Well, as of right now I'm too busy with books for classes, predominantly about the conflict in the Middle East and Human Evolutionary Anatomy (soooo fucking boring btw, primate osteology is not my bag, but after this class, am all good with my science requirements)... but anyway, this summer, when I had time to myself, I was digging on the following:

Collapse, by Jared Diamond, the follow up to his more famous Guns, Germs, & Steel but arguably the more important of the two.

Desert Queen by Janet Wallach, which is a biography of Gertrude Bell, a surprisingly important historical figure, she was the first woman intelligence officer in British history, serving them during WW1 and afterwards she had a hand in determining the borders of modern day Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, and Syria... prior to that she had been an archaeologist of some note and an intrepid explorer, very much a female Lawrence of Arabia (and actually was a pretty good friend of his, one of the few women in his life he would deign to refer to on a first name basis), as she was also fluent in several languages of the Levant and Arabic and befriended many of the desert tribes on her far-ranging journeys prior to the war. During the war these friendships enabled the British to overturn the Ottomans and maintain relative peace in the region in the aftermath.

But until I picked up this book, I HAD NEVER HEARD PEEP ABOUT HER! But then again, how surprising is that? She was, after all, a chick, and we get no cred. She also founded the Museum of Antiquities in Baghdad that got looted when we Yanks rolled in four years ago... somewhere on her family estate in Britain she's probably chain-smoking and spinning in her grave as we speak.

So that's my book report... gotta say though, y'all seem to be reading otherwise similar books, Bruce Campbell's If Chins Could Kill is excellent, as is anything by Doug Adams and Robert Heinlein... still two of my very favorite authors.

poor horny boys..... but lemme tell you, that is one SATISFIED ottoman.

I'm also surprised that apparently none of them thought it was kind of gay to be humping the same ottoman simultaneously. During the grand finale they're going for DP and possibly even 3P.

already in the queue: http://www.videosift.com/video/Teenage-Male-Interprative-Urban-Dance-With-Ottoman

"Palestine was designated as the Jewish National Home by the League of Nations, enshrining this designation in international law. Why should the Jewish people give up any part of Palestine?"

The Jewish National Home described in the Balfour Declaration, which was later incorporated into the British League of Nation Mandate over Palestine, does not necessarily suggest that there is international legal precedent for an Israeli state encompassing all of historical Israel. One, the Balfour Declaration itself was a wartime expedient designed to build support for WWI among European and, especially, American Jews so its value as legal precedent is suspect. Two, the British Government, who issued the Balfour Declaration, made two other, contradictory agreements: one with King Hussein, in the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence, which gave all Arab speaking lands, except for the Lebanon, to his rule in exchange for orchestrating an Arab uprising against the Ottomans; and the second with the French in the Sykes-Picot Agreement which divided up Ottoman territories for French and British colonization and administration. Three, the League of Nations Mandate was in violation of the League's charter: it denied the right to self-determination to former Ottoman subjects. Four, the Balfour Declaration describes a Jewish National Home within Palestine which shall not "prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine", not a Jewish state. Five, the Balfour Declaration was a declaration by fiat of the British Government that was performed with out consultation with or consideration of the Palestinian people. For these, and numerous other, reasons it is unwise to take the Balfour Declaration as international legal precedent for an Israeli state.

Fortunately, we don't have to take the Balfour Declaration as precedent. The 1948 UN Special Commission on Palestine enshrines the existence of separate Israeli and Palestinian states living alongside eachother. It is important to note however the the borders of these two states look very different from the borders we see today. In the 48-49 war, the Israelis seized territory beyond the '48 borders and declared them unconditionally Jewish. This seizure of land was in violation of international law but was tolerated, largely as a result of European guilt over the holocaust. Israel expanded it's borders yet again in the Six Day War of '67, in which they launched preemptive strikes against Syria, Jordan, and Egypt, seizing and retaining territory to this day. The seizure of land by war is in violation of the UN charter and as result numerous UN Security Council Resolutions (242 and 338 among others) have been drawn up condemning Israeli's seizure of land and demanding that it be returned. The point is that Israel has a legal right to exist, but it illegally holds much of the land it currently possesses.

A final legal issue is Israel's denial of right to return to Palestinian refugees, a clear violation of international law. Israel faces a demographic problem, in that if they allow refugees to return, within a generation Arabs will outnumber Jews in the Israeli state. Israel would then have to either give up its Jewish identity, or give up its democracy in order to suppress Arab influence over the state. Israel doesn't have a solution to this problem as the Jewish birthrate is much lower than Palestinian. As a result, their only choice, from their perspective, is to continue to violate international law, with the knowledge the US financial and military back will remain, until a longterm solution can be devised. In the mean time, Palestinian refugees continue to languish in the conditions of refugee camps.

I like the bits about the Islamic Empire as a comparable to the Roman Empire in its influence on science, technology, and arts. But I wouldn't call the Ottoman Empire "great" for the same reason I wouldn't call any other empire great.

This video is overly reverent. It linguistically presumes Mohammad actually received "revelations". The act of a "religion of peace" being founded through forceful conquest of the known world is at best hypocritical.

Rather then re-re-re-interpreting scriptures to re-re-reconcile Islam with the changing moral zeitgeist, I'd rather read great philosophers like John Stuart Mill and Bertrand Russell, and think about ethics as its own subject. A cosmic despot's declaration cannot affect the ethicality of a deed to which he is not a party.

Even to put myself in a theist's shoes, if God declared certain acts good and evil, he must have had reasons for doing so, and we should seek to understand those reasons. If we can, there's no need to rely on fallible scriptures based on fallible memory of fallible oral recitations from a fallible slave-owning illiterate merchant named Mohammad who might or might not have had a revelation.

To treat what was probably mere trickery or hallucination as if it were some unquestionably glorious thing is to me a bit offensive because I value truth above almost everything else. The video devotes only about three seconds to skepticism about Mohammad's alleged revelation in the part about the life of Mohammad and quickly dismisses it with Mohammad's own fallacious argument involving combat victories. This is plainly pro-religion bias.

Peace

One point at a time:

"And I think it profoundly oversimplifies things to say that the American presence is widely loathed. Certainly, the Sunnis loathe the American presence. The Kurds love us. The Shiites are ambivalent at best. Some of the most reliable reporters on the ground in Iraq (Burns, Packer, et al.) seem to indicate a deep ambivalence rather than a widespread loathing."

You're right - not everyone loathes the Americans. But the vast majority of Iraqis resent the American presence because of its ineffectiveness, and the brutality of its troops. They are also starting to see through the lies that America used to justify the invasion. Historical perspective is important here. The roots of modern political Islam lie in the Islamic movements that opposed colonialism/imperialism - be it European or Ottoman - in the nineteenth century. If you look at the impact of British imperialism on the Islamic world in the nineteenth century you will see many paralleles with the current situation in Iraq. At first the British were liked - even praised - by the Islamic communities they colonised. For example, Muhammad Iqbal - one of the most important Muslim leaders in the subcontinent and one of the chief architects of an independant Pakistan - at first praised the British Empire as a 'civilizing factor'. He argued that: "England, in fact, is doing one of our own great duties, which unfavourable circumstances did not permit us to perform. It is not the number of Muhammadans [Muslims] which it protects, but the spirit of the British Empire which makes it the greatest Muhammadan [Islamic] Empire in the world." Yet only a few years later Iqbal was condemning the negative influence of the British Empire. In general, as time went by the colonised began to realise that the colonial/imperialistic program of the British Empire was motivated purely by self-interest - economic interest, strategic interest, etc. Disillusionment set in and resistance began to grow. The same is happening in Iraq. Furthermore, as the situation deteriorates it is no wonder that Iraqis are looking to other regional powers like Iran to help resolve the situation. It is also simplistic to say that the Kurds love the Americans. While the situation in Northern Iraq has improved it is important to remember that the Kurds had more autonomy than any other region before the illegal invasion. Furthermore, it remains to be seen whether the Kurds will achieve their long-term political goal of independence. America will not support an independent Kurdistan because such a situation would severly antagonise Turkey - a key ally of America and Israel. Therefore the Kurdish opinion of the Americans could change dramatically if their autonomy and long-term political goals are undermined by the Americans.

"To the extent that the continued American presence radicalizes polity in the Middle East, it is the world we now live in. Radical Islam will not go away if Gaza and the West Bank is handed over to the Palestinians, though its appeal to young Muslims may indeed be dented by such actions."

Palestine is one of the greatest injustices in the world today. The Palestinian people have been appallingly treated for over fifty years by the Israelis and the Americans have not only stood idly by, they have funded it! It is not only a rallying point for 'radical Islam' but for all Muslims, and all other peoples who oppose injustice and oppression. The vast majority of people in the world are appalled by the way Israel treats the Palestinians and they cannot understand how America - a country which is meant to stand for freedom and justice - could not only allow this to happen, but could openly support it. Add to this the illegal invasion of Iraq, the illegal invasions of Lebanon, and American support for tyranical regimes throughout the Middle East, and you understand why the majority of Muslims - and a large number of non-Muslims - detest America. This is why they will not cooperate with the Americans. Contrary to what many American politicians, AIPAC, and the Israeli government argue organisations like Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas do not 'hate our freedoms' they hate the injustices that are committed by Israel and America on a daily basis. The prinicpal political objectives of these organisations are the liberation of Palestine, and the overthrow of the Gulf monarchies. America and Britain have only been targetted because of their blind support for Israel. Again, I'm not advocating that we stop supporting Israel, I'm advoacting that we start supporting Palestine and being more objective. All funding and aid to Israel should be suspended until they start recognising the right of the Palestinian people to live a life free from terror and oppression. But thanks to the concerted efforts of AIPAC this will never happen. And day by day more Palestinian land is stolen and more Palestinian kids are killed as Israel extends its illegal settlements - funded by US aid. People in Iraq do care about what is happening in Palestine - they can sympathise greatly with an oppressed people let down for fifty years by the Americans. And they do worry about the power of AIPAC precisely because AIPAC is preventing any kind of multilateral talks or engagement with countries like Iran and Syria who could help resolve the situation in Iraq.

"wumpus - if Iran were to attack Iraq they'd suffer even worse than the Americans are suffering now - while some Iraqis band together against Americans, the ensuing bloodbath against an Iranian invasion would be many times worse, despite the weak Iraqi government."

Very good point Krupo! If Sunni militants resent the American presence in Iraq, they would be twice as determined to get Iran out as they see all Shi'a Muslims as evil heretics.

"If the U.S. were to pull out, Iran will almost certainly move in to take over. There are already Iranian agents in Iraq mounting attacks against military and civilian targets, and with all the oil and resources in Iraq, it's an opportunity far too rich to pass up and if they don't someone else will. The key difference is that the U.S. is held accountable in the media everyday for everything it does and happens. Iran is not."

The US media is starting to hold Bush to account for his actions but it is five years too late. Furthermore, the enormous political bias of so much of the American media ensures that many people are kept in the dark. Furthermore, the power of AIPAC and other unquestioning supporters of Israel in the media ensures that many of the most contentious issues are kept out of the news. As I have said before, and as Krupo has argued, Iran does not wish to conquer Iraq - they are fully aware of the potential consequences of such an invasion. You talk about Iranian agents helping to plan attacks against the Americans and the civilian population of Iraq because this is what Bush, the neocons and AIPAC want you to talk about. The vast majority of attacks are perpetrated by Sunni militants - yet the Whitehouse has held several press conferences highlighting the role of Iranian agents. Why? Could it be part of AIPAC's continual campaign to sully Iran's image in the build up to a pre-emptive strike on Iran? You bet it could!

"The American campaign is aimed at defeating the armed insurgency and helping the country back on its feet. An Iranian campaign would be aimed at suppressing the population and crushing any opposition by killing as many civilians as possible."

No - the American campaign is aimed at establishing a new ARAMCO, removing a potential threat to Israel, and establishing a new American base in the Middle East. America is only interested in defeating the insurgency because it threatens their vision of an American and Israeli dominated Middle East. If America was truly interested in helping the country back on its feet it would have had a better plan at the beginning, backed up with the full support of the international community. Furthermore, it would be engaging with other regional powers like Iran and Syria in order to resolve the current situation. American troops have killed far more Iraqi civilians than Iranian agents. When you say that "An Iranian campaign would be aimed at suppressing the population and crushing any opposition by killing as many civilians as possible" you are simply wrong. The Iranians are no more cold hearted butchers than the Americans, and the Americans are just as ruthless when it comes to silencing opposition.

This isn't personal. In the marketplace of ideas, we are both selling and buying.

Have you thought this out thoroughly? What happens when/if "the Palestinians" get their "own" nation? It will end up another launchpad for rockets.

http://factsandlogic.org/ad_77.html

But how about the legal aspect of this matter? Isn’t the “West Bank” “occupied territory” and therefore the Jews have no right to be there? But the historic reality is quite different. Very briefly: The Ottoman Empire was the sovereign in the entire area. In 1917, while World War I was still raging, Britain issued the Balfour Declaration. It designated “Paleatine” — extending throughout what is now Israel (including the “West Band”) and what is now the Kingdom of Jordan — as the homeland for the Jewish people. In 1922, the League of Nations ratified the Balfour Declaration and designated Britain as the mandatory power. Regrettably, Britain, for its own imperial reasons and purposes, separated 76 percent of the land — that lying beyond the Jordan River — to create the kingdom of Trans-Jordan (now Jordan) and made it inaccessible to Jews. In 1947, tired of the constant bloodletting between Arabs and Jews, the British threw in the towel and abandoned the Mandate. The UN took over. It devised a plan by which the land west of the Jordan River would be split between the Jews and the Arabs. The Jews, though with heavy heart, accepted the plan. The Arabs virulently rejected it and invaded the nascent Jewish state with the armies of five countries, so as to destroy it at its birth. Miraculously, the Jews prevailed and the State of Israel was born. When the smoke of battle cleared, Jordan was in possession of the West Bank and Egypt in possession of Gaza. They were the “occupiers” and they proceeded to kill many Jews and to drive out the rest. They systematically destroyed all Jewish holy places and all vestiges of Jewish presence. The area was “judenrein.”

In the Six-Day War of 1967, the Jews reconquered the territories. The concept that Jewish presence in Judea/Samaria is illegal and that the Jews are occupiers is bizarre. It just has been repeated so often and with such vigor that many people have come to accept it.

How about the “Palestinians,” whose patrimony this territory supposedly is and about whose olive trees and orange groves we hear endlessly? There is no such people. They are Arabs — the same people as in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and beyond. Most of them migrated into the territories and to “Israel proper,” attracted by Jewish prosperity and industry.

The concept of “Palestinians” as applied to Arabs and as a distinct nationality urgently in need of their own twenty-third Arab state, is a fairly new one; it was not invented until after 1948, when the State of Israel was founded.

But here’s a thought: How about a deal by which the “settlements” were indeed abandoned and all the Jews were to move to “Israel proper.” At the same time, all the Arabs living in Israel would be transferred to Judea/Samaria or to wherever else they wanted to go. That would indeed make Judea/Samaria “judenrein,” and what are now Arab lands in Israel would be “arabrein.” The Arabs could then live in a fully autonomous area in eastern Israel and peace, one would hope, would descend on the holy land.

Firstly - the issue of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). This is an appalling crime, and one that is sadly prevelant in some parts of the Islamic world (I have studied FGM under the leading expert on women's rights in Africa - Dr Fareda Banda). However, it is important to be clear about the position of the Shari'ah with regards to FGM - and to do this I am going to have to provide a detailed explanation of some aspects of Islamic law.

Male circumcision is advocated by Islam - as it is by the Jewish faith. There is no dispute about this. However, there is a great deal of dispute about FGM. There is nothing in the Qur'an which advocates FGM. The most important source of Islamic law after the Qur'an is the hadith - sayings of the Prophet Muhammad. The hadith were compiled about 300 years after Muhammad's death. While some are authentic and beyond dispute, others are not and have been held by scholars of Islamic law to be weak. The only possible justification for female circumcision is the following hadith:

"A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina [Madîna]. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said to her: 'Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband." (Sunan Abu Dawûd, Book 41, #5251.)

It is important to look at the authenticity and strength of this hadith. The hadith is found in the Sunan of Abu Dawud - an important collection of hadith. However, the compiler himself - Abu Dawud - classified this hadith as "weak". A hadith can be classified as weak for a number of reasons - but normally it is because the chain of transmission (isnad) from the Prophet to the compiler is broken or incomplete. When this happens, it is often suspected that the hadith could be fabricated. Consequently, one cannot derive a legal ruling from a weak hadith. Therefore, the vast majority of experts in Shari'ah law believe that there is no justification for FGM in Islam.

However, FGM still exists in parts of the Islamic world, and the above quoted hadith is sometimes used to justify it. What is important to note is that in those countries where Muslims advocate FGM and justify it by reference to Shari'ah law, Christains also practice FGM and justify it by reference to the bible. In reality, FGM is a practice who's origins lie not in the religious texts of the major world faiths but in the barbaric traditions of traditionally male-dominated societies.

Secondly, I will try and qualify what I think Farhad means when he says that "Sharia is no in no way representative of the religion of Islam." Shari'ah in many of its modern manifestations is not representative of the rich traditions of Islam. Much of the rigidity which people associate with Shari'ah law is a relatively recent phenomenon brought about by a number of factors. For example, there was an inherent flexibility in classical Islamic law. For example, there were five schools of law (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali, Zahiri) who differed in their opinions on certain issues, and this gave Shari'ah an inherent pluralism. Judges could choose between the positions of the various schools, and exercise their own judgment in order to reach fair judgments. However, in the 19th Century there was an enormous amount of pressure put on the Islamic world by the West to reform its legal system - either directly, in the form of colonialism, or indirectly in the form of economic/military pressure - to change its legal system in order to facilitate trade with Europe. The result was that the Ottoman empire, during the Tanzimat reforms, instead of working within the rich Islamic legal tradition, simply got rid of Islamic law in many areas and replaced it with European style legal codes. The Islamic law which was kept was that which would be called in Western legal systems the law of personal status - family law, inheritance. But, what the Ottomans did was codify this law - they codified one of the key Hanafi manuals of Islamic law. A similar codification occured in India under the British resulting in what was referred to as Anglo-Muhammadan law.This codification - which has continued in recent years throughout the Islamic world - has removed the inherent flexibility and pluralism in Islamic legal thinking. It has meant that judges only have one opinion to choose, and it has also meant that many judges have stopped practising ijtihad - deriving the law from its sources. All progressive scholars in the Islamic world agree that the Islamic tradition of ijtihad must be revitalized. Scholars must turn back to the sources - Qur'an and hadith - and derive Islamic law which is appropriate for modern times, and which is flexible.

There are some important examples of ijtihad worth mentioning. In the sub-continent, the prevailing legal tradition is Hanafi. Under Hanafi law, the grounds on which a woman could apply for divorce were limited. However in a landmark case, the judges used ijtihad to ensure that women could divorce much more easliy. What they effectively did was adopt a position from Maliki law and extended it. In Tunisia, women have complete legal equality with men - in marriage, divorce, no polygamy, etc. Morocco has also made important advances similar to those taken by Tunisia. In both cases it is important to note that instead of replacing Islamic law, scholars instead embraced the flexibility and pluralism inherent in the classical Islamic legal tradition. They derived new Islamic law - based on the Qur'an and the hadith - which provided full equality for women.

Islam: Empire of Faith is narrated by Academy Award-winning actor Ben Kingsley. The three-hour program tells the spectacular story of the great sweep of Islamic power and faith during its first 1,000 years from the birth of the Prophet Muhammed to the peak of the Ottoman Empire under the reign of Suleyman the Magnificent. Historical re-enactments and a remarkable exposition of Islamic art, artifacts and architecture are combined with interviews of scholars from around the world to recount the rise and importance of early Islamic civilization. Increasingly, scholars and historians are recognizing the profound impact that Islamic civilization has had on Western culture and the course of world history.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7502243539190558658 - Part 2

http://www.pbs.org/empires/islam/

http://www.factsandlogic.org/

What are the facts?

The state of Israel was legally created out of the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I. The area was desolate – desert and swamp – with some small towns and a few inhabitants, many of them nomads. The inhabitants, if they thought about it at all, considered themselves Syrians. The legitimacy of Israel arises from the Balfour Declaration issued by the British, who were given the mandate over the area by the League of Nations. Jews have lived in the country since Biblical times. The Arabs from the surrounding areas were lured to “Palestine” by the industry and prosperity that the Jews brought to the region. Envy, hatred, and religious fanaticism turned the Arabs against the Jews. In bloody outrages, horrible massacres, killings and rapes, the Arabs tried to dislodge the Jews, but were unable to do so.

In 1947, the British, having tired of the trouble and the bloodshed, resigned their mandate. That same year, the United Nations mandated partitioning of the territory. The Jews, though disappointed, accepted the partition. The Arabs rejected it out of hand and launched war against Israel. The armies of five Arab countries invaded the nascent state. Following the exhortations of the invaders, the Arab residents got out of the way hoping to return after victory was attained. They could then reclaim their property and that of the Jews, all of whom would have been killed or would have fled. That and that alone is the source of the Arab “refugee problem.”

Had the Arabs accepted the UN partition plan, there would now have been a state of “Palestine” for the last 58 years. They might have attained a similar level of prosperity, advancement, and development as Israel, which, small though it is, is today in almost every regard one of the world’s most advanced countries.

END WEBSITE

Op-ed: "Palestinians'" greatest fear would be the elimination of Israel, since they would then be forced to face their own failings.