Assassinating Dreams in Egypt: Amr

Posted on 11/28/2011 by Juan

Ahmed Amr writes in a guest op-ed for Informed Comment:

Nostalgia for more innocent times is a comforting refuge when hope is scarce. last week, as we inhaled a toxic dose of tear gas in Tahrir Square, we were all gasping for a resurrection of the spirit of the January uprising that led to the spectacular fall of the House of Mubarak. Many Egyptians would give their right arm to relive the spirit of the 18 glorious days that dazzled our collective imagination and filled our hearts with hopes and dreams of a new dawn for young and old.

The holding of parliamentary elections this week, under flawed circumstances, cannot assuage this longing.

Our spring dreams have been assassinated and we know the identity of the assassin.  

For nine long months, we have witnessed an undeclared but unrelenting war of attrition against the Egyptian revolution. The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces led by Field Marshall Tantawi has executed one of the most brilliant counter-revolutions in modern history.  Even if Tantawi were to step aside today, history would have to accord him credit for accomplishing his mission and breaking the spirit of the revolution.  

Like any war of attrition, the desired outcome is to vanquish your opponent by exhausting him to the point where you break his will to resist. The day Mubarak fell, it was hard to imagine that the collective will of the Egyptian people could be broken. But in hindsight, it’s clear that the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) put together and executed a brilliant blue print for wearing down the exuberance of the Egyptian masses.

On taking command of the ship of state, the SCAF promised to hold power for six months – just enough time to allow for free and fair elections. By that timeline, which passed unnoticed on August 11, Egypt was supposed to have a new president, a national assembly and a new constitution. That done – the army was to return to the barracks.

To say that the SCAF broke its promise would be a charitable understatement.   The hated emergency laws that were used to enforce the dictates of Mubarak’s regime were briefly rescinded, then reinstated and zealously enforced. Fifteen thousand civilians have since been tried and sentenced before military tribunals. The judges who looked the other way and sanctioned Mubarak’s rigged elections continue to infest the court system.  The vast media resources at the disposable of the state remain in the safe hands of the old guard.

Censorship is back and every journalist knows that the freshly painted red lines are wider than the old red lines. And, once again, the unrestrained hands of a vengeful police force have been unleashed on peaceful protestors.

At every junction of this nine month odyssey, the military junta has defied the public will. The SCAF insisted on keeping Mubarak’s appointed Prime Minister, Ahmed Sahfiq. Only a show of force by millions of demonstrators managed to convince them to appoint ministers untainted by links to the former dictator. And there was one minister who insisted on keeping his position – Field Marshall Tantawi – the 76 year old Minister of Defense, a stalwart Mubarak ally for two decades.

It took concerted public pressure to convince SCAF that Mubarak’s criminal file deserved the attention of law enforcement. When the generals finally conceded to put their old boss and a few of his cronies on trial, they also promised to televise the proceedings. But for unexplained reasons, the cameras were turned off and the trials have been postponed for months at a time on the flimsiest of legal grounds.

At first, it seemed that the generals were simply out of touch with public sentiment and clueless in the art of governing. But with the passage of time, it became evident that they had a deliberate policy of wearing down the revolutionary spirit. Their tactic was to grant concessions only under the duress of mass demonstrations and the predictable result was that the public gradually tired of disruptive million man marches. Simultaneously, the public airwaves, owned and operated by the SCAF, were deployed in a calculated campaign to erode the revolutionary spirit. The talk shows and news programs delivered a not so subtle message that the only fruit of the revolution was economic stagnation and a breakdown in law and order. As part of the effort to undermine the public’s embrace of the uprising, the government media stopped airing the popular video clip music that hailed the sacrifices of the hundreds of young men and women who gave their lives for the revolution.

As if the SCAF needed any reinforcement in their war of attrition against the popular uprising, the political class entered the fray and splintered into sixty odd factions, the largest one being the divisive Muslim Brotherhood which was happy to make back room deals with the generals. A week before the elections, you would be hard pressed to find a single Egyptian who can name ten of the five dozen parties vying for a share of the political spoils.

One of the few tangible gains of the revolution was the public’s right to peacefully assemble and protest. Even that hard won concession has gone with the wind – first with the slaughter of Coptic demonstrators in Maspiro and now with the lethal show of force in Tahrir.    

Today, Egyptians look to Tunisia’s recently elected government with envy. Brutal repression and the loss of thousands of lives have not eroded the spirit of the Arab Spring in Syria and Yemen. The Libyan revolution ended a few weeks ago and Tripoli already has a fully empowered civilian government in place. In both Libya and Tunisia, the military will answer to civilian masters. But in Egypt, under the skillful hands of a military dictatorship that has six decades of experience under its belt, the uprising has been contained, the old guard remains in charge and the revolutionary spirit has floundered.

As an eyewitness to both uprisings, I can testify that there is little of the euphoria or the universal public support that marked the overthrow of Mubarak. Once you exhaust a nation and cheat a people out of dreams as vibrant as the ones Egyptians shared on January 25, it’s hard to revive that revolutionary spirit again. That spirit was the essential fuel that could have propelled a democratic political renaissance, clean government and economic progress.  Whether Tantawi stays or goes, he has to take full credit for assassinating Egyptian dreams.    
.    

Ahmed Amr is the editor of NileMedia.com and the author of “The Sheep and the Guardians – Diary of a SEC sanctioned swindle.”

0 Retweet 0 Share 2 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Egypt, Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Did the Muslim Brotherhood Threaten to Kill “All Jews”?

Posted on 11/27/2011 by Juan

The Muslim Brotherhood and other religious parties in Egypt (including the Salafis and the Gama’a al-Islamiya) held a rally at al-Husayn Square in Cairo last Friday to which a few thousand people came. The big rally was at Tahrir Square in downtown Cairo and was dominated by secular forces.

This is an Arabic news article about the Muslim religious rally, clearly written by a reporter on the scene. It does not say anything about the speakers or the crowd threatening to kill all Jews, and I don’t believe any such threat was made.

The allegation was made by Eldad Beck, who complained of “Arab hate” at the rally. Beck, who clearly does not know what he is talking about, said that the crowd repeatedly quoted a verse in the Qur’an that spoke of killing all Jews. There is no such verse in the Islamic holy book. The Jewish revelation from God to Abraham and Moses is retold in the Qur’an, which has positive stories of the Children of Israel. The castigation of the Children of Israel in the Qur’an is of the same sort you see in the Hebrew Bible, and often put in the mouth of Moses or another Jewish prophet.

That Beck’s shoddy and wholly inaccurate reporting has been relayed by the Jerusalem Post and a host of other news outlets without question is shameful. If Beck had simply said that the Muslim Brotherhood crowds want Jerusalem back for Islamdom and evinced hostility toward Israelis, he would have been right. But his breathless exaggeration slides over into Islamophobia.

The background to Beck’s reporting and to one of the concerns of the al-Husayn rally is the illegal Israeli annexation of all of Jerusalem, the addition to the Israeli district of Jerusalem of substantial parts of the Palestinian West Bank, the expulsion of East Jerusalem Palestinians from their homes, the settlement of Israelis in and around East Jerusalem, and the threats made by small Jewish fundamentalist groups such as Revava to destroy the Muslim holy sites atop the Temple Mount. Jewish fundamentalists believe that the original Jewish temple was atop the mount, and that it can only be rebuilt there if the Muslim mosque and shrine are torn down. This policy is not that of the Israeli government, which considers the ultra-Orthodox extremists a pain in the neck. But Revava and similar groups have thrown a scare into the Muslim world about the safety of its shrines under Israeli control. Arson at mosques and grabby Israeli policies toward shared shrines have added oil to that flame.

Jerusalem has never been awarded to Israel by any international body. There were hardly any practitioners of the Judaic religion in Palestine between 1000 AD and 1800, since Jews had adopted the other religions. Instead, for some 1300 years Jerusalem was an Islamicly-ruled city, and the Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount makes it the third holiest city for Muslims after Mecca and Medina.

Radical Jewish nationalists often attempt to deconstruct the Muslim attachment to Jerusalem as recent or shallow, and as a mere form of anti-Zionist politics. Actually, the history of Muslim pilgrimage to shrines in geographical Palestine is quite long, and the history of the religion’s intertwining with this region deep. And, the Jewish predominance in what is now Israel and most of its national myths are also recent in respect to the past millennium. But in any case, most contemporary Muslims do indeed consider Jerusalem their third holiest city, and there are 1.5 billion of them, and they are likely to be a third of humankind by 2100, so get used to it. This Orientalist business of Westerners getting to tell them what they believe is very 19th century.

The Israelis conquered Jerusalem in 1967 and many of them consider the whole of it theirs, appealing to romantic nationalist themes to insist that it is the indivisible capital of Israel. This extremist Jewish nationalism and disregard for international law or any negotiated peace process is common also among American Jews and even congressional leaders such as Eric Cantor.

It is to the extent in the US that simply pointing out that Jerusalem is a final status issue for negotiation, that Israel’s might does not make right, that Palestinian East Jerusalemites should have civil and human rights, and that Jews haven’t even ruled the city for most of its history is considered beyond the pale in public American discourse. In fact, I will be attacked as having “defended” the horrible things the Muslim Brotherhood crowds said (I haven’t), just because I tried to explain where they were coming from. But no one is attacked for actually supporting Gush Emunim policies in Israel, as Eric Cantor, Daniel Pipes and a host of others do.

In international law as of 1945-1949, territory occupied by military force cannot be unilaterally annexed. Jerusalem’s Arab inhabitants cannot be expropriated or expelled, and the occupying authority is not permitted to alter the way of life of the occupied population.

Contrary to international law, Israel is in fact making the lives of East Jerusalem Palestinians miserable and gradually trying to expel them and bring in Israeli settlers (many of them Americans) instead.

So one of the themes of the Muslim Brotherhood rally last Friday was “Jerusalem is ours.” It is an obnoxious theme, since Jerusalem ought to be an international city and shared (the way Chandigarh is shared as a provincial capital by provinces in north India). But that was the theme. Muslim fundamentalists are just as vehement on this issue as Eric Cantor from his side.

Sheikh Mukhtar al-Mahdi was sent to represent the Rector of Al-Azhar Seminary, a key center of learning and authority for the Sunni Muslim world. He said that Jerusalem is a “red line,” and that the time is ripe to defend it, now that Egypt has been liberated by the martyrs of Tahrir Square (i.e. from the Mubarak dictatorship, which was in the back pocket of Israel and the United States).

The crowd appears to have shouted that Muslims should raise their children to fight (muqatalah) the Israelis (in colloquial Arabic, Israelis are referred to as “al-Yahud,” “the Jews.”). The word to “kill” (qatala) is from the same root as the word for “fight” (muqatalah). So presumably Beck heard the former and mistranslated it by the latter.

Note that the sheikh did not say this, but some people shouted it from the crowd, according to journalist Amira Salim. We don’t know who those people were. To phrase it that “the Muslim Brotherhood said” it would be bad journalism.

You could argue that what the crowd actually said is just as bad as what Beck alleged. But connotation and context matter.

Saying that “Jerusalem is ours, the Israelis have captured it and are altering its character and gradually chasing out its Muslims and endangering its Islamic shrines, and that we will fight them for it” is not exactly the same thing as saying “let’s kill all the Jews.”

Then Abdul Rahman al-Birr spoke. He is a professor in the school of jurisprudence at al-Azhar and on the board of the Muslim Brotherhood. He said he wanted to underline how important Jerusalem is for the Muslim Brotherhood, and for Muslims and Arabs generally. He said that if Jewish nationalists (Zionists) imagine that the disarray in the Arab world at the moment might give them an opening to demolish the al-Aqsa Mosque, they are sorely mistaken.

Salim says that people shouted slogans such as that Jerusalem is a prisoner and is calling to us, and if we do not return it who will? And, “We are the youth of [Jan.] 25 [i.e. the Egyptian Revolution]– we will never sell you out, Palestine!”

Among the things some shouted was “Khaybar, Khaybar, ya Yahud, Jaysh Muhammad saya’ud” (“Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews, the Army of Muhammad shall return.” This is not a verse of the Qur’an. It is just a morally juvenile chant of fanatical Muslim or Palestinian nationalists who reject Israeli dominance. It refers to the Jewish village of Khaybar in Arabia the time of the Prophet Muhammad, which was viewed as treacherous by the Muslims who were being attacked by the Meccan pagans. They subjected Khaybar to exile (sorry, got mixed up earlier– it wasn’t Khaybaris who were executed). It is a mean-spirited chant and not in accord with the spirit of Islam, which recognizes Jews and Christians as people of the Scripture and makes a place for them in Muslim society (in contrast to European Christianity, which often disallowed Jews and Muslims after 1300).

Bad Muslim relations with some particular tribe of Jews in the early period says nothing about the attitude of Islam to Jews. The Israel-Palestine issue has politicized religion in the Levant. This chant is not “Islamic” or from the Qur’an Lots of Jews rose high in Muslim society and politics in the old days before the colonial project of the British and their Jewish nationalist allies in Palestine.

The Muslim Brotherhood is a kind of Muslim-Arab nationalism, and it has most of the same flaws as hard line Jewish nationalism or Zionism. As we saw in the horrible 20th century, nationalists can start wars over territory that end up slaughtering millions of people.

I don’t approve of nationalism, whether Zionism or the Muslim Brotherhood. I don’t approve of what the crowd shouted at the Muslim Brotherhood rally. But these sentiments do have a context as a response to Greater Israel expansionism. If the Israelis had followed through on the Oslo peace process, withdrawn from the West Bank, allowed a Palestinian state, and shared Jerusalem with the Palestinians, then the Muslim Brotherhood wouldn’t have an issue here.

You can’t judge the Muslim Brotherhood by what hotheads in a crowd shout out. You have to judge it by its own officials’ pronouncements and actions. The Brotherhood says that if the Egyptian people, which is sovereign, wants to keep the Camp David Peace Treaty with Israel, it will. (A large majority of Egyptians wants to keep the peace treaty). So the party may be lying, but in its public pronouncements at least, it isn’t acting like wild men.

The Qur’an doesn’t call for all Jews to be killed, and neither did the Muslim Brotherhood last Friday.

It is silly to fight over territory. Tel Aviv is only 20 meters above sea level, and global warming will almost certainly produce a sea level rise of greater than that within two or three centuries, so I wouldn’t get too attached to that territory if I were the Israelis and Palestinians. If we lose a sixth to a third of the world’s land mass to rising oceans, a lot of people are going to be refugees and a lot of land around which myths and tribalism were constructed isn’t going to be there any more. For better or worse, Jerusalem is pretty elevated, so it is going to be around to fight over if a formula for peaceful sharing isn’t found.

0 Retweet 12 Share 22 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Egypt, Israel/ Palestine | 20 Comments

Empire by the Numbers

Posted on 11/26/2011 by Juan

Number of Pakistani troops killed at checkpoint Saturday by a US helicopter raid from Afghanistan: 25

Number of NATO supply trucks allowed to cross from Pakistan to Afghanistan Saturday: 0

Number of Afghan children killed near Qandahar Wednesday by a US air strike: 6

Percentage of Pakistanis [pdf] who want US troops out of Afghanistan: 69

Number of US troops now in Iraq: 18,000

Number of US troops in Iraq at height of war: 170,000

Number of bases US built in Iraq: 505

Number to be turned over to Iraq: 505

Percentage of Arab publics expressing favorable view of US in 2011: 26

In 2010: 10

Increase in Pentagon budget today over that in Reagan’s first term (when US faced Soviet threat): 11 %

Number of US troops President Obama deployed to Uganda last month: 100

Likely cut in Pentagon budget as a result of failure of super-committee to reach budget deal: 20%

0 Retweet 13 Share 19 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Uncategorized | 20 Comments

Anti-Liberal Netanyahu Slams Arab Spring as Anti-Liberal

Posted on 11/25/2011 by Juan

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said yesterday that he had been right to oppose the forced resignation of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak last February and categorized the uprisings in the Arab world as “anti-Western, anti-liberal, anti-Israeli and anti-democratic wave.” He gave the “uncertainty” in the region as yet another excuse for the Likud Party to continue to steal and squat on ever greater portions of the Palestinian West Bank.

Netanyahu’s outburst is of course completely illogical, and also deeply dishonest. When the Arabs were ruled by dictatorships then that was the reason for which Israel could or should steal Palestinian land and keep the Palestinians stateless and devoid of rights. If they have anti-authoritarian grassroots movements demanding parliaments, now that is the reason for the same policies.

Netanyahu seems to be under the illusion that somehow if only the US and Western Europe had tried harder, they could have magically kept Zine El Abedin Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak in power. But when you’ve got a million people in the center of the capital demanding the dictator leave, and millions gathered in cities and towns throughout the country supporting them in that demand, it really isn’t plausible to imagine that an outside power could retain that hated tyrant. Even if Barack Obama could have pulled off this miracle, it likely wouldn’t have been for very long, and the very attempt would have pushed the Arab masses into radicalism.

Netanyahu’s four adjectives for the movements in Tunisia and Egypt are anti-Western, anti-liberal, anti-Israeli and anti-democratic.

There is another possibility, which is that the movements want democracy and liberalism (in the John Stuart Mill sense of the term, i.e. parliamentary governance and individual rights), but that Netanyahu doesn’t want them to have it because he knows that the scam of Likudnik “Greater Israel” expansion can only be pursued if Israel’s neighbors are ruled by dictators that Israel can threaten or bribe into acquiescence.

Tunisia’s movement has eventuated in the only genuinely democratic election that the country has ever seen. It is true that about 40 percent of the seats were won by the al-Nahda Muslim party, but it has committed to a civil state and could only form a government in coalition with two secular parties. The resulting Tunisian government is far less fundamentalist than Shas and other small religious parties in Israel, which are in Netanyahu’s coalition. Since Tunisia isn’t keeping 4 million people under the boot of foreign military occupation the way Netanyahu is, Tunisia is definitely more democratic than Israel as things now stand, even if its institutions and parties are not as mature.

The charge of “anti-Western” is just propaganda. People aren’t “anti-Western” in principle, they protest particular Western policies. For instance, they mind people like Netanyahu trying to ensure that dictators like Mubarak and Ben Ali remain in power over them. When the “West” did the right thing and supported the Libyan people against the murderous Qaddafi regime, people in Benghazi started waving American, French and British flags. When President Obama finally saw the writing on the wall and gave Mubarak a push, and forbade the Egyptian military to shoot people in the streets, many people in Egypt somewhat revised their view of him. (There were some anti-American posters in Tahrir Square in January and February, but I spent much of July in Tahrir and don’t remember seeing a single anti-American sign). Far from mindlessly condemning “the West,” newly minted Tunisian president Moncef Marzouki has spent a lot of time trying to explain the Arab world to the West. As for revolutionary Egypt, it is still getting $1.2 billion a year in aid from Washington, which doesn’t sound anti-Western to me.

It is not clear what Netanyahu means when he calls the Arab protesters “anti-liberal.” Classical Liberalism is a philosophy of individual rights, parliamentary governance, and liberties. The 20th century Liberal tradition in contrast is about the state ensuring the welfare of the people. The revolutionaries say that they want individual liberties and parliamentary elections. They also want the government to ensure the public welfare. I’d say that many of them are liberals in both senses.

It is true that 30-40% of the electorate favors Muslim religious parties in Tunisia and Egypt (though some do so for non-religious reasons). But religion is not necessarily incompatible with 20th century liberalism (American liberalism has some strong Catholic and Jewish roots). It is true that religious laws imposing morality and punishing victimless crimes contravene the liberal principles of someone like John Stuart Mill. So the Muslim Brotherhood is not classically liberal. But neither was Roman Catholicism classically liberal in the 19th century, and the Haredim who constitute an increasingly large proportion of Israel’s population are likewise hardly classical liberals!

One irony in Netanyahu calling other people “anti-liberal” is that the Likud Party tradition in which he stands (rooted in the “revisionist” Zionism of Zeev Jabotinsky and the terrorist Stern Gang) is highly anti-liberal. The revisionists celebrate their bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946, in which 91 persons, mostly innocents, were killed. Larry Derfner wrote in 2010 that “years ago, when Etzel veterans commemorated the 60th anniversary of the King David bombing, Netanyahu, scion of a proud Revisionist family, was the featured speaker.” (Jerusalem Post, July 29, 2010.) And if anything, some of Netanyahu’s coalition partners, such as Avigdor Lieberman’s largely Russian/Ukrainian Yisrael Beitenu, are even more right wing and authoritarian than Likud.

Netanyahu just shut down a radio station because he did not like its editorial position, the act of an anti-liberal tyrant. One of his media advisers has resigned over the increasing erosion of freedom of speech in Israel. Netanyahu’s majority in the Israeli parliament has also outlawed tools of grassroots organizing such as calling for boycotts. A push is being made to deprive Arabic, the language of over 20% of Israel’s population, from any official status, and Lieberman would like to make large numbers of Israeli citizens stateless. This is “liberal”? Nor is the entire apparatus of Israel’s military occupation of the West Bank and military blockade of Gaza “liberal.”

As for the Arab protesters, it would be possible for the Tunisian and Egyptian activists to be pro-democratic, but to have a strong critique of Western imperialism and of the Likud Party’s oppression of the Palestinians. A critique of Israeli policy toward Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza is not the same thing as being “anti-Israel” (except in the Likud Party’s illiberal worldview). It is also logically possible for some of the protesters to be pro-democracy without being classically liberal.

In any case, the exact mix of political practices and philosophies that emerges in the Arab world in the aftermath to the 2011 movements is irrelevant to Netanyahu’s vast land thefts in the West Bank, which are immoral, inhumane and illegal according to the Geneva Convention of 1949 on the treatment of peoples in militarily occupied territories.

Netanyahu is so blinkered that he thinks his completely unrealistic stance that the West should have tried to keep the dictator Hosni Mubarak in power has been proved right. He is so captive of illogic that he cannot see the hypocrisy of claiming that the Tunisian democrats are “anti-liberal” while himself advocating continued dictatorship! And Netanyahu is so dedicated to the Greater Israel project that he cannot see that it is what generates “anti-Israel” sentiments among his neighbors. It is sort as if a con man who was stealing your brother’s property should call you a despot and a bigot for objecting to his theft.

The one thing Netanyahu has right is that public opinion is going to start mattering in the Arab world in a new way, and that opinion is not favorable to Likud Party policies. As usual, Netanyahu is drawing a completely wrong conclusion from this reality — that he should accelerate and trumpet the very land theft to which Arab public opinion objects. Sooner or later the Likud is going to get its comeuppance for blind arrogance. I fear a lot of innocents are going to be harmed as a result.

0 Retweet 9 Share 43 StumbleUpon 1 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Israel/ Palestine | 31 Comments

Beeman: Letter from Iran

Posted on 11/25/2011 by Juan

This is the second in a series of letters written this week from Iran by University of Minnesota Professor William Beeman. Since Americans hear so little directly from that country in their media, I thought it was worth sharing, and Bill kindly agreed to let me do so.. — Juan .

Dear Friends…

Two other Americans showed up for our conference, entitled “The First International Conference on Human Rights and Cultures: Cultures in Support of Humanity.” It is being held at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and heavy in attendance are the students from the Foreign Policy School run by the Ministry. Some . . . may find the subject of the conference “ironic,” but in fact the organizers, the Non Aligned Movement Center for Human Rights and Cultural Diversity, has assembled quite a large and stellar international group of scholars, NGO officers, Peace Movement functionaries and government officials for this.

The 64 presentations have been on a high level, and would meet a significant academic standard anywhere. Some titles:

“Protection of Cultural Property in Armed Conflicts”
“Constructing the Other”
“The Role of Cultural Diversity in Promoting a Culture of Peace”
“Establishing a Normative Framework for Evaluating Diverse Cases of Transitional Justice”

The graduate students in international relations are especially impressive. They all have impeccable English, are extremely charming, and are working on serious dissertation topics, such as: “Iran’s Developing Relations with Egypt 2000-2011,” “International Economics in non-petroleum sector in the Gulf Region,” “Iran’s prospects in West Africa” and many more. A group of them at dinner surprised me: “Do you speak Spanish?” Well I do, and so do they–quite impressively! They are all learning Spanish and plan trips to Latin America in the Near Future–even the young man posted as political officer in Sweden.

The young women graduate students have been formidable. Several are giving papers. They make up more than half of the student body. They ask great questions, don’t back down and have facts and figures at the fingertips. Forgive me for noticing sartorial details, but although they are dressed in impeccable hejab, every one of them has something that makes her dress stand out. It seems the fashion is now to turn the maqna’eh into a flattering accessory. There is the maqna’eh with a kind of rhinestone band at the forehead, one with little extensions in the front that can be wrapped in a clever loose bow, one with discreet embroidery around the edge. The women pair long skirts and jackets with front panels in white or pastel colors. They are in effect wearing the equivalent of the skirted suit. It is very smart and very professional while being distinctive.

I am sure there is a great deal of unhappiness in Tehran with the most ordinary meat at $22 a kilo and gasoline at $4 a liter, but this privileged crowd was a very happy bunch. It is always dangerous to conclude things from a few casual encounters, but I was surprised to have a cab driver tell me that gas was “still cheaper than Europe” and a shop-keeper tell me that red meat was too expensive, but there was always chicken, and vegetables were healthier anyway. “You don’t have to put a lot of meat into a khoresht.”

Several people asked me about the Wall Street movement. Their sophistication was notable. One young guy said, “it seems to me that they aren’t accomplishing much unless they can get some law passed.” Many could cite chapter and verse on the bank bailouts, the mortgage crisis and the unequal distribution of income (and taxes)–just proving what I always think coming home, and that is that Iranians know much more about America than Americans do about Iran.

In general everyone I talk to claims that their greatest concern is the economy. They are dismayed at the UK and EU cutting off dealings with the Central and other banks. “It doesn’t hurt the leaders in Tehran or the Guard,” said one, “It hurts ordinary people. We don’t understand why the Europeans and Americans want to do this to us.” So much for the fantasy that if life is made miserable enough, the people will rise up and overthrow their government.

And life is far from miserable, at least in North Tehran. Typical urban landscapes: A giant crystalline cineplex looks down on a huge shopping mall with every possible worldly good readily available. A six lane expressway winds through a gigantic landscaped urban park. The streets are jammed with young people strolling, sitting in cafes and just riding around in their cars.

The delegates to the conference are surprised–especially those who have never been here. “I thought Iran was some dark place with total police control,” said one man from India. “But it isn’t! I haven’t even seen a policeman.” A Vietnamese delegate said: “I thought I was going to be robbed, but my friends here tell me they are completely safe.” Clearly the negative press on Iran has done its job well.

Politics: One ministry official asks me point blank: “Is AIPAC really writing American laws?” Another says: “I guess we shouldn’t hope for closer relations with the U.S. now that the Republicans have Obama trapped.” A third: “Look at all the Chinese and Russians everywhere here. Do you think that is an accident?”

Informal poll: Many people think that Mr. Qalibaf has a good shot at the presidency in 2013. “He’s good looking, speaks well and he has succeeded in several administrative posts.” Some find Mr. Masha’ie intriguing but feel he has been damaged too much by bad press to be viable. People wink and hint at the idea of a revival of the Green Movement. It is clearly a dangerous topic, but it is still on peoples’ minds.

I certainly urge anyone with an interest to come to Iran. Despite ideological or political misgivings one might have, these discussions are vital and important. Without ideas and human contact nothing will ever change.

Best,

Bill Beeman
University of Minnesota

0 Retweet 3 Share 17 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Iraq | 18 Comments

  • Professor Juan Cole

    Juan Cole

    Welcome to Informed Comment, where I do my best to provide an independent and informed perspective on Middle Eastern and American politics.

    Informed Comment is made possible by your support. If you value the information and essays, I make available and write here, please take a moment to contribute what you can.

    Contribute

    Thank you to all of my supporters for your generosity and your encouragement of an independent press!

  • IC Destinations

  • Lijit Ads

  • Keep up with Informed Comment at:

  • Donate to Global Americana Institute

    Donate to the Global Americana Institute to support the translation into Arabic of books about America.
  • Friends and Interlocutors:

  • Lijit2

  • IC on Twitter

  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

    • Assassinating Dreams in Egypt: Amr (2)
      • Oliver T: Can someone explain why the elections are being conducted in 12-rounds, over a period of four-month Egypt...
      • i_like_ike52: I read that the Egyptian military controls something like 40% of the Egyptian economy. To think they...
    • Did the Muslim Brotherhood Threaten to Kill “All Jews”? (20)
      • dr blc: There is nothing unfortunate about not respecting the rather vile iranian regime currently in power and which...
      • zjb: Professor Cole obviously knows more about Islam than he does about Judaism and Jewish history, which is his...
    • Empire by the Numbers (20)
      • super390: Joe, we could have saved a lot more money than that by just saying one thing: “Europe, you’re...
      • super390: Another thing; if the Democratic Party stood for anything other than special interests, it would have spent...
  • Archives

  • Categories