Your Contribution will Keep Informed Comment Strong

Posted on 11/30/2011 by Juan

(Scroll down for today’s entry)

I’d like to start by thanking those readers who supported Informed Comment last year in our annual fundraiser. Your contributions made several important trips possible.

I spent much of the months of June through August in Spain, Tunisia, and Egypt. Tunisia and Egypt were research trips, Spain was a jumping off point because of conferences there. Ironically, Spain is having its own popular youth protests, which I saw in Barcelona, Toledo and Madrid before going on to the Middle East.

0 Retweet 1 Share 2 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Uncategorized | 10 Comments

Theocratic Dominance of the New Egypt may be Exaggerated

Posted on 12/05/2011 by Juan

The official results of the November 28 vote in Egypt have now been announced. Observers are jumping to a lot of conclusions. It seems clear that Muslim religious parties have done better than expected, but the exact proportions are still unclear.

Egyptians head to the polls again today to settle run-off contests for seats held by independents, which are quite numerous, so that we still don’t really know which individuals won.

A third of seats on the parliament will be held by independents not running on a party ticket.

The party returns being reported are for a third of the provinces, and affect two thirds of the seats. That is, only about 22% of the over-all seats in the lower house were allocated by party in this, first round. The third of districts that just voted are not necessarily representative of the country, so that the other two rounds may not look exactly like the first.

In this round, nearly 37 percent of party-based seats went to leftist and liberal parties and to one liberal-Muslim party. About 36 percent went to the Freedom and Justice Party of the Muslim Brotherhood. Neither of these results is a big surprise.

The source of astonishment is that the al-Nur Party of the Salafi movement received 24 percent. Salafis favor Saudi-style Islam, and want to ban liquor, impose morality, and maybe even forbid women from driving. The Salafis (like US evangelicals in the 1950s) had been political quietists, and have only recently organized for parliamentary politics. It is a shock to most Egypt-watchers, no matter how intimate they were with the country and its politics, that the Salafis did that well. But remember that al-Nur won 24% of the party-based seats (i.e. 2/3s of the total), so they could be projected to gain only about 16 percent of the full parliament, assuming that they do as well in the second two rounds (which cannot be assumed).

It is not clear that individuals with Salafi leanings will do well in the vote for the independent seats, where, in fact, it has been argued that holdovers from the Mubarak regime might have an unfair advantage because of their name recognition. Apparently about half of the run-off elections for the 52 still-contested independent seats in this round will pit pro-Muslim Brotherhood independents against pro-Salafi ones.

So putting the Muslim Brotherhood at 36 percent together with the Salafis at 24 percent and coming up with 60 percent as the proportion of the parliament held by Muslim fundamentalists could turn out to be an error. If they do as well in the second two rounds, they will have 60 percent of the 2/3s of seats contested by parties, which is actually 40 percent of the whole. It is too soon to know whether candidates sympathetic to the religious parties will do as well (i.e. 60%) when they run as independents. (I don’t deny that they could do so, I only say it is too soon to tell). Nor is it likely that the two will actually join forces.

The other wild card is that not everyone who stood for the Muslim Brotherhood party is a religious hardliner. At least this is what Amr el-Shobaki of the al-Ahram Center argues. He says we have to wait until the third round of voting is over and see who the new incumbents are before we can really know the new balance of power.

The left-liberal parties should not be discounted. The Egyptian Bloc (made up of two leftist parties and a Coptic liberal party) came in second in the blue collar district of Helwan. In Luxor in Upper Egypt, which is heavily dependent on tourism, the Egyptian Bloc got 40 percent of the vote. It is true that the New Left youth groups that were so central to actually making the revolution last February are not represented among the victors. But they do not conceive of themselves as parties, don’t want to be parties, and some told me that they had no idea how to canvass. It was predictable that they would do poorly in the elections. They will likely continue to have a voice, however, as activist groups, even if they are not legislators.

But, the Freedom and Justice Party is unlikely to ally with the Salafis, who would, therefore, be marginalized. The FJP is afraid of being tarred with the Salafi brush, such that middle class Egyptians might abandon the Brotherhood Party. The Freedom and Justice Party initially was going to contest elections in coalition with the liberal New Wafd Party, but in the end they ran on separate tickets. If the FJP/ New Wafd partnership is revived, and perhaps the Egyptian Bloc is added to it, the Brotherhood Party could end up forming the new government but with strong liberal and leftist partners. This outcome would be best for the country. It is only one possibility among others, admittedly, but it is a strong possibility.

So, the takeaways are this: The Salafis are unexpectedly strong, at 24 percent of the party-based seats and 16 percent of total parliamentary seats so far. The Muslim religious parties will be very important in the new parliament and may end up with a majority if they find independents to vote with them. But early indications are that the Brotherhood and the Salafis do not get along. If the Brotherhood forms a governing coalition with liberal and leftist parties, the result would be a green-red (moderate religious plus left-liberal) alliance.

My experience with Egyptian activists this past summer in Tahrir Square is that they are reluctant to say or do polarizing things, and that leftists seek common ground with the Muslim Brotherhood in hopes of outmaneuvering the military. They would not bad-mouth one another. The exception was the Salafis, who were therefore treated by the others like skunks at the party.

On the other hand, the good news is that these elections are from all accounts the freest and fairest in Egypt’s history. If they do produce a fundamentalist-dominated parliament, then at least it will have been the will of the people. Americans are quick to forget how democracy has worked in their own country historically. For instance, religious people here mobilized to forbid alcohol during Prohibition, even passing a constitutional amendment to that effect. It would not be strange if Egyptians behaved similarly. One limiting factor is that if the country becomes too oppressive, it will hurt the key tourist industry.

It is still the plan that the secular-leaning Supreme Council of the Armed Forces will appoint 80% of the constituent assembly that will draft the new constitution, and that it has offered secular guidelines for the organic law. It will be interesting to see if the left-liberal forces keep agitating so vigorously for the military to step down immediately, now that the alternative is likely a Muslim fundamentalist constitution. Ironically, the Brotherhood, which was more favorable to the military this past summer than the leftists, is already talking about sending the military back to the barracks.

0 Retweet 1 Share 4 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Egypt | 2 Comments

Top Things that Should have Disqualified Cain before Now

Posted on 12/04/2011 by Juan

The most alarming thing about Herman Cain’s “suspension” of his presidential campaign is what it took to drag him off the stage. It wasn’t his cruelty, sexism, arrogance or rank ignorance about the world. But it should have been.

Herman Cain advocated electrifying a border fence to fry Mexicans sneaking across the border.

Cain predicted that the suggestion would be considered “insensitive.” He said that what is insensitive is that Mexicans come to the US and kill “our citizens.” Illegal immigration is a crime, but it is not a capital crime for which one would be executed, except perhaps in North Korea or other paranoid, totalitarian states. Murder rates have fallen in the United States, including in border states such as Arizona, in recent years, and decades of research has shown that immigrants are no more likely to commit crimes than citizens. Cain’s lack of respect for human life and his stereotyping of Latinos as especially violent murderers mean that Cain should have been out right there.

Cain alleged that China is “trying” to develop a “nuclear capability.” China’s first nuclear test took place in 1964. The country is estimated to have over 100 nuclear armed ballistic missiles, some 20 of which have a range such as to be able to hit the United States.

The Onion as usual gets this right.

Cain should have been out right there.

Cain insists that women who are raped must bear the rapist’s child if they become pregnant.

Some 25,000 women are made pregnant by rapists every year in the United States. While women who wish to bear the child should be respected, no one should force a woman at the point of a policeman’s gun to be the baby mama of her rapist.

Cain should have been out right there.

Cain’s stupid campaign ad with the creepy smile attempted to insinuate to America’s youth that it is “cool” and “rebellious” to smoke. It is one thing to fall victim to a nicotine addiction that one finds tough to kick; it is another to purvey images of smoking as positive. Smoking in the United States causes nearly half a million deaths a year, and nearly 50,000 deaths are caused by second-hand smoke. Those who have had the heartbreak of seeing relatives and loved ones die of lung cancer are not amused.

Cain should have been out right there.

And, as others have observed, it is weird that credible allegations of sexual harassment of subordinates hurt him but did not knock Cain out of the race, whereas charges of a consensual affair did. What, it is only all right if he is coercive about it?

He should have been out right there.

Cain first didn’t seem to know what Libya was and then expressed worry about the Pashtun Taliban taking over this North African Arab and Berber state.

He should have been out right there.

In fact, had Cain said that illegal immigrants have to be treated in accordance with the rule of law, that women should have the right to choose their own biological destiny, that smoking and second-hand smoke kill way too many Americans annually, and that China is more trading partner of the United States than threat, Cain might well have been disqualified by some of those stances among Republican voters.

Which, taken all together, tells you what is wrong with today’s Republican Party.

They should be out right there.

0 Retweet 12 Share 48 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in US Politics | 18 Comments

Israeli Ads against Marriage with American Jews are Part of a Population War

Posted on 12/03/2011 by Juan

The Israeli government has been forced to withdraw advertisements aimed at Israeli-Americans, urging them to return to Israel and to refrain from marrying American Jews (depicted as ignorant of and distant from Israel).

Here is Aljazeera English’s video report on the ads:

Why would the Israeli government bite the hand that feeds it, and risk insulting the American Jewish community this way? The real issue here is demographics, that is, it is about Israel’s population war with the Palestinians. It is a war that Israel is losing.

There are hundreds of thousands of first- and second-generation Israelis in the United States, and the Likud Party wants them back. That is the point of the offensive commercials.

The advertisements for re-immigration to Israel have the same rationale as Israel’s campaign against the Iranian nuclear enrichment program. A third of Israelis say in polls that they would leave the country if Iran got an atomic bomb. There could be a panicked out-migration. Trying to stop an Iranian bomb is key to retaining Israel’s Jewish population (which finds it nerve-wracking to try to live in a hostile Middle East), just as the ads were thought key to attracting migrants out of Israel to return home.

[pdf] There are about 7.8 million Israelis, including 5.8 million Jewish-Israelis and 1.6 million Palestinian-Israelis (there are also three hundred thousand persons who are simply not Jewish. Within this group, there are some whose mothers were not Jewish and so are not counted officially as Jews, even though they might consider themselves Jewish and hold Israeli citizenship. Others have no claim on Jewishness at all. Neither group is being allowed to convert in any numbers by the Chief Rabbi).

Over time, the proportion of Palestinian-Israelis in the population will rise, and the number of Jews who do not strongly identify with Israel will likely do so, as well. Ian Lustick has argued that [pdf] in recent years the number of Jews who departed Israel probably equaled or exceeded the number who came in, so immigration as a method of retaining a Jewish majority is no longer viable.

Lustick [pdf] also quotes Israeli officials who estimate that up to a million Israelis live outside that country, some 600,000 in North America. Both Israel’s present and its future would look a lot different if Israel could entice these expatriates back. That was the point of the ads. Obviously, if Israeli-Americans intermarry with and assimilate into the Jewish-American community, they are unlikely to return to Israel in any numbers; indeed, if their children adopt Jewish-American ways and intermarry at high rates with non-Jews, a large proportion of their descendants wouldn’t even be eligible for full citizenship as Jews in Israel.

There are no further big Jewish communities that are likely to emigrate to Israel. Few American Jews want to live there. Some 50 percent of American Jews marry out into other communities, something that cannot even be done inside Israel. My suspicion is that more Israelis emigrate to Europe nowadays than European Jews emigrate to Israel. The Israeli Jews of European ancestry (Ashkenazim) and most of those originally from the Middle East (Mizrahim) have increasingly small families. An estimated 70-80 percent of Israeli Jews have other passports, just in case they need to jump ship, and a quarter of all Israeli academics live abroad.

The two populations in Israel with the youngest median age and the greatest likelihood of increase in numbers in the future are the Palestinian-Israelis and the Haredis or ultra-Orthodox Jews. These two groups will, through the 21st century, eclipse the Ashkenazi or European Jews, as well as the non-Haredi Eastern Jews. By 2030, 55% of Israeli school children will likely be either Palestinian-Israeli or Haredi, and they will be 47% of 15-19 year-olds, as well. (See this paper [pdf] by Richard P. Cincotta and Eric Kaufmann.) That is, by 2050 or 2060, if current growth rates continue and no dramatic changes take place in their political status, Palestinian-Israelis and Haredis will comprise a majority of voters outside the elderly.

Note that I am speaking of Israel proper, leaving aside the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza, which Israel is likely also to inherit, since it won’t give them a state of their own. But leave that issue aside for the moment.

The problem for Israeli nationalists is that neither Palestinian-Israelis nor Haredim are typically Zionists. The Ultra-Orthodox often reject the legitimacy of the state of Israel because they believe only the Messiah can establish a Jewish state and rule Jerusalem, and it is hubris for secular Zionists to make the attempt.

Palestinian-Israelis will probably be 30% of the Israeli population by 2030. Although they would not get along with Haredim on most issues, both communities avoid service in the Israeli army (with the exception among Palestinians of the Druze). Neither will be dutiful taxpayers. An Israel made up of a joint majority of Palestinian-Israelis and Haredis will be militarily and financially weak.

Hence the desperate propaganda attempt by PM Binyamin Netanyahu to convince the 600,000 Israeli-Americans and Israeli-Canadians to come home, and to avoid the taint of the soft deracinated (as the ads imply) Jewish-Americans.

In a globalizing world, the Likud Party’s frantic attempts to craft and maintain a Jewish Israel are probably doomed. They are doomed even if Israel is not forced ultimately to absorb the stateless Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza, which it is highly likely to be forced to do over the long run. One could even imagine a Palestinian-Israeli and liberal Jewish-Israeli majority of 55 percent voting in the Palestinians in 2030 so as to avoid further economic boycotts (which will likely burgeon by then as Israeli Apartheid becomes less and less acceptable). In the US, non-Latino whites are already a minority in California, and will be in the whole country by 2050. Askhenazi Jews of Israel, like other white people elsewhere, will just have to get used to not being in charge all the time.

0 Retweet 4 Share 23 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Israel/ Palestine | 57 Comments

FBI Using “Community Outreach” events to Spy on Americans

Posted on 12/02/2011 by Juan

I sometimes talk to Muslim audiences. There is often an FBI agent in the audience and sometimes an ACLU representative. Maz Jobrani suggested at one such event that everyone else leave and let the two of them talk. Now it turns out that the agents often are there gathering information on participants and storing it, even though it is legal for American Muslims to have a public dinner together. The ACLU is blowing the whistle on these FBI practices. Obviously, Muslim groups may be increasingly reluctant to invite agents (done anyway on the unreasonable grounds that law enforcement needs to be reassured about a perfectly peaceful and loyal American community).

Reprinted from ACLU site:

December 1, 2011

FBI Storing Information on Activities Protected by the First Amendment, Memos Obtained by ACLU Show

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – The FBI has been illegally using its community outreach programs to secretly collect and store information about activities protected by the First Amendment for intelligence purposes, according to FBI documents released today by the American Civil Liberties Union.

“The trust that community outreach efforts aim to create is undermined when the FBI exploits these programs to gather intelligence on the very members of the religious and community organizations agents are meeting with,” said Michael German, ACLU senior policy counsel and a former FBI agent. “The FBI should be honest with community organizations about what information is being collected during meetings and purge any improperly collected information.”

FOIA documents showing instances of inappropriate intelligence gathering include:

• San Francisco FBI memos, written in 2007 and 2008 by agents who attended Ramadan Iftar dinners under the guise of the FBI’s mosque outreach program, documenting participants’ names, conversations and presentations. The 2008 memo also recorded participants’ contact information and descriptions of their opinions and associations.
• A 2009 San Jose, Calif. FBI memo describing FBI participation in a career day sponsored by an Assyrian community organization. Agents detailed conversations with three community leaders and members about their opinions, backgrounds and charitable activities.
• A 2007 San Jose, Calif. FBI memo describing a mosque outreach meeting attended by 50 people representing 27 Muslim community and religious organizations, identifying each person by name and organization and analyzing their “demographics.”

“Except under certain special circumstances, the Privacy Act bars the FBI from maintaining records like these describing how Americans exercise their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association,” said Nusrat Choudhury, a staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. “Congress passed this law to prevent records obtained by the government for one purpose from being used for another reason without a person’s consent, but that is precisely what the FBI has done.”

There is no indication in the FOIA documents that community members were informed that the FBI’s outreach activities were used for intelligence gathering purposes or could be potentially used to target these people and their organizations for investigations.

One of the organizations whose members were noted attending the mosque outreach meeting was the Muslim Community Association (MCA). “Like all Americans, we want to help the FBI. Now we feel betrayed,” said MCA Board Secretary Isa Shaw. “We support the idea of building trust through FBI community outreach programs, but the government should not be taking advantage of it to violate our First Amendment rights like this.”

The ACLU is calling on the Department of Justice Inspector General to investigate Privacy Act violations in the FBI’s San Francisco and Sacramento Divisions and to initiate a broader audit of FBI practices nationwide. It is also urging the FBI to stop using community outreach for intelligence purposes, to be honest with community organizations regarding what information is collected and retained during community outreach meetings and to purge all improperly collected information.

The request for these documents was made by the ACLU of Northern California, the Asian Law Caucus and the San Francisco Bay Guardian.

A detailed description of examples (with links to FOIA documents) showing the FBI’s improper collection of information at community outreach meetings is available at: [this site]…

0 Retweet 3 Share 10 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Islamophobia, Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Senate Bill Allows Arrest of Americans by Military Anywhere

Posted on 12/02/2011 by Juan

The Senate passed a war expenses appropriation bill on Thursday that appears to hold out the possibility that the military could be ordered to arrest and hold an American citizen anywhere in the world (including the US) without trial and indefinitely. Senator Lindsey Graham insisted that the move is necessary so that information can be extracted from just-arrested terrorism suspects without all that rigamarole about reading them their rights, etc.

There is no evidence that important and timely information has regularly been obtained by torture, so the whole premise of Graham’s position rests on facts not in evidence. If torture could defeat terrorism and insurgencies, the French would still be ruling Algeria. Moreover, there is no evidence that the US military is good at telling terrorists from non-terrorists. Many of those sent to Guantanamo were found to have been sold by the Taliban (a few Iraqi Shiites who had fled to Afghanistan to escape Saddam ended up at Guantanamo, even though the Taliban and al-Qaeda kill Shiites on sight).

Language was added to the bill at the last minute specifying that “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” But the language also says that the military can arrest US citizens anywhere, including the US. Promises that a provision against terrorism would be somehow limited and would not be used in criminal and other cases have been made before and usually violated. Moreover, since many (but by no means all) of our politicians are apparently a bit unbalanced (something about high office must attract a disproportionate number of people with too much of one chemical and not enough of another), you can’t tell which president will get to order the troops into action and why.

This militarization of police duties in the name of counter-terrorism is a dire threat to the rule of law in the United States, and clearly unconstitutional.

The aspiration in the Senate bill is not new. The Bush administration allegedly seriously considered sending the military to arrest the Lackawanna Five, Yemeni-Americans accused of having attended al-Qaeda training sessions in Afghanistan. That move, like the current National Defense Authorization Act, would violate the 1878 Posse Comitatus law, which forbids the use of troops for domestic law enforcement when civilian organs of state are available for this purpose.

We have seen with the misnamed PATRIOT Act, moreover, that once law enforcement has tools on the books, it typically does not stop at terrorism. The PATRIOT Act’s unconstitutional provision for warrantless wiretapping allowed the FBI to bust strip club owners in Las Vegas for bribing city council members, even though the bureau did not have the kind of evidence for wrong-doing that would have been needed to obtain a warrant. This was terrorism?

The point is that if you let the US military arrest Americans for terrorism, you probably are letting them arrest Americans for anything. Bradley Manning has been formally charged with aiding the enemy by releasing low-level State Department cables to Wikileaks. If you reposted one of those cables on the web or Facebook, is that treason? Could the military come after you for it? Would you also be in the brig and tortured via sleep deprivation, and in danger of being executed? (By the way, former vice president and unindicted felon Richard Bruce Cheney revealed to Iran and everyone else that Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA operative working to counter nuclear proliferation in Iran. That’s not “aiding the enemy”? But releasing some inconsequential cables is?)

Or what about civil disobedience tactics such as those on many of today’s college campuses and city squares, on the part of Occupy Wall Street? Couldn’t mayors just call in the military if these activities were construed as “terrorism”?

The ACLU explains that the current language of the amendment is frightening.

Since our Congress is now almost completely bought and paid for, it has been pushing weird acts that only benefit authoritarian politicians and some billionaire corporations recently, and which are wholly injurious to American liberties. Destruction of internet liberty is another cause apparently dear to the hearts of our plutocrats.

0 Retweet 7 Share 44 StumbleUpon 0 Printer Friendly Send via email

Posted in Democracy, US Politics | 36 Comments