Running commentary here from BBC correspondents, some of them embedded with the troops:
Latest (at 13:10) – The trouble is the insurgents are now going to ground. So I think we can expect the territory of Falluja to be under joint American and Iraqi command in quite a short time, but after that the problem will be the wave of suicide bombings which American commanders expect to be unleashed.
A MEMRI article looks at a major study into the religious curricula in boys’ schools in the Saudi state school system:
The researchers found extremely grave defects in the curricula, particularly with regard to attitude toward the “other” – that is, toward anyone whose views are not in line with the Wahhabi Islam that is dominant in the kingdom. Although the researchers note that the curricula denigrate and show hatred toward and incitement against non-Muslims, the main body of findings shows no less intolerance to non-Wahhabi Muslims.
Instead of strengthening pupils’ understanding of disputes and disagreement as a natural and legitimate part of human life, and instead of inculcating a culture of dialogue and pluralism in Muslim society, the Saudi curricula that the researchers examined actually encouraged denigration of, hatred of, and incitement against Muslims whose customs and views differ from those of Wahhabi Islam. The curricula teach that non-Wahhabi Muslims are unbelievers who are introducing forbidden innovations into Islam and collaborating with the colonialist foreigners. This approach, the researchers concluded, encourages violence toward others, and misguides the pupils into believing that in order to safeguard their own religion, they must violently repress and even physically eliminate the “other.”
The researchers found that the curricula they examined make sweeping accusations of unbelief [Takfir], and permit the killing and taking of the property of “polytheists” [Mushrikun]. The derogatory term “polytheists” harks back to early Islam, when the monotheistic Muslims fought to the death against Arabs who believed in many gods alongside Allah. In the Saudi schoolbooks the term ‘ Mushrikun ‘is used for all non-Wahhabi Muslims – and applied so broadly that even statements such as “Development programs will eliminate poverty and ignorance” and “Medical progress will eliminate disease” are also considered polytheism – because they attribute results to causes other than Allah.
With Bush re-elected, and Arafat on his death bed, there’s talk of new opportunities for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Michael Gove has some thoughts:
There is a widespread sense that a new opportunity exists to provide the Palestinian people and the Israelis with fresh hope for the future. But that fresh hope is compromised by the tired assumptions with which it is accompanied. As Tony Blair prepares to meet President Bush this week there is near-unanimity from European commentators and politicians about what should be done.
The President should be told to re-engage with a peace process that has faltered, more than anything, because of his culpable neglect. He must show greater impartiality, rather than favouring, as he has, if only by inaction, the Israeli Government.
The Israelis, for their part, must recognise the folly of seeking to use military means to protect themselves from terror. And only through progress between Israel and the Palestinians can the wider problems of the region be solved.
All of these clichéd assumptions: the belief that America is to blame for neglecting to engage; the conviction that the President must display neutrality; the judgment that Ariel Sharon’s current tactics are folly; and the idea that the peace process is the principal solution for the region’s woes are almost totally wrong. These assumptions have underpinned the policies that were followed for 30 years in the Middle East, and they have been responsible for our current misery. The repetition of each of these clichés now brings to mind another, with politicians who refuse to learn from history condemned to repeat it.
The first wrong-headed assumption is embodied in the demand that Bush “re-engage” with the Middle East peace process, as though conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians was like a squabble between children, a dispute due primarily to a failure on the part of the figure in authority to assert himself. This error springs from a misplaced faith that major conflicts can be resolved if only outside figures apply themselves to brokering negotiations with all the energy at their disposal. The truth about peace processes is that outside brokers can achieve something only if the parties to the conflict want out. And that wasn’t the case with Arafat.
Few presidents could have tried harder to engage with the Middle East peace process than Bill Clinton, but he knew where the blame lay for its demise. When Yassir Arafat sought to praise Clinton for the American leader’s efforts at the end of his presidency, Bill would have none of it. “I’ve been a failure,” he told the Palestinian leader, “and it’s thanks to you.” Peace talks at Camp David, and Taba, ran into the sand because Arafat chose not to accept what had been negotiated but preferred to see what more could be extracted through the violence of the second intifada. […]
[F]oreign statesmen who wish to see the people of the Middle East enjoy a better future should broaden their gaze beyond this one conflict to recognise what is truly at the heart of the region’s malaise. Arafat was not the only Arab leader to blame his people’s problems on the Jews, to prefer the romance of the liberation struggle to the hard work of democratic modernisation, and to line his own pockets while his citizens scrabbled for survival. The root cause of violence, poverty and division in the Middle East is not a failure to solve the peace process. The failure of the peace process stems from the continuing addiction of so many of the Arab world’s leaders to fomenting violence, presiding over poverty and indulging in the politics of division.
In Saudi Arabia, women are still not allowed to drive:
Fourteen years ago on Saturday, 47 Saudi women defied a strict ban on driving in the ultra-conservative kingdom by roaming the capital behind the wheel. The daring drivers were swiftly rounded up by police and punished, but many remain unrepentant to this day.
“I am ready to take part in a demonstration right now,” said one former participant.
Women are still not allowed to drive in oil-rich Saudi Arabia, despite the absence of any specific law banning them from the driver’s seat.
“I still believe in the idea. It is a right that I will continue to demand,” the protester added, requesting anonymity. […]
Women in Saudi Arabia, who have to cover from head to toe in public and cannot mix with men other than relatives, are subjected to a number of other restrictions, including not being able to travel alone.
Although the government started issuing separate identity cards in 2001, Saudi women cannot obtain such documents without the approval of a male guardian such as a husband or father.
Nor do they have the right to vote or run for public office. The Interior Ministry recently dashed women’s rights activists’ hopes of participating in landmark local elections, due in February, saying it was “not in the cards.”
But change may be on the horizon, as economic pressure forces authorities to recognize women as a part of the work force, at least potentially.
The Saudi government in June lifted a ban on women holding jobs in most fields, allowing them to obtain commercial licenses and ordering ministries to create jobs for women.
blockquote>
There’s a slight difference between the homophobia and the Islamophobia cited here, which Riddell skates over – namely that homosexuals are the victims of recent attacks, whereas Van Gogh was killed by a Muslim. Nevermind: a trivial point. Homophobic attacks in London, Islamist slayings in Amsterdam: it’s all Bush’s fault.
If poets wrote poems whose titles were anagrams of their names….(via Shot by both sides)
Likable Wilma
by William Blake
Wilma, Wilma, in thy blouse,
Red-haired prehistoric spouse,
What immortal animator
Was thy slender waist’s creator?
When the Rubble clan moved in,
Was Betty jealous of thy skin,
Thy noble nose, thy dimpled knee?
Did he who penciled Fred draw thee?
Wilma, Wilma, burning bright, ye
Cartoon goddess Aphrodite,
Was it Hanna or Barbera
Made thee hot as some caldera?
nice smug me
by e.e. cummings
this here verse’s
disjunct
i used to
stick to regular metered
poetry
now i write onetwothreefourfive
poemsjustlikethat
Jesus
but this is simple work
and what i want to know is
how much am i going to get paid for this
mister editor
And finally, a haiku by Basho:
Has B.O.
Swamp mist, eyes water—
Why is that monk still wearing
Winter robes in June?
Dylan Thomas is pretty good as well.
ti-American hostility acute, Sergeant Jenkins recalled that one day he was taken to a hospital where orderlies held down his forearm as a doctor, without using anesthesia, cut off a piece of skin tattooed, “U.S. Army.”
In his closing statement, he apologized to soldiers under his command, to the Army and to the nation.
“After living 40 years in North Korea, there is no freedom like the freedom in the United States,” he said. Referring to Kim Jong Il, he added, “People in North Korea suffer under a system that is evil and is run by a man who is evil to his bones.”
After one day in North Korea, he said, he realized that he had made a terrible mistake.
ue believers will end it.
There shall be no mercy for the unjust, only the sword raised at them. No discussion, no demonstrations, no parades, no petitions; merely DEATH shall separate the Truth from the LIE.
I saw yesterday’s Mirror front page, but I wasn’t aware of what was inside. This screed from columnist Brian Reade (via Melanie Phillips) is a classic of toxic Bush-hating anti-Americanism. I won’t bother to quote from it.
sked how the audience felt about the election? Of course the audience groaned and moaned—after all, this IS a Joan Baez concert. For her part, Joan said that she felt like she had been run over by a truck. One audience member yelled, “You give us hope.” Now I like a good rendition of “Joe Hill” or “Diamonds and Rust,” as well as the next person and I do recognize her talent as a singer. And Baez has a perfect right to dedicate a song, as she did, to that insufferable, lying self-promoter Michael Moore, whom she praised for doing his best to save the country. Later Baez announced that she was going to sing a song that she sang only in countries that were undergoing extreme political strife. In fact, she hadn’t sung it in the United States in the last 20 years. The song? “We Shall Overcome.”
However, the most remarkable and disturbing episode occurred halfway through the concert when Joan stopped singing and announced that she had “multiple personalities.” One of her multiple personalities is that of a fifteen year old poor black girl named Alice from Turkey Scratch, Arkansas. Baez decided to share with us Alice’s views on the election. Amazed and horrified I watched a rich, famous, extremely white folksinger perform what can only be described as bit of minstrelsy—only the painted on blackface was missing. Alice, the black teenager from Arkansas Baez was pretending to be, spoke in a dialect so broad and thick that it would put Uncle Remus and Amos and Andy to shame. Baez’ monologue was filled with phrases like, “I’se g’win ta” to do this that or the other and dropping all final “g’s.” Baez as Alice made statements like, “de prezident, he be a racist,” and “de prezident, he got a bug fer killin’.” Finally, since Bush won the election with 58.7 million votes to Kerry’s 55.1 million, Alice observed, “Seems lak haf’ de country be plumb crazy.” Since Baez was reading Alice’s notes, it is evident that she thinks that Arkansas’ public schools don’t teach black children to write standard English.
Once Joan finished her minstrelsy riff, the audience, in which I did not see a single black person, went wild with applause and hoots and hollers. I have never felt so embarrassed for a bunch of “liberals” in my life.