Desicritics Category: Politics: Middle East

Egyptian Government Attempts To Prove Minarets Are Useful

Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 21:01:41 EST

It's obvious that the Muslim governments who got excited about Switzerland’s banning of the minarets (that stupid vote) forgot a few things themselves. This was indeed a democracy, despite the voting being an islamophobic one. Secondly, these Muslim governments are rarely democratic themselves. Take Egypt for example. It's not democratic by any stretch of the imagination. It even diverted its upset populace’s attention by going on and on about the Algerian – Egyptian football match, go figure. Anyway, so what does it do now? I quote:

CAIRO, DECEMBER 9 - The Egyptian parliament will be carrying out a scientific research to prove that mosque minarets, which a recent Swiss referendum okayed their ban, are important to Muslims, MENA reported. The religious affairs committee of the Peoples Assembly has been assigned with the job: to issue a statement to be delivered as a letter to the presidents of the Swiss parliament, the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly, protesting the outcome of the poll. Ahmed Fathi Sorour, the speaker of the Peoplés Assembly, said the Swiss government and parliament were against the referendum, whose results came to reflect a growing sense of Islamophobia in the European country.

I started laughing helplessly when I read this. They are important to Muslims? D’oh. Yes they are. They are also important to other people too, you doofus. They are also important to the construction industry, the broadcasting industry, the academic industry and and and. And just what scientific research will be carried out? On what basis? What fun, what stupidity, lol. I am firmly of the belief that the greatest danger to Islam is not from the crusaders, zionists or the west, but it is from their own leaders, politicians and religious leaders such as these dorks mentioned above. On a separate note, did you know that the chap who is the architect of the Swiss referendum is a Turkish Muslim, I quote:

One of the architects of the controversial Swiss referendum that resulted in a ban on the construction of minarets has a Turkish heritage, daily Milliyet reported on Wednesday. Born in the Aegean province of Izmir to a Turkish father and a Swiss mother, Soli Pardos family moved to Switzerland when he was 5 years old, the daily said. Swiss voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional ban on minarets on November 29, barring construction of the iconic mosque towers in a surprise vote that put Switzerland at the forefront of a European backlash against a growing Muslim population. Muslim groups in Switzerland and abroad condemned the vote as biased and anti-Islamic. The referendum by the nationalist Swiss Peoplés Party, or SVP, labeled minarets as symbols of rising Muslim political power that could one day transform Switzerland into an Islamic nation. Pardo also said minarets are used as symbols in Europe, but added: I do not have any reactions against Muslims, and I do not accept that there is Islamaphobia in Switzerland. Pardo, who is the leader of the Geneva Canton for the SVP, said his father was a small-scale industrialist and passed away in 1976 when Pardo was 21. Regarding the referendum, he said: We do not believe that the minarets are linked to worship because no calls to prayer are made from the minarets. We are not against building mosques but against 5- to 6-meter-tall minarets. The initiative was approved 57.5 to 42.5% by some 2.67 million voters.

So here we go, official confirmation from Switzerland, there is no connection between Islam and Muslims and Minarets, lol. So what then is the official position? An interesting op-ed from a Professor in Islamic Art History from Arab News can help. I quote the relevant bits here, but do read the full piece:

Minarets were introduced in the process of conquest such as in the earliest surviving imperial mosque — the Umayyad Mosque of Damascus — in the beginning of the 8th century. Minarets were in this case an appropriation of a Byzantine church’s bell towers. Slowly minarets became one of the elements asserting the grandeur and influence of big mosques financed by the early Islamic states, notably between the 8th and the 10th centuries. The Damascus Mosque’s minarets seem to have been imitated later in the 10th century when the rulers of Andalusian Cordoba were aspiring to rival the major Islamic eastern caliphates. The helicoidal 9th century minarets in the mosques of the Abbasid city of Samarra, which are the largest mosques in pre-modern history, seem to have been imitated in Egypt in the same century. Yet minarets were not a constant element. In the eastern Islamic lands, especially within the Persian space, minarets seem to play a minor role. At some point in the 14th century minarets in Iran were simply decorative accessories for huge portals with big domes in the background. It is probably with the Turkic dynasties, culminating with the Ottomans since the 15th century, that minarets would be equated with Islamic images in the Western European imaginaire. It has been widely reported in the European travelogues that one of the first acts of Ottomans after conquering Constantinople in 1453 was the insertion of a minaret at one of the corners of the Byzantine church of Haghia Sophia. In fact, the Ottomans seemed to have used the minaret as one of the elements to visually appropriate conquered Byzantine churches and convert them to mosques. They tended also to build monumental minarets, sometimes four, in their new mosques. Whatever its meaning in the premodern era, the minaret’s signification seems to have been reshaped starting from the end of the 19th century.

It's curious, and before I finish this, I thought of looking around the OIC and how they react to the presence of other religions. Whether we are talking about Mauritania, Iran, Iraq, Turkey or Egypt etc. etc. they all have much bigger problems with other religions. So it's a spot of major hypocrisy for them to moan about Switzerland. Then again, its Switzerland who should be ashamed of lowering themselves to the abysmal standards that the OIC hold themselves to. Esphoks.

Jesus-Era House Excavated in Nazareth

Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 06:20:21 EST

Now here’s an interesting item which caught my eye. I knew the history of Jesus of Nazareth where he grew up, but my mental image of Nazareth was always what was illustrated in Nativity Plays, Bible books, paintings and such like. Very clean, idealised village which would not be out of place in modern day Britain. Here’s an example:

here’s another painting, Nazareth by William Gale.

Anyway, you get the idea of what I am talking about. But then this announcement popped up. I quote:

The remains of a small house that can be dated back to the time of Jesus have been found in the past days during excavation works in progress in Nazareth, guided by a team of Israeli archaeologists. According to the scientists, this is the first house from that era ever uncovered. "The building that we found is small and modest and it is most likely typical of the dwellings in Nazareth in that period," the archaeologist added, suggesting that "Jesus and his childhood friends may have known this house".

Click on this site and this to see 2 photographs of the currently excavated site which shows the foundations of the house and the walls. The hamlet, unlike what has been portrayed in the paintings and books, was a dirt poor tiny hamlet of not more than 50 families. Interestingly enough, the archaeologists have found a water harvesting system on the roof. What a change and as the LA Times says:

…not far from the spot where the Archangel Gabriel is said to have revealed to Mary that she would give birth to the boy. Today the ornate Basilica of the Annunciation marks that spot, and Nazareth is the largest Arab city in northern Israel, with about 65,000 residents. Muslims now outnumber Christians 2 to 1 in the noisy, crowded city. The archaeological find shows how different it was 2,000 years ago: Christianity and Islam did not yet exist; the Jewish Temple stood in Jerusalem; and tiny Nazareth was near a battleground between Roman rulers and Jewish guerrillas….

There is obviously no Jewish presence now, the number of Christians is dropping precipitously in Palestine and the Jewish state is busy having fun with the Muslims. The archaeologists also found a hidden entrance to a grotto which could have been used by the Jews to escape from the Romans. And Palestine now has underground tunnels to smuggle people and goods in and out of Palestine. In certain cases, not much has changed now has it? And what also surprised me was that nobody has done any politicking on this yet as archaeology in the holy land is inextricably linked with politics down history.

But what has changed is the image of Nazareth in my mind. Instead of the bucolic, green and peaceful town that was imprinted in my mind, it has now converted into a parched, drought ridden, desperately poor, quite dirty, fearful tiny little village of no importance back then. Merry Christmas everybody.

Bad News at My Doorstep - Surprises After a Target Shoot

Ruvy — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:26:50 EST

A couple of weeks ago, I got a call at night. The conversation was in Hebrew but since most of you reading are not familiar with the language....

"Ruvy?" The fellow sounded familiar, but I couldn't place him.

"Yes?" I waited.

"Ruvy, we have target practice scheduled for next week. You have a choice between Monday the 7th and Wednesday the 9th."

I sighed. I really didn't need this. The target practice was to make sure I could still carry the M16 I use on guard duty for the village - which is now, for me, the effort to stay awake in a patrol truck between 02:00 and 05:00 in the wee hours of the morning. If I didn't go, I wouldn't be able to carry the weapon or go on patrol, and another 250 shekels would be added to my monthly taxes to the village of Ma'ale Levona. When I get rich, I won't care. In the meantime, I go on patrol.

I turned all this over in my head. I was busy on Monday. I had a meeting in Jerusalem to try to figure out what my oldest son, who is leaving high school, would do next year. On Wednesday, we was supposed to be in the south of the country for "parents day" at the pre-military academy our younger son is attending.

"Nu, Ruvy? What should I put you down for? Monday or Wednesday?" The security officer of the village, Itzik, like most Israelis, was extremely impatient.

"What time does it start?" I asked him. "About 17:00 - like last time," he answered me. Last time, I waited for hours for the idiots to get started. A pig in molasses moves faster than the IDF when it comes to working with civilians. Even the Israel Police are more efficient!

"Where will it be?" I asked, half knowing the answer. "It'll be in the same place as last time! Where else will we have it?" he expostulated. "Nu? Which is it already? Monday or Wednesday?" he continued to press. And I continued to dither. "I'm busy both days, Itzik. You sure this will be in the late afternoon-evening?"

"Yes, yes, I'm sure!" Itzik answered, his very short fuse nearly running out on him.

"Alright, Itzik", I relented at last. "I have a meeting on Monday morning in Jerusalem at 10:00. I can probably catch the bus leaving from Jerusalem at 14:00. So put me down for Monday." On Sunday, I got a formal notice from the Security Officer of the village saying that I was registered to go on Monday to target practice, pursuant to our conversation the previous week - at 14:00. The notice said "transportation is you own responsibility."

On Monday, I went to the meeting with my son, and after some haggling, we agreed to register him with National Service, where he would do "volunteer" work in lieu of not serving in the IDF. We were to come to another meeting the next morning, where he would meet with a Jerusalem coordinator of the National Service. We took a bus to the Central Bus Station, from whence my son would go home, and I would take a different bus at 13:00 to the village to the mitv�H - the target practice. I still had no idea how I would get home to Ma'ale Levona.

I got off at the village specified, and walked around some, asking directions for where the target practice was held for villagers who had to do patrol. There was a kid walking around with the same puzzled "am-I-in-the-right-place?"expression I must have been wearing, and together we progressed to a large field, about the size of a soccer or rugby pitch. At one end of the field was a shelter against the wind and the rain, and at the other was a sign in Hebrew - 25 meters.

We had indeed arrived. It was the place where target practice was done. It looked like the place I had gone to last year, and there were spent shells on the field.

The kid sat himself down with a notebook, pencil and paper and started working on some school problem. I watched him absent-mindedly. I should have brought a notebook or book along myself, but I had been in too much of a hurry to catch the 7:30 bus with my son.

The kid sitting on the ground looked up at me, "at� m'dabér angl�t? "Do you speak English?"

Joy! Rapture! Of course I speak English! I wouldn't have to crack my jaws or stretch my poor overworked brain on Hebrew! "Yeah, I talk English," I answered him. The kid continued on in Hebrew.

"Can you help me with what I'm working on here? It's all in English, and I'm having trouble understanding..." I didn't waste time answering him. I walked over and took the paper from his hand and looked at it.

It was in English alright. But I didn't understand a single sentence. The kid was studying electrical engineering, and he wanted me to translate the problems he was working on. English I know. Electrical engineering? Forget about it! I didn't know the technical terms and couldn't translate most of them for him. I did translate one or two terms here and there and was about to give up altogether when I noticed a sheet of paper translating a whole series of terms from English to Hebrew. Like most Israelis, he hadn't bothered to look at the sheet.

I held the sheet in front of his face. "Use this!" I told him. "I don't know the technical terms, but this sheet will give you the help you asked me for."

I showed him the various terms he needed to know, and the vast majority of the terms he wanted were there. He returned to his book - and I returned to my ennui. A 6% solution of cocaine to inject in my veins would have been appropriate at that point.

We had arrived at 14:00 - the time specified on the sheet I had gotten in the mail - and still we were the only ones there. It was going on 15:00. I dialed up the Security Officer on my cell-phone.

"Nu, Itzik, where are you? Was this canceled after all?" I asked, glancing a the clouds that seemed to get heavier and heavier with each passing hour.

"I'm on the way," he answered. "Don't worry." Typical Israeli bluff and bravado.

By the time he had arrived a few minutes later, a whole bunch of others had also, so the first order of business was praying MinH�, the afternoon prayer. Then we waited some more. Suddenly a HUMVEE appeared with some soldiers in it. First it drove down to the far edge of the field, where some kids (soldiers) took out about 8 targets to shoot at, and set them in the ground. They left a whole series of small boxes at the corner. Ammo. Then the HUMVEE came by to the shelter and the same soldiers unloaded four small plastic items that unfolded to become long benches for us to sit on. Then, they took out a large table on which they set cakes, and a large container containing hot water. Teabags and coffee packets were also provided. You would have thought that this was a kidd�sh after synagogue on Shabb�t instead of target practice.

Itzik handed me an M16 and an empty clip. It is the standard banana clip that holds 30 5.56 mm bullets, the standard ammo of the M16 used here. It didn't register in my head immediately that the clip was empty. I checked the weapon to make sure there were no bullets in it.

A whole load of people who live in Ma'ale Levona had arrived, and I saw my possible ride - Barry. I didn't waste any time, and asked him if he had a spot in his car for me. He did! Suddenly, even though the clouds were descending lower and lower, the day was a lot brighter and sunnier for me. I would have a ride home!

The actual target practice was somewhat anti-climactic after all that waiting. There were two sessions - one where we shot 20 bullets standing, kneeling and prone, and a second session after dark where we shot ten bullets in any position we were comfortable in. It was beginning to rain when we shot at night, and I rushed through the routine and returned the weapon, and empty clip to the Security Officer and rushed onwards to see Barry already in his car ready to leave. It must have been 17:10 or 17:15 at night. A long day - and finally on the way home in the pouring rain in the Samarian mountains!

That is where the story should end. But it didn't end there.

Traveling up the road to Ma'ale Levona from Sinjil at 17:30 in the evening, the vehicle I was riding in was confronted with and the road blocked by two Israel Police vehicles. After some discussion, the police agreed to move the vehicles and allowed the vehicle I was riding in to pass. Traveling from there to the main road into the village, I could see a long line of traffic backed up on the main road. The following is reported live as dictated to my son, Shim'on, who typed this as I spoke.

At the entry road to Ma'ale Levona there is a tremendous road block. There are border guards in full combat gear, there are police, and Yassamnikim (SWAT team) in black. The main road into the village was blocked with stones and we ran over them at 17:40 this evening (7 December 2009). Fortunately the vehicle was not damaged. It is impossible to enter Ma'ale Levona at this second. The presence of police, military vehicles, and the stones in the road seem to indicate that there either is or has been a confrontation between forces of the state and the residents of Ma'ale Levona. This is confirmed by the presence of a large number of residents at the gate of the yish�v (village). A barrier of rocks is slowly being removed from the roadway and we are progressing home. Walking into the village, I was stopped by a kid who wanted to make sure I live here.

That is from the article I wrote for Blogcritics Magazine on the confrontation at Ma'ale Levona that had been taking place all afternoon while I was wasting my time at a damned target shoot!

Looking at the road leading to Ma'ale Levona I was wishing I had a laptop or notebook computer with a WiFi connection on it. I was staring at a news story, and was pissed off as all hell. Finally, it hit me to call up my son and dictate the basis of a newsflash to him, one that I could fix up when I got home and file. So I dialed him up, and Shim'on did me proud. He opened a Word document and typed what I told him to, and then typed in observations of his own.

When I got home, I sat down at the computer and began to work. There is no rest for the wicked.

Iran Nuclear Issue - Another Attempt at Dialogue

DeeptiA — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 06:43:48 EDT

The nuclear ambitions of Iran are well known, and the attempts by some of the significant world powers to stop these nuclear efforts (mostly in a futile effort) are also well known by now. Iran has most likely done the calculation that it will be able to pursue its nuclear quest through a measure of playing one country against another along with a dogged determination to go the full path. Further, given the difficult power structure of Iran where the Supreme Leader and the President both represent power centers, it is hard to figure out who is fully in command (although it is believed that in any decision making, the Supreme Leader will prevail; but the recent political chaos also showed that the President has cultivated the Revolutionary Guards and the military to get more power). Iran also believes that the only way for it to project itself as the natural leader of the region is to get nuclear weapons (especially since its given enemy, Israel, has nuclear weapons and advanced delivery systems). Iran also stands alone politically in the region (except for Iraq), since the other countries such as Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, etc, all are more or less against Iran (they are all Sunni countries while Iran is a Shia dominated country).

Yet, the countries interacting with Iran over its nuclear stance (primarily the countries in the UN Security Council) are unable to make a decision on how to proceed. Iran has always had the stance that it is using nuclear energy for purposes of generating an alternative to fossil fuels for electricity, a stand that other countries refuse to buy, and yet this must be one of the longest running attempts to have a discussion (link to article):

The U.S. and European Union called for a meeting with Iran to discuss stalled nuclear talks, brushing aside the Persian Gulf country's failure to mention the dispute over its atomic program in a proposal for negotiations. The EU request for a meeting came in response to the Iranian plan to tie any discussion of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East to talks on the future of the Palestinian people and changes in the structure of the United Nations Security Council.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki presented a five-page document to China, France, Germany, Russia, the U.K. and U.S. in Tehran on Sept. 9. The proposals are a response to Western concern about the atomic work, said President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who denies allegations by the U.S. and major allies that Iran's nuclear-power development is cover for the production of weapons. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told worshippers in Tehran yesterday that Iran must "stand firm" in the nuclear dispute, saying it has the right to the technology, Agence France-Presse reported.

The members of the Security Council and the EU have not been able to come to an agreement about how to deal with Iran, given that Russia and China have not agreed with the western position. And of course, there is widespread problems even in the US, and the EU about trying to move ahead with a military and hard decision.

Banning The Burqa - Not a Solution, But A Start

Omar Haq — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 20:59:34 EDT

French President Sarkozy recently reignited the debate over the burqa or the veil that some Muslim women wear. He said that the

...burqa is not a religious sign. It is a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement. It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic.

I disagree with the French president, but only with the second part of this quote. first, let me preface my argument with my own thoughts on the the burqa, also spelled as burka and may be referred to as the hijab or the chador as well. (In this post, I am referring only to the complete head to toe burqa, with perhaps a slit or netting for the eyes. In this outfit, the face is not visible. The headscarf is something very different, and is what some women in my family back home in Pakistan wear.)

I believe that the burqa really is a construct of a misogynistic and feudal society. There is no doubting the fact that Islamic societies have suppressed the rights of women for as long as one can remember. The cause of this evil (and it really is evil...) is not Islam, however, because Islam was meant to be the cure. In its purest form, Islamic teachings do make valiant efforts to raise the status of women, but these teachings have fallen to deaf ears. The real reason in my opinion, is illiteracy, and the fact that Islam spread like wildfire through lands that were already pagan, uneducated, and heavily misogynistic. Islam was meant to heal these ancient feudal lands of this backbreaking curse on women, but has instead become associated with women's rights violations. But that is the past, yet today things have not changed much. Therefore, in this day and age, Islamic leaders and followers deserve the blame for the imbalance of power between the sexes.

Moreover, I don't see how the burqa helps a woman as I believe it disconnects her from society at large, especially Western society. It is unfortunate that it is mostly Western leadership that is denouncing the veil. Jack Straw, the former British foreign Minister once wrote that, "wearing the full veil was bound to make better, positive relations between the two communities more difficult". This careful statement is completely true, and besides the obvious community aspects, the head to toe covering must be unbearably uncomfortable. I cannot fathom how a woman enjoys wearing something completely covering her up and is barely able to walk. It's also a safety issue. I've seen women driving with their faces covered, and its obvious to see that their peripheral vision is limited. That's just as dangerous as driving with your eyes closed.

However, even after all this, I believe it is the right of any woman to decide whether she wants to wear a burqa or not. We must recognize the fact that not all women wear the veil on their own free will. Let's not be naive here. There is immense pressure on women to wear the veil, especially if her community at large wears it. In fact most women don't even have the choice to NOT wear the veil. In these situations, both the Islamic leadership and the country in question, must provide avenues for discussion, and safety for the woman who decides against the burqa. If women choose not to wear the veil, then they should be allowed to do so, with adequate protection from their community and country. I believe President Sarkozy should communicate with Muslim leadership in his country and convey such a point. Banning the veil outright, and imposing his belief system on another person is just plain wrong, to quote my brother.

Muslims (mostly men) around the world have been incensed with the French president's stance. They all believe that Muslim women must have the right to choose to wear the burqa. That's no problem. But these same Muslims must realize that they must provide their women with the right to NOT choose to wear the burqa as well. And that's really where the problem stems. President Sarkozy recognizes that Muslims societies are not willing to give up this stranglehold on women and what they wear. Wearing the burqa has become such an integral part of Muslim societies that people don't realize that its not an Islamic practice in the first place. Even if some sects believe that it is a integral practice, then they must allow their women the choice to wear it or not. And it is these women that must be protected. The issue isn't Jack Straw or President Sarkozy being racists against Islam, but the problem is that Islamic societies are unwilling to change and unwilling to remove the sexist policies of their uneducated, pagan past.

Will Mousavi Go The Tsvangirai Way?

Vinod Joseph — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:47:21 EDT

You might wonder what Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Morgan Tsvangirai have in common. It’s very simple. Currently, Mousavi is treated as the angel of deliverance in Iran, the only human being capable of saving the people of Iran from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the mad Mullahs. There was a time when Morgan Tsvangirai occupied a similar position in Zimbabwe. Out in Harare, evil was personified in the form of Robert Mugabe, a one time revolutionary and freedom fighter who had grown so drunk with power that he lost all his supporters outside Zimbabwe, with the possible exception of China and North Korea. Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai was a brave rebel who, despite being arrested and beaten up so many times, was leading the fight to bring democracy to Zimbabwe. In September 2008, Tsvangirai signed a deal with Mugabe under which he became the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe.

Things didn’t change much for Zimbabwe after Tsvangirai started to share power with Mugabe. The food shortages, unemployment and high inflation continue. On 6 March 2009, Tsvangirai and his wife Susan were involved in an accident. The car they were travelling in was hit by a lorry and Susan died. Morgan Tsvangirai escaped with minor injuries. Allegations of foul play flew thick and fast, including from Tsvangirai himself. The allegations had credibility since Mugabe has a record of using such ‘accidents’ to get rid of his opponents. Later Tsvangirai rescinded his statements and said that the ‘accident’ was just that – an accident.

Very recently, Tsvangirai went on a tour to Western Europe and North America to ask for financial aid, something that was denied to Mugabe when he was fighting Tsvangirai. Morgan Tsvangirai, darling of various western rulers and human rights organisations when he was in the opposition, did not have much luck in persuading western donors to give him money. Hoping to raise £5 billion, Tsvangirai managed to get £60 million from the UK and $73 million from the US. Neither government was willing to give the aid directly, considering Zimbabwe’s track record and history. During his time in the UK, Tsvangirai addressed a meeting of Zimbabwean exiles who used to support him till just a year ago, and was jeered when he tried to explain his support for Mugabe.

Tsvangirai’s unsuccessful visit made me wonder if Mousavi will face a similar fate if he manages to come to power. Like Tsvangirai, Mousavi was never a saint to start off with. Just as Tsvangirai used to be an ardent Mugabe supporter and a member of Mugabe’s Zanu PF Party, Mousavi was a revolutionary who struggled for the ouster of the Shah. Later Mousavi became the Prime Minister of Iran from 1981 to 1989 when the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) took place and ten year old Iranian boys were being sent off to the battlefield as human mine sweepers. Mousavi is also a member of the High Council for Cultural Revolution, an organisation responsible for purging Iran of un-Islamic books, movies and other artistic works. Of late, Mousavi has not been an active member of this Council.

Will Mousavi manage to depose Ahmadinejad and become the President of Iran? It appears highly unlikely to me since Mousavi’s support seems to be restricted to the big cities. Let me clarify that I would personally like to see Mousavi in power and Ahmadinejad in permanent retirement. Mousavi may be just another ruthless politician, but he is likely to give the people of Iran, especially the ones who want a modern Iran, a better deal. However, it is much more likely that Mousavi will strike a deal with the evil regime he is battling and share power with them.

After Cairo, Will Obama Back Up His Words With Actions?

Vinod Joseph — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 03:30:13 EDT

There has never been any doubt that Obama is a good speaker and Obama’s Cairo Speech has only reaffirmed what everyone knew, that Obama is a master of rhetoric and linguistic finesse. With the exception of Churchill’s Blood, Sweat, Toil and Tears speech, I can’t think of any other address by any politician in the last hundred years that was so eagerly anticipated and which lived up to its promise. Yes, Kennedy’s Ich Bin Ein Berliner is equally important and memorable, but that was a one-liner and it is always easy to get a one-liner right, though Armstrong did goof up with his.Obama’s speech confirms a clean break with past US policy on the Middle East, especially in light of his predecessor George Bush’s track record. Obama has made it clear that he does not think all Muslims are terrorists or that Islamic culture is not something to be despised or treated with contempt. It is only a small minority of Muslims who are extremists and Obama is very happy to do business with the rest, provided they are willing to meet with him halfway. To do all this, Obama did not hesitate to refer to his own Islamic background or to praise past Islamic contributions to art, architecture etc. Obama also promised to fight crude stereotypes of Islam and demanded that Muslim reciprocate in equal measure. Can it be said that Obama spoke for all Americans? Can it be assumed that a majority of Americans are as appreciative of Islam as Obama is? I am not too sure of that, though it is clear than most Americans do want to make a fresh start.

A few times, Obama went a bit overboard in his speech, but I don’t think many people have noticed, though a few obviously did. For example, he said that the first nation to recognize the US was Morocco by signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796. What Obama failed to say what that Morocco was not an independent state and that the treaty was signed with the Pasha of Morocco who owed allegiance to the Ottoman Empire. Along with the other two Barbary nations Tunisia and Algeria, Morocco was officially in the business of piracy.Ships sailing in the Mediterranean or the Atlantic would be attacked by Barbary corsairs unless they were protected by a strong navy or had paid protection money to the Moroccans. After the US became independent in 1783, it no longer had the protection of the British navy and signed the treaty of Morocco under which it paid a large sum of money to the Pasha so that ships flying the American flag would not be attacked. A few years later, the Pasha wanted more money and there was a brief war between the United States and Morocco, following which a second treaty was signed. Whichever one of Obama’s speech writers thought this one up ought to be shot! In my opinion, the first nation to recognise the United States was Great Britain which, at the end of the War of Independence, signed the Treaty of Paris in 1783 under which the right to independence of the thirteen states that initially formed the United States of America was recognised.

Obama also said that America was founded upon the ideal that all are created equal. As far as I know, the founding fathers of America believed that all rich white land owning men are equal.

Obama said that he wanted to create a nuclear weapons free world where no nation would have nuclear weapons and all nations, even Iran, would be able to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Splendid thoughts, but I just don’t see the US or any other nuclear power giving up its weapons. I though the best bit of Obama’s speech came when he talked of US involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. And the worst bit, for me at least, was when he talked about Israel and Palestine. Obama rightly acknowledged US ties to Israel and the sheer horror and brutality of the holocaust. However he had me confused when he said,

‘On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people - Muslims and Christians - have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighbouring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.’

For me the way Obama used the phrase ‘pursuit of a homeland’ is worrying. You see, the Palestinians had a homeland before the Jews returned and it was the Jewish pursuit of a homeland (in my opinion, perfectly justified in principle, but executed with so many blemishes) that has caused so much misery to the Palestinians.

Further some of the Palestinian suffering is the Palestinians’ own fault. But I just couldn’t figure out where Obama stood on all this. To me, it sounded as if he was trying to make a set of very safe statements without offending anybody. Obama wants a Palestinian state and wants the building Israeli settlements to stop. Hurray! Very few people (like Libyan President Gaddafi) still believe in a one-state solution and I didn’t really expect Obama to do so. Obama doesn’t like violence (which he says is wrong) and he reminds Palestinians that all over the world, deprived and downtrodden people have won their rights through non-violence. Does the US have the moral right to make this statement when it is involved in so much fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan? I don’t think so.

Mind you, I am not saying the US shouldn’t be in Afghanistan, only that Obama shouldn’t be sanctimonious and preach about non-violence. From the time Israel won the six-day war in 1967, during which time Lyndon B. Johnson was the US President, the US had taken the stand that Israel should stop building settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Except during George W. Bush’s time, when the US was silent on Israeli settlements in the West Bank, US policy in this regard has not changed since 1967. The US has also always supported the idea of a Palestinian state. Bill Clinton (when he was President) actually went further than Obama did in Cairo and demanded that the Arab parts of Jerusalem (the Eastern bits) be under Palestinian control.

Obama on the other hand was silent on the fate of Jerusalem, , except to say that he wanted Jerusalem to be a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, which doesn’t convey much. I would like to know if Obama believes Israel is entitled to the whole of Jerusalem. Or would Obama like to see East Jerusalem as a part of the independent Palestinian State?If Obama were a doer and not just a talker, this is what he would do to force Israel to give up the occupied territories. Military and financial aid to Israel would be sharply reduced.

No, I would not advocate a total cut since Israel does face many serious security threats and yes, it is in a very hostile neighbourhood. Hamas and Hizbollah would be recognised as legitimate political entities and treated with some degree of respect. Political parties in Israel which support the cause of an independent Palestinian state – I mean a fully-functioning state with its own armed forces and the right and ability to defend itself, not what Benyamin Netanyahu has in mind – will be patted on the back whilst the fundamentalists like Lieberman will be given short shrift. And all along, the US will keep reiterating the demand for an independent Palestinian state consisting of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. Yes, East Jerusalem should be part of the independent Palestinian state.I am not too sure if Obama will do all or, even a part of, what I have mentioned above. The reason I don’t have much confidence in Obama is that I see him as a man unwilling to offend any one. And the Palestinian dispute cannot be solved unless the United States is willing to step on many a toe and twist many an arm. Why do I say that Obama is unwilling to offend anybody?

Look at Obama’s response to a totally different, but equally serious issue facing the United States. Yes, I am referring to the healthcare crisis. Unlike Canada and all countries in Western Europe, America does not have nationalised healthcare. In the US, healthcare is provided by private institutions and it is very expensive. Buying health insurance cover is a very common practice and most employers provide their employees with insurance cover. However, almost fifteen percent or forty seven million Americans do not have health insurance. Addressing this issue was a cornerstone of Obama’s election-time pledge to reform and change America. And how does Obama address this issue? Does he want to create a country-wide, healthcare system akin to the British NHS funded by the taxpayer? No. Is Obama going to introduce legislation that will cap the total compensation payable in medical negligence cases? No, even though such a move would drastically reduce the cost of health care insurance. Does Obama have any plans to reform tort litigation in the US? No. The US is the world’s most litigious society.

Unlike in the UK, plaintiffs in the US have an easy ride. Contingency fee arrangements are very common and attorneys will take on a case for no fees on the understanding that a big chunk of any compensation awarded will go to them. Contingency fee arrangements are totally illegal in India and are permitted only in certain limited circumstances in the UK. Further, even if a plaintiff loses a case which was proved to be frivolous, US courts rarely order the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs. In the UK, it is not only common for a losing party to pay a substantial part of the winner costs, on filing a suit, a plaintiff is usually asked to provide security for the defendant’s costs that would be payable if the plaintiff were to lose.

So, how does Obama propose to reform healthcare in the US? By introducing a government-run health care insurance plan that will apparently compete with private insurance plans. There is no guarantee that a government run plan will lower costs. “A Rasmussen Reports poll found that only 32 percent of Americans believed a government-run insurance plan would, lower costs.” There is actually a very good chance that such a plan might turn out to be as expensive as private ones. It is very rare for any government in the world to successfully compete with private operators, even if it doesn’t intend to make a profit. In other words Obama does not want to seriously offend insurance companies or doctors or tort litigation attorneys who make a killing out of the present system.

If Obama is unwilling to say ‘Boo’ in the face of powerful insurance companies, will he say ‘Boo’ to Israel? Very, very, unlikely.

Obama's Speech in Cairo - Reactions on the Ground

Kim — Sun, 7 Jun 2009 20:00:41 EDT

I wanted to write about it the moment I started to hear Barack Obama speak in Cairo, but life has an irritating habit of getting in the way. What is normal after such interference by life, is that I shelve the idea. But this particular event is just too important to be lightly tossed aside in my "expired" folder.

The fact that a US President would be visiting a "Muslim Majority" Country before Israel, was in itself a huge departure in recent practice. There was speculation as to where he would speak from. Options ranged from Al Azhar Mosque (which I personally think would have been an excellent, yet impractical location) to Sharm el Sheikh. He settled on Cairo University.

The whole city of Cairo virtually came to a standstill on June 4th. Rumors abounded of 10,000+ snipers, 20,000 troops coming in on their own helicopters from the US and other such fantastic numbers were bandied about.

Passes to the event were carefully distributed by the American Embassy from what I gathered, to ensure an appropriate balance of profiles. 15 students from each major university were invited.

The Government declared a holiday for all its offices. A lot of Universities postponed exams to cope with this extra holiday. A number of private companies too decided to give employees the day off, fearing that they may be stuck in one of the road clearance drives. People who had parked their cars in certain areas along the route, were told to remove them the day before the President was due to arrive. (Now if we can only get similar celebrities to visit different parts of Cairo each day, we may be able to get those broken down heaps that masquerade as cars, that take up precious parking space to get towed away - How's that as a long term solution to Cairo's parking woes?)

But I digress. Coming back to the speech.

It was absolutely brilliant. There was no fault that an unvested interest could find in that speech except perhaps for him mis-pronouncing hijab and Al Azhar. But given the content and message, those are errors that can be easily overlooked.

The greatest strength of his speech was that he identified with his audience on a personal level. Compared to his predecessor whose speech writers made assume a superior and supercilious tone, Obama came across as "one of us". He drew attention to his Indonesian and Chicago life experiences amongst Nuslim communities.

He gave them praise where it was due, for their innovations in printing, algebra, architecture and then came to his main point. That he would fight negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they may appear. A statement that was greeted with loud applause, that almost died down with his following sentence "But the same principle should apply to Muslim stereotypes of America" This did not seem to be what the crowd wanted to hear. Until then, Obama had seemed to be a cheerleader for the Muslim world, but this statement showed that he wasn't going to unilaterally support the Muslim world. There was going to have to be some give and take.

Once the audience reconciled themselves to this idea, things improved again.

I will not get into the rest of the content of his speech, as it has been discussed ad nauseum on multiple fora.

It was a wonderful bit of speech writing to include references from the Torah, the Bible and the Quran. When he said "Jerusalem - is a place for all the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully", I had goosebumps and I know many Americans who have made Egypt their home, who were moved to tears by this sentence.

His body language was firm yet conveyed his openness to change. He came across as determined while engaging the public through eye contact and clear speech. Again, notable when compared with the last guy to hold his post.

He changed the terminology from the aggressive posturing of the previous government to one based on mutual understanding and dialogue. Instead of general nonsensical terms like "War on terror", he firmly stated that "America is not at War with Islam"

Another firm departure from previous policy was when he clearly stated "America does not presume to know what is best for everyone" If he can follow through on this and not have American Foreign policy and their idea of Democracy being stuffed down the throats of unwilling citizens of countries that aren't ready for the American idea of Democracy, it will go a long way in building bridges that had seemed burned and irrepairable a year ago.

The speech was transmitted live on Facebook and was texted as sms in English, Arabic, Farsi and Urdu. Thus upholding his campaign strategies of involving the younger generations by utilizing media more familiar and accessible to them. It has also been uploaded onto YouTube.

The reaction to his speech by most locals that I know, has been "Let's wait and watch" "We want to see actions, not words" This guy is talking about change in policy, so maybe we can stop suspecting the littlest sneeze. But to start trusting the Americans, we need to see concrete proof. We need to see steps being taken in the right direction. Words will not be enough.

It is undeniable that the US has a large role to play in World Politics. We can only hope and pray that instead of mindless wars and Nuclear arms races, we can at least have dialogue and hope for a future of peace.

In Obama's words,

"All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort - a sustained effort - to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings"

How Can We Fight Islamic Fundamentalism?

Vinod Joseph — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:00:49 EDT

George Bush’s War of Terror wasn’t meant to take very long, even though the ‘mission’ was the total destruction of ‘evil’, ‘evil’ being equated interchangeably with Islamic Fundamentalism, the Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, the Baath Party and the Taliban. When the fighting dragged on a little longer than expected, it was given out that total victory was just around the corner.

Now that we have Obama in the White House and Obama being one of those nice, I-Will-Always-Say-The-Right-Thing sort of chaps, the sound bytes floating around are very different. There is talk of making peace with Islamic fundamentalists wherever they agree to live and let live. Just as the passion for casting Iraq and Afghanistan in the western mould has dimmed, we are told by various commentators and columnists that there is nothing wrong in letting Islamic hardliners control areas which have traditionally followed Islamic laws and practices.

In Iraq, the coalition troops have started making preparations to depart, with the British already on their way out. Iraq is slowly being painted as a success, though I wonder what sort of success it is to replace the secular Baathists with a Shiite party that has close ties to Tehran. In Afghanistan, the coalition troops have proved to be not much different or even nicer than the Soviet forces who were there from 1979 to 1989. Hind helicopters have been replaced by unmanned drones, but nothing else has really changed. Having made all the mistakes that the Reds made, the Americans and their friends are wondering if the tactics that worked in Iraq can be used in Afghanistan. In all probability they cannot since Afghanistan is a very different kettle of fish.

In both countries, the search for ‘moderate Taliban’ goes on.

Pakistan has gone a step ahead and struck a deal with the Taliban in Swat much against the wishes of the Yanks and other western powers giving the Taliban sway over that region. Even though western diplomats are seriously pondering how they can make peace with the Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Iraq, they disapprove of Pakistan taking an apparently easy way out by making peace with the ‘not-so-moderate’ Taliban. They contend that peace deals merely allow the Taliban hardliners to buy time. I do think that this western point of view has some merit in it. Unlike Afghanistan and Iraq, Pakistan isn’t ‘lost’ territory and can’t be given up to fundamentalists in the faint hope that they will not use Pakistani territory to launch attacks a la 9/11. More importantly, the loss of Pakistan to the Taliban will be a devastating blow to not only the western world, but to the whole world.

As if they were determined to prove western fears to be true, the Taliban has not been content with merely getting authority over Swat. Baitullah Mesud’s men have been setting up parallel courts instead of just taking over the existing judicial infrastructure and painting it a Shariah green. The alternative Islamic courts being set up in Swat have been awarding punishments, as is to be expected, in accordance with the Shariah. A few days ago, a video of an young girl being flogged by the Taliban was widely circulated, disabusing anyone of any secret notions of a gentle Taliban.

To be honest, when I started writing this article, I titled it, Can We Live with the Taliban? That was over fifteen days ago and since then I have changed direction. The video of the seventeen-year old girl being flogged was the proverbial last straw. There can be no doubt in the mind of any sane person who has seen that video that the Taliban must be fought until they are defeated. If only we could believe that the Taliban would be content with control over their traditional heartlands! But no, there is no guarantee of that sort. There never was any. Here’s a beautiful article by Jawahara Saidullah on this point.

How can we fight Islamic fundamentalists like the Taliban? Should democratic governments resort to tactics that are as dirty and violent as that used by the Taliban? This question brings to my mind the image of a mud-wrestling match between a man and a pig. The man assumes that he will win since he is stronger than the pig and he can and is willing to get as dirty and muddy as the pig. However he loses out in the end, because unlike the man, the pig actually enjoys getting muddy and dirty. The dirtier it becomes, the more the pig enjoys the wrestling match. The same is the case when fighting Islamic fundamentalists. The more vicious the tactics become, the more the Taliban seem to enjoy it. After all, martyrdom takes them straight to heaven and into the arms of 72 virgins.

To fight Islamic fundamentalism, one needs to understand the combination of causes that have facilitated the rapid expansion of Islamic fundamentalism beyond its traditional heartlands. In my opinion the main reason is the sense of injustice felt by the common Muslim on the street. They have been constantly told by their preachers and their rulers that the rest of the world has conspired to cheat them of Palestine, a land that was under Muslim domination for well over 1,000 years. They are told that the oil wealth of the middle-eastern states belongs to the entire Ummah, but they see little evidence of it in their daily lives. They have corrupt rulers who are propped up and kept in power by western countries for their own selfish reasons. As a result they have little say in their own governments. Amidst all these injustices arrive the fundamentalists who have a panacea for all of the Ummah’ problems. Islamic fundamentalists are (they don’t just appear to be) much more dedicated, selfless and democratic than the powers they seek to replace in countries like Pakistan and Egypt. So what if the fundamentalists preach a very puritanical and harsh form of Islam? When the fundamentalists practice what they preach and promise the earth (and heaven), they win more than a few supporters.

I don’t think that the core of Islamic fundamentalism is substantially bigger or denser than the fundamentalist core in other religions. There have been periods when Islam was the epitome of enlightenment and Christianity was wallowing in darkness. Currently, circumstances have conspired to enable Islamic fundamentalism to spread its wings and attract a greater percentage of followers that what one finds in other faiths.

The biggest handicap faced by the forces fighting Islamic fundamentalists is that they are bogged down by too many vested interests. Very little is being done to staunch the flow of funds from private donors in wealthy nations like Saudi Arabia to fundamentalist causes. The donations given may not be meant for direct terrorism per se, but sponsoring the spread of the Wahhabi form of Islam does make it easy for fundamentalists to make converts. Nothing is being done to force US client states like Egypt or Saudi Arabia or Kuwait to usher in real democracy. And most importantly, no American leader will even consider whispering to Israel that it might be a good idea to vacate the occupied territories and create a viable Palestinian state!

Further US policy continues to be very short-sighted. Take the case of Pakistan for example. It was used as a tool to fight soviet forces. Dictators like Zia-ul-haq and Musharaff were tolerated and even helped to stay in power. After Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, Asif Zardari was preferred over Nawaz Sharif solely because Sharif is unlikely to toe the American line as compliantly as Zardari. The USA didn’t seem to mind the fact that Zardari had little intention of reinstating the deposed judges or that in the long run, Sharif is a much better bet for stability in Pakistan.

I believe that rather than look for moderate Taliban, the rest of the world ought to look for and support democratic groups among Muslims irrespective of whether they are moderate or fundamentalist. Further, undemocratic groups like the various royal families of the Middle East, should not have any support, irrespective of whether they are fundamentalist or they patronise the casinos of Monte Carlo and Macao.

I don’t think there can be a quick fix solution to the problem of Islamic fundamentalism. In the short term, Islamic fundamentalism should be treated as a serious law and order problem. In one of my previous posts, I had argued that even the suspension of civil rights may be justified in places like Swat, if the alternative is to lose control of such region altogether. I continue to hold that view.

As long term goals, it is necessary to address the Palestinian issue and bring democracy (even a fundamentalist version of it) in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Middle Eastern states if violent Islamic fundamentalism is to be contained. Since the Al Qaeda is Sunni, it is tempting to say that the Shiites should be played against the Sunnis, but I don’t think such a strategy will work in the long run. What’s more, Bahrain’s rulers must be persuaded to grant the majority Shia more rights and ultimately become a democracy, which will result in a transfer of power from the ruling Sunnis to the oppressed Shia. Spreading democracy and addressing genuine global Islamic grievances like the Palestinian issue are the only way by which Islamic fundamentalism can ultimately be defeated.

Life in the Mountains of Samaria: Feeling Like a Duck at a Target Shoot

Ruvy — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:52:30 EDT

Part of living in a small Samarian village is the requirement to do shmirá, or guard duty, from time to time, usually on a monthly basis. It used to mean sitting in a bútka, a small guard booth, and controlling an electric fence that would have to be opened when vehicles were to enter or exit the village. The village secretariat hired a company that provides folks to sit in the bútka, so now the shmirá consists of riding around in a truck for three hours at the choicest hours of the day (23:00. to 05:00) making sure that all is well in the village, and the security fence around it has not been breached.

I go armed, as does the other fellow in the truck, both of us with M16's. The M16 has a "banana" clip with 30 bullets and we carry two such clips per rifle. In all the time I've done shmirá while living in Ma'alé Levoná, I have never fired the rifle once, and never had to - except in training how to use it. Once, an Arab came to the gate of the village. He was lost, and wanted directions to get to Sínjel, an Arab town at the foot of the small mountain that is Ma'alé Levoná. He stopped his car and stood outside the gate and explained what he wanted, and I gave him directions to get to his destination, a wedding, and wished him a pleasant evening.

Apparently the fellow in charge of security of the village decided (or was told) that we needed to go through target practice again with the M16's. On 24 March, we were to appear at a shooting range in a neighboring village at 13:30 and spend the afternoon, practicing taking the weapon apart, cocking the weapon, shooting prone, kneeling and standing up, and in the dark. I got a ride with a couple of neighbors and were on the way when the fellow in charge of security called me up on my cell-phone and told me that the target practice had been canceled. It was kind of obvious why - the weather was rainy and while it may occur that I may have to use my rifle in the pouring rain, the IDF doesn't like to train folks in the mud. It just ain't fun. We're not soldiers and they have a limited amount of authority over us. We cannot be ordered to lay in the mud and try to hit a target like one of their combat soldiers can be.

The next day we got a note in the mail telling us to appear at the same place at the same hour of the day (13:30) on 31 March - today.

So it was that I was at the exit of the village waiting at 12:50 for my neighbors to come along and drive to this neighboring village. We got to the firing range and parked the car. It was about 13:20 - we were the first ones there. After about 15 minutes of waiting, it appeared that nobody from the village was there. One of my neighbors called the head of security in Ma'alé Levoná asking him if we had the right date. We sure did - we knew that. I had the note right in front of me. What we didn't know was that the time had been changed to 15:00. Nobody had bothered to call us and let us know. This is common to the culture here. There were no apologies, no nothing - just a flat statement that the time had been changed to 15:00 - only after we called.

We went to the local grocery shop to find something to eat. We bought some strawberry yogurt that we drank from the container. I had forgotten to buy water, the grocery store closed just as we left, and the local restaurant (a falafel/shwarma bar) had no bottled water to sell. So we had to be satisfied with the yogurt. These are some of the joys of living in small villages....

We drove back to the target range. It was about 14:50. We sat waiting - and waiting and waiting. Finally, we saw the security truck of the head of security of the village. He called us over to a corner near his truck and took out an M16. He asked if we knew how to use one. We all nodded. I added that as a police volunteer, I was familiar with the M1 Carbine, which is used by the Israel Police in its Civil Guard units. Truth is, I am a whole lot more familiar with the M1 than with the M16. I use it almost every Sunday and am familiar with its workings. I barely carry the M16 at all, Usually, it sits in the truck next to me while I try to stay awake in the wee hours of the morning. But I'll tell you that, not the head of security of the village....

It's a bit easier to cock the M16 than it is to cock the M1. But both operate on the same principle. As semi-automatic assault rifles, they need be cocked only once and then you can fire all the bullets in the clip without cocking again. When the gun is on its semi-automatic setting, you can effectively fire once a second or so, emptying an M16's banana clip in a little over 35 seconds, and emptying the 15 or 16 bullets in the M1s clip in about 18 seconds. The effects on a person or group of people charging at you can be devastating - if you hit them, of course! I guess that's the point of a semi-automatic.

The head of security went over checking the weapon to see if it is empty, over how to open and close the safety, and over the fact that when a clip is out of bullets, the dust jacket of the gun flies open, something you can see on the right side of the barrel, and that is your clue to slip in another clip of bullets; no need to cock the gun again - just keep firing. He did all this in Hebrew, and all three of us native English speakers had to concentrate on what he was saying to make sure we understood. When we were alone, I asked him why he didn't tell any of us about the changed time for the target practice. He said that he found out about it late at night. It was a lame excuse - he knew that as well as I did, but I let it go.

As the afternoon wore on to early evening, a larger and larger group of guys had gathered for target practice under the loose instruction of a soldier. By 16:50, the only thing that had occurred was that we had all prayed the afternoon prayer, minHá.

Finally, around 17:00, the soldier boy had us gather round for his instructions. In machine gun Hebrew, he gave the standard drill - bring the weapon to the target line, make sure it faces the target at all times, except when instructed to hold it at a 60 degree angle facing the sky. Do not face the weapon either to the right or to the left, only at the target. Do not fire the weapon unless instructed to do so. We were to fire the weapon prone, kneeling and standing, using a half filled clip of 15 bullets. He explained how to cock the rifle, how to clear the rifle if a bullet jammed (a common problem with American weapons, particularly M16's), etc., etc, etc. Fortunately, I know the drill and did not need to understand this kid as he rattled off what he said. But, I was glad I was not a recruit in the IDF, something one of my sons will be soon.

By 17:30, they still were only starting the target practice. As much as I complain about the slowness of the Israel Police target practice sessions, these guys made the Israel Police, a bunch of Keystone Kops if ever there was one, look organized and efficient.

Eventually, the head of security returned to give us few guys from Ma'alé Levoná some more private instruction on how to stand with the rifle pressed against the shoulder and against the cheek, how to shoot while kneeling (when you are 58 and your knees are not in the best of shape, that can be a problem) and how to lay prone and fire.

The way the IDF was training us - laying prone first, then kneeling, and then standing, meant we would have to put the safety on the rifle while we moved from one position to another because we would not have full control over the rifle. It could go off accidentally and kill someone at the target range. The way the Israel Police had trained me, we were to start standing, and then kneel, advancing all the time with the rifle facing the target. The safety never went on, and at any second we needed to, we could open fire or continue firing if we had already been firing.

But, I would do what the IDF wanted me to do - I was on their turf now. We got absolutely no practice handling the gun, no drill, no rote, no nothing. These are all necessary to feel the gun "warm in your hands", so to speak, so that it is part of you and you are part of it.

I finally got to the firing line (sometime after 18:00), loaded the fifteen bullet clip into the weapon, and cocked it - and then got down on the ground to fire prone. The gun jammed. As instructed, I set the gun down and raised my hand. The soldier boy came over and unjammed the gun, criticizing the way I had cocked it. If this had been a real battle, I would have been dead already.

I fired the five bullets prone, then put on the safety, got up on my knees, fired five bullets kneeling, again put on the safety, and then fired five bullets standing up. After unloading the weapon and checking it so that no bullets remained I went to the target I'd been firing at. I didn't do so hot, and frankly could have used another shot at firing at a target. But there was neither time nor money for that. I'd have to be satisfied with the results I had gotten.

There was more time wasted as we waited to do the night-time shoot, the only realistic part of this whole exercise. Of course, for this we were only given clips with five bullets. Just as we were about to start, someone shouted "arvít!", indicating that we should pray the evening prayer. But by now it was an issue of whether the village ordinance forbidding target practice after 20:00 or G-d would win out, and not surprisingly, the village ordinance won out; G-d would have to wait for prayer from His chosen people until after they got home.

So we shot five bullets, ejected the clips, checked the gun for bullets and returned the weapons. I'm damned glad I'm home. And after this frustrating and time wasting day, I even got a bit of good news!

According to Arutz Sheva, the Tavór, a native made assault rife, got excellent grades as a weapon and will eventually fully replace the M16 used here - including the ones the guard patrols in the villages in Israel use. If the Tavór jams, I can only blame myself - not the Americans.