this stage: Social Affairs Minister Isaac Herzog. He is well ahead of MK Shelly Yachimovich and Minority Affairs Minister Avishay Braverman. Yachimovich, a fairly new MK, is doing pretty well - on the assumption that she and her colleagues will still have a party to lead.
The Labor Party shows a 50-percent increase - from six seats in the last poll to nine in this one. But the whole center-left camp has 48 seats, unchanged from the poll three months ago, whereas the right-wing bloc has 72 seats - also unchanged. In the current Knesset, the center-left bloc has 55 seats, as compared to 65 for the right. In short, a year after the elections, the right-wing bloc still remains dominant.
A lobby revived
On Tuesday afternoon, in the old lecture hall of the Knesset, the Land of Israel lobby was reborn. It was first established 22 years ago by Likud MK Michael Eitan. A right-wing parliamentary body, its main effort was devoted to tightening the settlers' hold on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Now, with Gaza gone, MK Zeev Elkin (Likud) and MK Aryeh Eldad (National Union) decided to recreate the lobby. Elkin is the chairman of the Likud faction and the coalition, both of which are headed by a prime minister who declared his support for the two-state solution and ordered a construction freeze in the settlements. In the near future, Elkin will have to muster support for that policy among the coalition members, while heading a body that preaches against it.
The new lobby's basic principles include "strengthening Israel's hold throughout the Land of Israel and particularly in Judea-Samaria," "preventing any harm from befalling the settlement project in Judea-Samaria," "promoting legislation that will bolster settlement in those regions," and "refashioning the policy of the defense establishment for the benefit of promoting settlement in these regions." And so on.
In addition to a large number of MKs, the founding meeting was attended by all the leaders of the settlement movement, Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin (Likud) and two Likud ministers: Communications Minister Moshe Kahlon and Minister without Portfolio Benny Begin, who is also a member of the "forum of seven," the supreme body in the government. Both ministers expressed support for the lobby's principles, which are totally at variance with those espoused by Netanyahu. Begin even told the meeting: "In the months ahead, in the years ahead, we shall have to work together, and work together we shall."
Work for what? Against whom? Against what?
The other Likud ministers were no-shows, but sent touching messages of support. "Strengthening our hold throughout the Land of Israel and in the Golan Heights is a basic, existential and security need whose roots lie deep in history," one minister wrote.
"Even though I am not there with you, my heart is definitely with you. May you only increase and grow stronger," another poeticized. "We are there and we will remain there thanks to our forefathers," said another. "We must encourage settlement activity in all parts of the land," a fourth minister asserted. And so on.
In fact, the only two ministers who did not send messages were Netanyahu and Dan Meridor. One who did was Eitan, who founded the lobby in 1988. He wrote Elkin that he believes the lobby's goals are more compatible with those of the extremist National Union than with Likud and the coalition, that the lobby is misguided and that its views are in "thunderous contradiction" to Netanyahu's policy. "I suggest that you look for a different path," Eitan wrote.
MK Eldad didn't know in advance what Eitan had written. At the start of the meeting he solemnly informed those present that he would soon read the letter sent by the founder of the original lobby, Michael Eitan. Everyone applauded warmly. The letter was not read out. Who wants to be a party pooper?
After the meeting, the settler leaders made their way to the MKs' cafeteria. At the entrance, one of them ran into Ze'ev Boim, a former Herut and Likud man, but of late in Kadima. "Ze'evik, join us, be part of the lobby," the settler urged Boim.
"And what will we do there?" Boim asked.
"We will save the Land of Israel," the settler replied, and laughed loudly and long.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)