His feet cracked as the earth
Robes tattered as roadside thistle
Caked-in dirt beneath the nails
Greasy scraggles of thin, grey hair
And rheumy eyes, fogged with years
Yet shoulders straight and strong
Chapped and cracked, his thin lips mutter
Over and over, one reminder
‘kareem, kareem—kareem, kareem’
Muttering as the beads fall
Slipping through dark fingers
The oldest elder of the village
Calls to him to sip of her tea
On wool-stuffed ticks in the sun
Staring quietly at the street
Traveler muttering, ‘kareem, kareem’
A granddaughter pouring tea
Sun creeps slowly down the sky
Flocks return from the hills
Children play soccer in the dust
Women bring their laundry in
Hens scratch and donkeys bray
And two old people sip their tea
Beads slip through crooked fingers
The sun descends, muezzins call
Fathers plod up to the mosques
Women dice and toss the salad
A slender granddaughter carries plates
To the oldest elder and her guest
Who bend and eat with a ‘bism’ullah’
Sipping sweetened tea on mint
Darkness falls, lights flicker on
Chickens roost and nannies bleat
Men with their wives, babes in arms
Toddlers clinging to their gowns
Stroll across the rocky ground
To the oldest elder’s house.
Women pull out the extra ticks
Men all press the elder’s hand
To lips and brow, and then again
‘Yumma, Mama, how are you?’
Their wives settle to one side
‘Amma, Auntie, how’s your health?’
‘Pilgrim, Uncle, welcome here
Peace and welcome in our homes
Mercy and blessings on your hands
From what direction do you come?
What news have you from beyond?’
Yet the traveler—‘kareem, kareem’—
And the elder silently sip
Prayer beads slide, eight sets
Sons, wives, elder, pilgrim
Each a gentle mantra reads
‘bism’ullah, mercy, compassion
Thank the divine, lord of all
There is none but the one’
Under it all, ‘kareem, kareem’
Babies nurse and fall asleep
Once again, muezzins cry
‘There is none but the one’
The shouts of playing children fade
The breeze has died, all is still
Except the traveler, ‘kareem, kareem’
Hoisting toddlers, babes in arms
Two by two, young parents depart
‘Go with peace, wake well
You do us honor, pilgrim’
As he nods, ‘kareem, kareem’
Beads clacking rhythmically
The last young wife, before she goes
Spreads blankets, comforters
For the elder and the traveler
Sleeping in the cool night air
Still the mystic muttering
‘kareem, kareem—kareem, kareem’
The name of God is ‘generous’
I am appalled to hear that four imams were removed from their flight out of Minneapolis Airport Monday for saying their prayers. Prayer alone, even Muslim prayer, is not an indication of terrorist intent. This culture of fear undermines the very foundation of the United States. Exactly this sort of hypocrisy makes our motives suspect in many parts of the world.
Puritans, Quakers, Catholics, Lutherans, Mennonites, Amish, Jews, Armenians, Maronites, Palestinians, Tibetans, Uyghers, Lebanese Shi'ites, members of resistances against Nazism, communism, military juntas and theocracies, psychoanalysts, artists, scientists, philosophers.... Throughout the nation's history, people have immigrated to these United States for the freedom to practice and profess their beliefs. Religious freedom is protected in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and has been repeatedly upheld by the US Supreme Court as a founding principle of this nation.
Prayer has often been used in the history of this country and others as a form of peaceful resistance and civil disobedience, but prayer has never threatened our nation's security. Do we ban Orthodox rabbis, evangelical Christian ministers or Buddhist monks from flying because we fear their religious convictions? Not at all! To the contrary, we offer kosher and vegetarian options for in-flight meals, even though Jewish, Christian and Buddhist adherents have all committed terrorist acts in the name of their religion. If we encourage the religious convictions of Jews and Christians in our airports, who are we to forbid Muslims, who worship the same God of Abraham, from fulfilling their own religious obligations?
It is not the only recent episode of prejudice by the airlines. There have been many, many examples. One that is getting attention is a woman who was kicked off her flight for breastfeeding, and Tuesday NPR reported on “nurse-ins” across the country in protest. We ought to be able to raise the same sense of outrage for such blatant religious discrimination, as well.
Either I'm prophetic, or I spoke too soon.
Today, Baghdad announced the normalization of relations with Syria after 26 years, the mutual establishment of embassies, and cooperation towards the establishment of greater security in the region. Syria, of course, has an interest in keeping Iraq together, because a fracturing of Iraq would fuel Kurdish nationalism within Syria. Diplomatic cooperation between Iraq and Syria is a seed of hope that the Syrian border might be tightened and the smuggling of arms and insurgents into Iraq.
Sadly, however, just a little farther west in Lebanon, news is just coming through about the apparent assasination of Industry Minister Pierre Jamail, whittling down a Lebanese governing council already weakened by the ostentatious defection of Shi'ite ministers protesting Lebanon's support of a UN study finding Syria complicit in the assasination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri.
Syria, of course, is a common thread in all of this. They are, of course, accused of aiding violence both in Iraq and in Lebanon, but I cannot help but wonder if a little recognition on the world stage, such as the normalization of relations with its neighbor Iraq, might give Syria the recognition it craves, in which case they might scale down their controversial smuggling operations.
Additionally, Iraq's President and a Syrian representative will be attending a weekend summit in Iran to discuss regional concerns. Better yet, the United States has not yet made any statements condemning such cooperation. Might this indicate the possibility of improved security in the Middle East?
A thousand blessings on their endeavors.
A local activist asked me this morning what I thought about the situation in Iraq. I was quite flattered by his interest in my opinion, since he has managed to essentially managed to make a living of activism, whereas I only dabble. In any case, this is essentially what I said, without hesitation:
We have to get out as soon as possible. A year ago, I would have told you that we made this mess, and we ought to stick it out till it's fixed. But the evidence now seems very much to the contrary. At a local showing of the documentary "The Ground Truth," one of the Iraq War veterans interviewed in the film took questions from the audience, and I was struck by one answer, in which he said that, upon analysis of where insurgent attacks are occuring, most happen in communities where American troops operate, and when the Americans move on, the attacks stop. This agrees with the comments of Newsweek Baghdad editor Michael Ware who told Frontline, for the documentary "The Insurgency," that the Iraqis cum insurgents whom Ware has been interviewing since before the invasion have told him that they only attack "the occupier," i.e. American troops and contractors and those who collaborate with them.
There are other insurgent groups that have come into Iraq from elsewhere to wage sectarian violence, but Shi'ites and Sunni lived very closely and comfortably together for many years. Some would give credit for this to the iron fist of Saddam Hussein and his Baathists on the Shi'ite majority, but Saddam did not force the hundreds of Sunni-Shi'ite intermarriages that are now being torn apart, or the mixed Sunni-Shi'ite-Christian neighborhoods that used to be a feature of communities all across Iraq. The truth is that Iraq has more reason to stay together than fall apart, and a 2005 study by Mansoor Moaddel, sociology professor at Eastern Michigan University, and two of his political science colleagues at the University of Michigan, showed that the majority of Iraqis, in all ethnic and religious categories, would prefer a unified Iraq. A division of Iraq would leave Sunnis without any oil wealth, leave the Shi'ites vulnerable to attack from Sunni Gulf States and Saudi Arabia, and Turkey has vowed that it would go to war with a free Kurdistan in Northern Iraq, and Syria and Iran would join. All three nations have struggled with Kurdish nationalist movements that are already strengthened by the increased autonomy of Iraqi Kurdistan under the No Fly Zones before the fall of Saddam.
The United States has, since the 1991 Gulf War, openly supported the creation of an independent Kurdistan in Northern Iraq. This has not been without benefit to the current situation. The Northern No Fly Zone essentially protected the Kurds from Saddam Hussein and his army, allowing them to establish the institutions of free democratic government: free press, political parties, elections, social services and defense forces. It can be no coincidence that both President Jalal Talabani is ethnically and culturally Kurdish. With widespread distrust of former Baathists, whether they joined the party by choice or compulsion, the Kurds are the ones with respected experience in democratic self-government. The Bush administration does not, however, help the future of Iraq by supporting an independent Kurdistan. American supports national separatist movements because that is what America is, a state that seceded from the British Empire, but Americans also fought to prevent the secession of the Confederacy. Why? High school history books tend to tell us it was about high American ideals of independence and emancipation, but it is perhaps closer to the truth to say that the economies of the North and South were inextricably intertwined. The same is true of Iraq. But we cannot consider Iraq as an isolated entity.
Shibley Telhami is the holder of the Anwar Sadat Chair for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and he spoke on NPR's Weekend Edition Sunday today. He said unequivocably that the breaking Iraq apart into independent Sunni, Shia and Kurdish states would be wrong, not because of it looks like a loss for the Americans, but because of its effect on other nations of the region and world. I am very glad to know he is advising the Iraq Study Group. If America backs a fracturing of Iraq, it sets a precedent for other multi-cultural nations around the world. I do not mean to say that regions do not always deserve independence from their parent nations. The former Yugoslavia seems to have settled into a set of successful, self-satisfied nations. However, I fear that if America divvies up Iraq the way the British divvied up India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, or Israel, Palestine and Jordan, then not only is the Mesopotamian Valley in for a much longer period of violence, but I fear it sends a message to nations like Chad, Sudan or the Philipines that negotiation and compromise are passe and giving up is perfectly acceptable.
Not only is American support of an independent Kurdistan a problem, but the United States has deliberately and decisively shut down Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki's attempts at Sunni-Shi'ite reconciliation. The supposed experts are determined to use a European Cold War model to explain Iraq, but de-Baathification clearly is not working, it is only putting people out of the only work they know how to do and the only way they know to support their families. Many of these displaced former Baathists, like the Nazis to which de-Baathification proponents compare them, were forced into party membership to continue in their lines of work, but clearly what worked in Germany is not working here. I think President al-Maliki is absolutely right: What is needed in Iraq is more of a South African-style Truth and Reconciliation. If that means that the Iraqi administration does not prosecute resistance fighters who have killed Americans, then that is the price of war to which we, as the unprovoked aggressor and occupier, must also be reconciled.
Not only must there be internal reconciliation for Iraq, but they must reach similar understandings with their neighbors, especially with Iran. I say again, we must include Iraq's neighbors in talks concerning the cessation of violence there. If America will not speak directly with Iran and Syria, we should at least not impede President al-Maliki from developing a relationship with his neighbors. Perhaps we can afford to snub Syria and heckle Iran from our position of clear superiority half a world away, but President al-Maliki lives right next door to these nations, and is in no position to defend himself, should they be insulted to the point of belligerence. We would find ourselves with another Lebanon on our national conscience.
We are not helping Iraq. In point of fact, the United States is far too often working in direct opposition to Iraq's best interest, and to our own, in creating this quagmire of anti-American insurgency. It is time we get out, and the sooner the better!
As I listen to all the very legitimate concern over North Korea, overshadowing continued humanitarian crises in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq, as I listen to American officials insist that they will not meet with North Korean officials outside the context of Six Party Talks, I am struck by a fundamental irony. On the opposite side of the world from North Korea, the U.S. is taking the opposite stance vis a vis Iraq, Iran and Palestine. There, the United States is not working with regional partners—Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Jordan, Syria and Turkey—who will bear the effects of any outcome, good or bad, in any of the embattled nations and territories of the Middle East. Instead, the Bush administration is determined to exert America’s time-honored tradition of DIY.
Ehud Barak put it quite eloquently when he spoke at Indiana University this evening. Advances in technology and communication, and increased economic interdependence of nations and peoples have created a world that is inescapably interconnected. In this new reality, nations and national leaders cannot afford to operate unilaterally or even bilaterally. There is no more “go it alone.” Nations must, perforce, work in cooperation with the each other, the United Nations, European Union, NATO and other multilateral organizations to make any lasting progress. Everything is interconnected. North Korea and Iran may not be geographically, economically, or politically connected, but surely they are watching each others’ interactions with world powers and learning from what they observe.
I am reminded of what a local rabbi said at an interfaith panel a few weeks ago. Jewish tradition, she said, holds that God made the world a little incomplete. He gave Adam and Eve wheat but not bread, flax but not cloth. Jews, she said, see themselves as partners in Creation. The Children of Adam are entreated to make the world more holy, closer to God, and to sanctify humanity. It is the foundation for the extensive dedication of Jews around the world to issues of social justice and the betterment of all peoples.
Ehud Barak tonight called for a long view of history, for politicians, nations and individuals to work towards more than the next year or political term, but for the long term. The fate of our children, he said, rests largely with those children of more than half of the world’s population, who suffer from poverty, disease, illiteracy, ignorance, oppression and neglect. Simultaneous to working for our immediate defense against our neighbors and a nebulous imminent terrorist threat, we must also work to alleviate poverty and disease, provide universal education, and oppose oppressive, brutal and neglectful governments around the world. It is not enough to kill the mosquitoes that bring disease, he said. We must make the extended effort to drain the swamp that spawns them. To drain the swamp, we must expend our resources, which might mean giving up some luxury we desire. Only through compromise can we find sustainable solutions.
I was very glad to hear Barak say these things today. It goes back to what I told that Israeli math professor in the laundry room when he wanted to know how Israel could have avoided war with Lebanon. I told him I wished that Israel would even occasionally speak out against American heavy-handedness in the Middle East, would call for moderation and compassion regarding Iraq or Iran, and multilateral dialogue between Arab states and the West. I wish more of Israel’s prominent statesmen would say many of the things Ehud Barak said tonight. Such statements could only benefit Israel’s image in the Middle East and, consequently, improve its security.
Regarding Israel’s supposed nuclear capacity, I must note for my friend the liberal Israeli professor that Barak did say, unequivocally, that no Israeli Prime Minister has ever confirmed or denied a nuclear capacity in Israel. And I sympathize with Barak’s statement that it is the first duty of the Israeli government to protect its citizens; that is the first principal of the Hobbesian idea of a social contract between a government and the governed. However, I caution moderation, and I say again that it does not matter whether Israel has 200 nuclear weapons as my Kurdish friend says, or none at all. So long as Israel’s neighbors believe the rumors of Israel’s nuclear capability, or even the nuclear capability of Israel’s allies like the United States, they will continue to develop weapons of their own to defend themselves against Israel.
In the Cold War, lines were clearly drawn. Some countries were communist or aligned with the Soviet Union, others were democratic, aligned with the Allies. The developing world was divided between nations where Peace Corps Volunteers and Western Europeans worked towards democratic equality, and where Soviets assisted in bringing about communist egalitarianism. Today the lines are far fuzzier, but the alliances of rich, free nations with poor, hopeful nations are no less important than they were. Our parents did not want us to grow up to be filthy communists or dirty capitalists. We do not want our children to grow up to be terrorists, or terrified. Avoiding that effort entails a global effort, and global compromise. In a tug-o-war, both sides can win if both sides give a little slack.
How ironic to hear Condoleeza Rice say that she is "very concerned" about the deteriorating living conditions in the Palestinian Territories, since her administration was the primary mover in causing the blockade of those territories!
It's sure noble of her to say that the US will "redouble efforts to improve living conditions" of the Palestinian people. Perhaps she should just let the democratically elected government of the Palestinian Territories, Hamas, do exactly what they promised to do in their election campaign, which was as successful as it was precisely because municipal Hamas governments have an astonishing history of making good on identical promises on a local level. Those municipalities which, in 2004, elected Hamas administrations showed a significant rise in standard of living between those elections and the national elections earlier this year. Had the United States not led the Western world in cutting off Palestine so completely and relentlessly, it is probable that Hamas would have continued to improve standards of living in the Palestinian Territories.
All I can say is, Rice had better do something, because if the United States eases sanctions in respect for Palestinians' human dignity, the world will follow, and if the United States recognizes the legitimate right of Palestinians to democratically elect their own leadership, then they will finally have a Palestinian partner with whom to negotiate peace who truly represents the Palestinian people as Yassar Arafat and Fatah never did.
I'm deeply disturbed by the shootings in schools this week, most especially the execution-style killing of three Amish schoolgirls and wounding of many others which occured not an hour's drive from where I grew up. This is the third incident of school violence in the area of my school in recent years, and I'm losing count of how often it happens around the country.
I'm reminded, too, of the siege in Beslan, children left without schools in New Orleans and Lebanon, the attacks on female teachers and students in Afghanistan, and other such occurences.
But I can't help but think, in world dominated by a man and a superpower who feel justified in an "attack first, worry about clean-up later" attitude towards international disputes, what's to make kids think that violence isn't the answer?
Be the change you want to see in the world. Teach children about communication and compassion.
Rabiye Kadeer, a nominee for the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize, was imprisoned for more than 5 years in China on charges of providing state secrets to foreigners. Following her release she went into exile, where she worksto further human rights for the Uyghurs who live largely in the Xinjiang region (formerly known as East Turkistan) of the PRC. She is also one of the most prominent advocates for women's rights in China. Using her own resources, Rabiye Kadeer founded and then directed a large trading company in Northwestern China that provided training and employment for Uyghurs. She also founded the "Thousand Mothers' Movement" as a vehicle for the empowerment of Uyghur women in Xinjiang. Prior to her arrest in1999, while en route to a meeting with a visiting U.S. congressman, Rabiye Kadeer was a member of the top advisory body to China's parliament. She is the winner of the 2004 Rafto Prize, and the current director of both the Uyghur American Association and the Uyghur HumanRights Project.
I heard her speak at the University last night. My linguistic fascination with the Uyghur language and its relationship to Kurdish and Arabic aside, I found the talk very moving. She was poignant, funny, and passionate. I nearly cried as she talked about her children, now imprisoned by the Chinese, and her suspicion that they are being held in solitary confinement as she was for two years. And I was amazed by her strength in resuming her political efforts at such an international level after such trauma for trying to act in the past.
The whole experience made me want to learn Uyghur and move to East Turkistan and DO something about the human rights abuses there.
Last week on the bus, after I'd been speaking to a Korean student about why I am learning Arabic and that I hope to contribute to greater world peace and stability, and she asked me, Why didn't you learn Korean? And I had to say, Well, I had to choose a language. I can't learn them all.
It's so frustrating to be one little person in the face of all that is sour and wrong in the world. So frustrating to think that I can't fix everything, and that even when I try to fix some portion of it, by interpreting Arabic in the Middle East, chances are that I won't ever see the result of what I've done, for better or worse.
Today the Jordan Times published a commentary that eviscerated NPR's bias towards Israel in reporting on the Palestinian Territories. I have to say, I'm disappointed, but not surprised. I trust NPR more than, say, Fox or CBS, but nonetheless I am all too aware that they, too, have a degree of bias.
More than a year ago, while I was in Jordan, I received an email from my father about a piece NPR did on the opinion of Jordanians vis-a-vis America and the war in Iraq. My father wanted to know if it sounded accurate to me. When I read the transcript, I was apalled. The NPR reporter, whose name I don't recall (unfortunately, I no longer have the transcript), had interviewed Iraqi long-range truckers stuck in Amman due to closed borders, and Palestinian taxi drivers, and from these extracted an extremely negative view of Americans. I have seen many such reports from many news and polling sources, but can't think of any that I've seen which reflected the opinions of the Jordanians I knew.
Over and over I heard, yes, the American government went out of their way to stir things up in Iraq where they had no business. Such comments were almost always qualified, however, with the sentiment, but Americans have been very good to us: e.g. granting visas to study in the US, building health clinics, offering free surgeries through Medicin sans Frontiers and Operation Smile, etc., putting computers in the schools, training teachers, providing wheelchairs and hearing aids and other tools for the handicapped, and on and on.
I don't know if you noticed the very fine distinction in that paragraph, but I never failed to hear it when listening to Jordanian opinions on America. That distinction is between "the American government" and "Americans." This is one of the things I love most about Jordanians, that not even most Europeans I know seem to note. Jordanians very easily, from a young age, differentiate between governments and their people. They recognize very quickly that the decisions and statements made by governments, even those elected by their people in a free democratic system, do not always represent all or even a majority of their constituents. Perhaps this is because Jordan is a police state, a dictatorship, however well-intentioned its kings may be. I, however, like to think that it's because so many Americans come to Jordan, or give their money or time to organizations that aid Jordanians.
Though studies show that the United States' government gives less in charitable aid to less fortunate nations, I have also read studies showing that Americans, per capita, give a higher percentage of their personal funds to charitable and humanitarian organizations than the people of any other nation. Of course, Americans have, per capita, more to give than most other nations, but having the money doesn't make one any more likely to give it away.
The role of the writer is not to defend his country, his role is to defend what is right.
I had a fascinating encounter today, while folding laundry, with a visiting Israeli math professor who is living temporarily in my building. When, in casual conversation, I mentioned living in Jordan for a couple years, he was immediately fascinated, and told me he had been in Haifa, Israel, during the summer's war, and wanted to hear my opinion on the whole thing.
I was reluctant. Having lived in the Middle East, in a predominantly Palestinian country, I know that these things are emotional issues. He must have heard this in my voice, because he hastened to say that he was center-left, in favor of peaceful coexistence but, as became increasingly apparent through our conversation, truly baffled at where Israel had gone wrong and what they should have done differently.
I had to concede, as angry as the conflict made me, sooner or later Israel had to respond to the direct threat of thousands of rockets in the hands of a group, Hezbollah, which had publicly announced its intention to wipe Israel off the map. What, then, he kept insisting, should Israel have done differently? They have their own internal struggles over the Palestinian Territories, and the corresponding international rhetoric and politics. Israel is a small country with limited resources, and now they and the Palestinians are suffering because Hezbollah has diverted their attention and resources. What should they do? What should they have done?
For one thing, I said, perhaps Israel should, from time to time, speak up and contradict their allies in the West. Perhaps they should speak up and say, for example, Don't go to Iraq, you'll just make things worse, or, Leave Iran alone, they're more bluster than threat. I subscribe, in large part, to the theory that what happened in Lebanon was a proxy war between Iran and the United States, more political than ideological.
But what I kept coming back to was education. I admit, as a teacher, I'm biased. But I truly believe that the root of the problem in the Middle East is in education. Totalitarian governments like the Baathists and the Saudi Wahabis want a generally ignorant population. They're easier to control, easier to marginalize. But democracies demand educated citizens, to a fairly high level.
Perhaps one of the most frustrating things about teaching in Jordan was that my students didn't understand the basic concepts of critical thinking that American students take for granted. It is so ingrained in the American and European systems that teachers do it automatically, urge their students to be skeptical, to look for corroborating evidence, to identify a writer or speaker's point of view, his prejudices. The majority of Jordanian students I met, and even many of the older teachers, weren't familiar with the basic concepts of critical thinking. I can't tell you how many times I heard, 'But I read it on the Internet! It must be true!' From adults as well as children.
King Abdullah's Minister of Education works very closely with the American and European embassies, and with Western educators, to integrate critical thinking into the national curricula in all subjects, and to teach Jordanian educators about such basics as Bloom's Taxonomy of educational objectives, teaching to aural, visual and kinesthetic learners, personality theories like Meyers-Briggs and their application in the classroom, and essay writing. I helped lead a workshop in my governorate on critical thinking, and helped my colleagues apply these skills in the classroom. The public goal of these reforms is to hone Jordan's human resources--it's ONLY natural resources!--to take advantage of opportunities for leadership in Information Technologies in the Middle East. Privately, I have on impeccable authority that King Abdullah has said he doesn't wish to be king forever, he would rather see Jordan function as a true democracy.
If Israel, the United States, Britain, or anyone wants to see real progress in the Middle East, they must support education, they must support the teaching of critical thinking, a cornerstone of democratic literacy. If a nation like Israel doesn't have the resources for this, they could at least speak up and call on those who do--the US, UK, EU, UN, Japan, anyone!--to put their money where their fear is.
The drawback to this method is time. It is likely to take 30 years to show real progress, because the older generation doesn't know how to support their children in this new kind of education. Parents asked me all the time, especially the mothers about their daughters, 'I want her to succeed in school, I want to help her, but how can I do that? I'm not even literate in Arabic, I don't understand these things she's studying.' It will be the next generation of students who truly benefit from the reforms of this generation.
But the advantage is longevity. A democracy achieved gradually, from the bottom up, from the first grade up, is more likely to be successful over the long term than one imposed from without. Don't take my word for it. Take Ghandi's:
"The spirit of democracy cannot be imposed from without. It has to come from within."