Saturday, 30 June 2012
Friday, 29 June 2012
The blindspots of Western feminists
AL Jazeera Opinion
|
|||
|
Working women should not feel ashamed if they are unable to be the do-it-all mothers idealised by some feminists.
Last Modified: 28 Jun 2012 07:14
|
Being emotionally present for one's child is more important than being physically present, says author [Getty Images]
Anne-Marie
Slaughter, a professor at Princeton University and former Director of
Policy Planning at the US State Department, recently made a splash when
the Atlantic published an article she wrote entitled "Why Women Still Can't Have It All".
The
piece is problematic, not for the excellent conclusions that it draws
but for the premises from which it flows. Slaughter, a highly
distinguished professor and, from what it sounds like, a committed and
loving mother, makes the case for the many ways in which "The Workplace"
can be adapted to accommodate the many peculiar needs that working
mothers face.
Slaughter
is particularly concerned that women are having children later in life,
causing the children's most difficult years to coincide with the peak
of their mothers' careers. Accordingly, more and more women are finding
themselves having to negotiate complicated professional careers in a
third-wave Western feminist world that has embraced a very hands-on
notion of motherhood. Slaughter's piece has been styled as a riposte to
Sheryl Sandberg, the Facebook executive who ostensibly argued that women
could do better in the workplace by not keeping their ambitions in
check in the name of family, apparently suggesting that women really
could "have it all".
| Riz Khan - Model mothers |
Three
premises undermine Slaughter's general argument. The first is the
assumption that women should be trying to have it all in the first
place. One of the most insightful projects I have ever undertaken was
reading through the autobiographies of leaders who have inspired my own
social activism. Nelson Mandela, Malcolm X, Steve Biko, Martin Luther
King Jr - they all have more in common than the fact that they are all
black men. They are also all men whose personal lives were deeply flawed
because they dedicated themselves to a cause that was bigger than their
immediate environment.
In
fact, I would argue that there is no one who has ever done anything
truly great, or at least of great impact, who hasn't had to live with
significant failures in their personal lives. No one can be all things
to all people all of the time. Slaughter's argument implicitly holds
women to a different standard than men, overlooking the many men who
fail at fatherhood and focussing on the relatively minor ways in which
everywoman may fail at motherhood.
The
fact is that women have come in late to the workplace. We weren't at the
table when the rules were being made, and so there is some pressure on
those of us starting out to conform to the pre-determined standard of
professionalism. Slaughter is right that "The Workplace" can do a great
deal to accommodate the peculiar needs of working mothers, but
Sandberg's point that women also shouldn't curb their ambition in
response to resistance is a valid one. Furthermore, it's not just women
who "can't have it all" - no one can. Making this a "women's problem"
unfairly overlooks the fact that there are many men who would also love
to collaborate on this project so that they, too, can spend time with
their families.
Helicopter parenting
Second,
Slaughter implies that helicopter parenting is the only way in which a
busy professional woman can raise successful children. I don't have
children of my own, but having only recently been a child myself, I'd
like to reassure Slaughter that being emotionally and psychologically
present for your children is far more important than being physically
present. I was raised by a working single parent who never came to
prize-giving days and avoided parent-teacher conferences because they
always clashed with work - all outwardly the hallmarks of bad parenting.
However, from a young age, my mother was open and honest with all of us
- we knew that if she didn't work, we didn't eat. More importantly, I
learned to work and desire to succeed without the constant need for
attention and affirmation. I learned to do the right thing and work hard
because it's the right thing to do, not because I wanted mommy's
approval.
Finally,
and this is an overarching point that Slaughter briefly reflects on, is
that the argument tries to make a broad generalisation from a set of
issues that only affects a sliver of the world's female population.
Slaughter concedes that she is writing for women of her demographic,
"highly educated, well-off women who are privileged enough to have
choices in the first place… who could be leading and who should be
equally represented in the leadership ranks". It takes some humility to
acknowledge one's privilege, and I commend Slaughter for doing that, but
this may be an opportunity in which the many poorer women who have
benefited from outreach and educational initiatives piloted by
better-off women could return the favour.
The
majority of the world's women are working and raising children on
nothing but hope and a desire to watch them succeed. They are able to do
this because they are willing to seek help, whether from grandparents
living in the home, or from distant relatives who move in to help with
household chores. The system is far from perfect - stories of cruelty
and stinginess against child-minders are a dime a dozen - but these are
things that can be fixed through legislative action. Going through
motherhood miserable and crushed by guilt for not being able to tuck
your kids in at night is not.
|
"For many, the prospect of having a happy, stable life is far more important than 'career', and it's hard to fault their logic." |
It is
the curse of Western feminism that far from rejecting the patriarchal
standard for good motherhood - super-wife, super-mother and just
generally super - women have only managed to acquire another layer of
responsibility to an already full plate - super-worker. The lesson of
"third-world feminism" is something that would serve Slaughter and her
peers well. Be present when you can - be the one who sets the rules and
determines the boundaries - but be willing to outsource the minutiae if
it helps protect your sanity.
Slaughter
did a brave thing by acknowledging her perceived shortcomings as a
mother to such a broad audience, but such public self-flagellation is
unnecessary. Working women who pay people to pick up their children from
school, or to do their laundry or to cook dinner have nothing at all to
be ashamed of. It's okay for grandma to braid your daughter's hair if
you can't be there, or for a teacher to discipline your children if you
can't make a parent-teacher meeting.
Similarly, much like the tale of the blind men and the elephant,
both Sandberg and Slaughter are right and yet both of them are wrong.
There are indeed many women who check their ambitions in the name of
family and some who end up regretting it. Even as a student, I met
several of my classmates' partners who had given up successful careers
to be with their partners as they pursue their Harvard dreams, some
having moved across the continental United States to make that happen.
For many, the prospect of having a happy, stable life is far more
important than "career", and it's hard to fault their logic. On the
other hand, I also know many women who stay focussed, and do everything
right only to hit that dreaded glass ceiling or to end up in a workplace
that prefers all their senior officials to have families but doesn't
seem to get that you need weekends off to date and meet people that you
may want to marry.
Most
women have good reasons for choosing either, and in disagreeing with
these choices, it may serve Western feminists well to avoid layering
guilt over what must already be a difficult decision-making process.
Nanjala Nyabola, a writer and political analyst, is currently a graduate student at Harvard Law School.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Thursday, 28 June 2012
Wednesday, 27 June 2012
Somali activists condemn 'love of martyrdom' message from al-Zawahiri's wife
By Mahmoud Mohamed in Mogadishu
June 25, 2012
Somali women and human rights activists have condemned the recent
message by al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri's wife in which she calls
on Muslim mothers to raise their children with "the love of jihad and
martyrdom".
Umaima Hassan Ahmed Mohammed Hassan released her message on June 8th on an al-Qaeda-linked website.
"My advice to you sisters is to raise your children on the love of jihad and martyrdom and instil in them a love for religion and death in the cause of Allah," Hassan wrote.
"This message was released with the intention to poison the minds of children for the sake of recruiting them and using them in service of terrorists and terrorist acts," said Somali children's rights activist Anab Mohamed Omar.
"Raising children on a culture of violence, suicide and shedding innocent blood is wrong and clashes with the principles of Islam," Omar told Sabahi.
"Mothers and guardians responsible for the upbringing of children should raise them on love and compassion that counter the roots of radicalism," she said. "They should protect children from misguided concepts. They should also strictly confront the advocates of terrorism and the al-Qaeda ideology that encourages the bloodletting of the innocent."
"It is known that terrorist organisations are working relentlessly to lure children and youths since they are very impressionable and responsive to new ideas without being fully aware of the consequences," Omar said. "We therefore call on Somali mothers to stand united and work together to fight off this phenomenon of extremism in our country."
"Mothers have to take full responsibility for their children's upbringing. They should follow correct methods while raising their children because extremism and radicalism have no place in Islam," she told Sabahi.
Abukar has called for the eradication of illiteracy and ignorance among Somali women and children so that they do not fall prey to extremists and radicals.
"Through fighting illiteracy, we can fight extremist ideas," she said. "We call on mothers and clerics to work together to spread an accurate concept of Islam and to follow the right path to raise children so we can fight extremism with all means available to us."
Abukar said mothers play a hugely important role in confronting extremism and terrorism.
"Islam is a religion of tolerance and is the opposite of fanaticism and extremism," she added.
"The way in which al-Zawahiri's wife urges mothers to raise their children on violence and terrorism is unrelated to Islam," she said. "We call on Somali mothers to raise their children on tolerance and fraternity and to teach them Islam's righteous path, far from extremism and violence. Al-Qaeda's ideology does not represent the true path of Islam and for this reason we urge Somali mothers not to listen to the wife of al-Qaeda's leader."
Ali said the message is proof that al-Qaeda wants to use children as fuel for violence and war.
Fartun Yusuf Ahmed, a 24-year old university student, said, "The most important of all educational goals -- old and new -- is to prepare model citizens who benefit themselves, their nation and their religion. Islam opposes any form of radicalism or bigotry in ideology and practice."
"Islam is a religion based on giving advice and moderation and always takes the middle ground in everything," she told Sabahi.
-
A number of activists told Sabahi that Umaima Hassan's message clashes with the basic principles of Islam and decency. Above, a Somali mother and her two children walk to a field hospital near Mogadishu in 2009. [Yasuyoshi Chiba/AFP]
![A number of activists told Sabahi that Umaima Hassan's message clashes with the basic principles of Islam and decency. Above, a Somali mother and her two children walk to a field hospital near Mogadishu in 2009. [Yasuyoshi Chiba/AFP]](http://sabahionline.com/shared/images/2012/06/25/zawahiri-somali-women.jpg)
"My advice to you sisters is to raise your children on the love of jihad and martyrdom and instil in them a love for religion and death in the cause of Allah," Hassan wrote.
"This message was released with the intention to poison the minds of children for the sake of recruiting them and using them in service of terrorists and terrorist acts," said Somali children's rights activist Anab Mohamed Omar.
"Raising children on a culture of violence, suicide and shedding innocent blood is wrong and clashes with the principles of Islam," Omar told Sabahi.
"Mothers and guardians responsible for the upbringing of children should raise them on love and compassion that counter the roots of radicalism," she said. "They should protect children from misguided concepts. They should also strictly confront the advocates of terrorism and the al-Qaeda ideology that encourages the bloodletting of the innocent."
"It is known that terrorist organisations are working relentlessly to lure children and youths since they are very impressionable and responsive to new ideas without being fully aware of the consequences," Omar said. "We therefore call on Somali mothers to stand united and work together to fight off this phenomenon of extremism in our country."
'Culture of hatred and violence'
"Terrorists are trying to persuade and convince some mothers to impart on their children a culture of hatred and violence so that they can turn into human bombs and suicide bombers," said Amina Abukar, a teacher and women's rights activist."Mothers have to take full responsibility for their children's upbringing. They should follow correct methods while raising their children because extremism and radicalism have no place in Islam," she told Sabahi.
Abukar has called for the eradication of illiteracy and ignorance among Somali women and children so that they do not fall prey to extremists and radicals.
"Through fighting illiteracy, we can fight extremist ideas," she said. "We call on mothers and clerics to work together to spread an accurate concept of Islam and to follow the right path to raise children so we can fight extremism with all means available to us."
Abukar said mothers play a hugely important role in confronting extremism and terrorism.
"Islam is a religion of tolerance and is the opposite of fanaticism and extremism," she added.
Using children as 'fuel for war'
Su'di Mohamed Ali, an administrative director at the Ministry of Women and Family Affairs, called on Somali mothers to raise their children on the principles of moderation, citizenship and patriotism."The way in which al-Zawahiri's wife urges mothers to raise their children on violence and terrorism is unrelated to Islam," she said. "We call on Somali mothers to raise their children on tolerance and fraternity and to teach them Islam's righteous path, far from extremism and violence. Al-Qaeda's ideology does not represent the true path of Islam and for this reason we urge Somali mothers not to listen to the wife of al-Qaeda's leader."
Ali said the message is proof that al-Qaeda wants to use children as fuel for violence and war.
Fartun Yusuf Ahmed, a 24-year old university student, said, "The most important of all educational goals -- old and new -- is to prepare model citizens who benefit themselves, their nation and their religion. Islam opposes any form of radicalism or bigotry in ideology and practice."
"Islam is a religion based on giving advice and moderation and always takes the middle ground in everything," she told Sabahi.
الفريق شفيق يغادر القاهرة من صالة كبار الزوار متجهاً إلى أبو ظبى
الثلاثاء، 26 يونيو 2012 - 03:27
الفريق شفيق
كتب أحمد سعيد
غادر فجر اليوم، الثلاثاء، الفريق أحمد شفيق، المرشح الخاسر
بانتخابات رئاسة الجمهورية، الأراضى المصرية، متجهاً إلى أبو ظبى على متن
طائرة الخطوط الإماراتية بمفرده، وذلك من صالة كبار الزوار التى اعتاد
السفر من خلالها.
سفر شفيق جاء مفاجئاً وفى سرية تامة، حيث تم إخطار سلطات مطار القاهرة الدولى بسفره فى وقت متأخر، كما فوجئ العاملون بالمطار بوصوله إلى صالة كبار الزوار استعداداً للسفر قبل موعد طائرته بوقت قليل، فيما استقبله العاملون بترحيب شديد ورغبة فى مصافحته، وهو ما قابله الفريق شفيق بابتسامة عريضة ومصافحة جميع من حوله.
سفر شفيق جاء مفاجئاً وفى سرية تامة، حيث تم إخطار سلطات مطار القاهرة الدولى بسفره فى وقت متأخر، كما فوجئ العاملون بالمطار بوصوله إلى صالة كبار الزوار استعداداً للسفر قبل موعد طائرته بوقت قليل، فيما استقبله العاملون بترحيب شديد ورغبة فى مصافحته، وهو ما قابله الفريق شفيق بابتسامة عريضة ومصافحة جميع من حوله.
Tuesday, 26 June 2012
Sunday, 24 June 2012
Saturday, 23 June 2012
Friday, 22 June 2012
Wednesday, 20 June 2012
By David Finkelhor, Special to CNN
June 20, 2012 -- Updated 1335 GMT (2135 HKT)
Penn State students gather in November in the wake of abuse accusations to express solidarity with the alleged victims.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
- David Finkelhor: Abuse victims may be watching Sandusky trial to see how victims are treated
- He says good and bad news. Good: Victims today far more likely than in past to tell someone
- He says teachers, cops, communities far more clued in, responsive on child sex assault
- Finkelhor: Bad news is judge wouldn't let victims testify anonymously; this potentially hurtful
Editor's note: David Finkelhor is professor of sociology and director of the Crimes against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire.
(CNN) -- If you are a survivor of sexual abuse who has not yet reported, you may be attending closely to the trial of former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky to see what happens to those who do. The news is both good and bad.
You see some courageous men being taken seriously by prosecutors and journalists. But you see a degree of potential exposure that few victims would want to face, and that we could do a better job of preventing.
First, the better news: We all know that sexual abuse is still a crime that is mostly unrevealed. But progress has been made.Comparisons of recent surveys to those from the 1980s show far more victims today say they reported or that someone in authority found out.
Yet boys are still disproportionately less likely to report, for some of the reasons showcased in this trial: the fear that others will not believe they are really victims, and the fear that they will be stigmatized as wimpy and/or homosexual.
So a case such as this with male victims coming forward, explaining how conflicted they felt, why it took them so long, what it did to their lives, but nonetheless giving convincing testimony that has clearly been believed by the prosecutors and much of the press, this certainly must give other boys and men some sense of possibility.
Indeed, that this case is being prosecuted at all shows how much has changed. People in law enforcement and the public at large now know that boys do indeed get abused. Thousands of professionals have gotten specialized training in how to identify victims, how talk with them and how not to exacerbate the harm when interviewing.
Specialized Child Advocacy Centers exist in more than 600 communities to make the process more child friendly. These trained police and prosecutors do understand why it is so hard to report, why the testimony sometimes changes and how the fact of participating in the sexual activity doesn't signify enjoyment or lack of harm. Growing numbers of women in law enforcement have certainly helped.
But we still have a long way to go.
The possibility of your abuse ending up fodder for a national media frenzy that rivals the Super Bowl would hardly seem comforting to most potential disclosers. The possibility of having your lifelong identity become "that kid who was molested by that coach" would be terrifying.
In that light, perhaps the most discouraging news for survivors in the trial so far was the refusal of the judge to allow the victims to testify anonymously.
This ruling would seem callous. Lots of other countries have built inlegal protections that prevent the media and other court participants from learning the names of child victims of sexual assault. Even in the United States we have protections against the disclosure of the names of juvenile offenders. The notion behind that is that young people can be permanently stigmatized by such notoriety. Why not victims, too?
True, many news outlets have policies to avoid reporting the names of sexual assault victims. But it is an entirely voluntary policy, proudly flouted by some outlets. Studies have shown that information that could readily identify victims appears in 37% of news articles that report on child sexual victimization. So far, the names of the Sandusky accusers have not gotten widespread circulation. But they could.
What was the judge's rationale for denying what would seem like such a reasonable request?
"Secrecy is thought to be inconsistent with the openness required to assure the public that the law is being administered fairly and applied faithfully," Judge John Cleland wrote in his order dismissing the request. "Consequently, there must be justifications of public policy that are very deep and well-rooted to support any measure which interferes with the public's ability to observe a trial and to make their own judgments about the legitimacy of their legal system and the fairness of its results."
But there are. An enormous quantity of research shows sex crimes against children to be particularly traumatic, and aspects of the court experience to be a contributor to the trauma.
Allowing victims to testify anonymously would not truly undermine the openness crucial to make a judgment about the fairness of the system. The victims still have to testify publicly, still have to be confronted by the defense, still have their credibility tested in the eyes of the jury and the media.
Perhaps the judge was afraid of creating a basis for the appeal of a guilty verdict. But that only illustrates how the protection of victim identities needs to be better enshrined in law and practice so it is not seen as a risky anomaly.
However the rest of the trial goes, we we must continue to commit ourselves to building a justice system that takes into account the reasonable needs of child victims for privacy and protection. It is one of the biggest things we can do to help victims come forward and stop abusers after the first rather than the 10th victim.
Arrangements for sighting of Shaban moon finalised
Founded by: Mir Khalil-ur-Rahman
Thursday, June 14, 2012
From Print Edition
ISLAMABAD: The meeting of Zonal and District Ruet-e-Hilal Committees for sighting the moon of Shaban, 1433-AH will be held at their respective Headquarters on June 20 (Wednesday).Chairman, Central Ruet-e-Hilal Committee will attend the meeting of Sindh Zonal Ruet-e-Hilal Committee at Pakistan Meteorological Department, Camp Office Met Complex in Karachi.
Sunday, 17 June 2012
Saturday, 16 June 2012
Who granted you security?
أفأمن أهل القرى أن يأتيهم بأسنا بياتا وهم نائمون
Then, did the people of the cities feel secure from Our punishment coming to them at night while they were asleep?- 7:97
أوأمن أهل القرى أن يأتيهم بأسنا ضحى وهم يلعبون
Or did the people of the cities feel secure from Our punishment coming to them in the morning while they were at play?- 7:98
أفأمنوا مكر الله فلا يأمن مكر الله إلا القوم الخاسرون
Then did they feel secure from the plan of Allah ? But no one feels secure from the plan of Allah except the losing people.- 7:99
أفأمنوا أن تأتيهم غاشية من عذاب الله أو تأتيهم الساعة بغتة وهم لا يشعرون
Then do they feel secure that there will not come to them an overwhelming [aspect] of the punishment of Allah or that the Hour will not come upon them suddenly while they do not perceive?-12:107
أفأمن الذين مكروا السيئات أن يخسف الله بهم الأرض أو يأتيهم العذاب من حيث لا يشعرون
Then, do those who have planned evil deeds feel secure that Allah will not cause the earth to swallow them or that the punishment will not come upon them from where they do not perceive?- Surah Nahl 16:45
أَفَأَمِنُوا أَنْ تَأْتِيَهُمْ غَاشِيَةٌ مِنْ عَذَابِ اللَّهِ أَوْ تَأْتِيَهُمُ السَّاعَةُ بَغْتَةً وَهُمْ لَا يَشْعُرُونَ (107)
ألم يحسب هؤلاء حساب انتقام الله منهم بعذاب الدنيا الذي يعم؛ لأن الغاشية هي العقاب الذي يعم ويغطي الجميع؛ أم أنهم استبطئوا الموت، واستبطئوا القيامة وعذابها؛ رغم أن الموت معلق على رقاب الجميع، ولا أحد يعلم ميعاد موته.
<فالرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول: "من مات قامت قيامته"> فما الذي يبطئهم عن الإيمان بالله والإخلاص التوحيدي لله، بدون أن يمسهم شرك؛ قبل أن تقوم قيامتهم بغتة؛ أي: بدون جرس تمهيدي. ونعلم أن من سبقونا إلى الموت لا يطول عليهم الإحساس بالزمن إلى أن تقوم قيامة كل الخلق؛ لأن الزمن لا يطول إلا على متتبع أحداثه. والنائم مثلاً لا يعرف كم ساعة قد نام؛ لأن وعيه مفقود فلا يعرف الزمن، والذي يوضح لنا أن الذين سبقونا لا يشعرون بمرور الزمن هو قوله الحق:كَأَنَّهُمْ يَوْمَ يَرَوْنَهَا لَمْ يَلْبَثُوا إِلَّا عَشِيَّةً أَوْ ضُحَاهَا (46) (سورة النازعات) |
Friday, 15 June 2012
Israel turns up the heat on African migrants
| AL Jazeera English Features | |||
Panic grips migrant community as many face deportation after being arrested during crackdown.
Roxanne Horesh
Last Modified: 14 Jun 2012 12:49
|
|||
Israel has started rounding up African migrants as part of a controversial plan to deport thousands of migrants [Reuters]
|
|||
Tel Aviv, Israel - South
Tel Aviv's Neve Shaanan Street, dubbed by many Israelis as "little
Africa", is deserted. This once-bustling area is riddled with panic as
immigration officers ferret out African migrants and asylum seekers to
detain and consequently deport them. One South Sudanese woman who lives
in an apartment in the neighbourhood is terrified to leave home to even
collect her daughter from nursery. Her neighbour was arrested the
previous night and she is in a panic over what to do.
Israel's Population and Immigration Authority recently arrested scores of African migrants,
officials have said. The majority of those imprisoned are South
Sudanese nationals while the others are migrants from Nigeria, the Ivory
Coast and Ghana. The crackdown, known as "Operation Going Home", comes
in the wake of a court decision last week to expel all South Sudanese
migrants.
Isaac, a South Sudanese asylum seeker, was detained on Sunday by Israeli authorities. He desperately contacted the African Refugee Development Center (ARDC)
based in Tel Aviv from Saharonim detention centre to try to understand
his legal status. However, the ARDC and similar relief organisations
feel helpless in this situation. These aid organisations recently lost a
petition in court against the collective deportations of asylum seekers
from South Sudan.
"It
is a frustrating job, because we know we are not going to succeed
sometimes, and we are trying to help them [the asylum seekers]," Yael
Aberman, the legal project manager at ARDC, said.
'Scared to go home'
The
Israeli government is determined to reverse the flow of the estimated
60,000 African migrants living in the country, starting with those from
South Sudan. Israel recognises South Sudan as an independent state and
maintains that it is no longer life-threatening for them to return. This
week's arrests are the first step by Israel's interior ministry to
detain, deport, and prevent illegal migrants and asylum seekers from
entering or staying in the country. According to the government, there
are 1,500 South Sudanese in Israel, yet relief organisations say there
are no more than 700.
On June 17, the first plane will take off for Juba, the capital of South Sudan, with about 200 migrants on board.
"The
situation in South Sudan is not stable yet, and the people are really
scared to go back home," said Adam Ibrahim, a 28-year-old asylum seeker
from Darfur currently in Israel.
Those
who agree to leave Israel voluntarily will receive free airline tickets
and a grant of 1,000 euros ($1,255), the interior ministry announced.
While voluntary deportation exists officially, in reality many choose to leave because they have no choice, activists say.
"People
who are being picked up on the street or who approach the immigration
authority are being told that if they don't sign the document, they
won't be allowed to collect their belongings and will remain in custody,
so I have my doubts about how many are leaving of their own free will,"
Rami Gudovitch, a migrant rights activist, told Israel's Haaretz newspaper.
'National security'
The
detention and deportation is only one of the measures to stop the
influx of African migrants and asylum seekers. Binyamin Netanyahu,
Israel's prime minister, has pledged to erect a 241-kilometre-long and
4.9-metre-tall steel wall at the Israeli-Egyptian border to stop
migrants from illegally entering the country. Additionally, a law went
into effect last Sunday that grants Israeli authorities the power to
arrest and detain illegal migrants for up to three years. These migrants
could face jail time, without trial or deportation. Anyone assisting
them could also be detained for anywhere between five and 15 years.
In
Israel, there is no word for refugee, and the government has deemed
these Africans to be "infiltrators" or "economic migrants". Netanyahu
listed "infiltrators" as a threat to the security and identity of a
Jewish state. "This phenomenon is very grave and threatens the social
fabric of society, our national security and our national identity," he
said on May 29.
It
is not only the government that is cracking down on the African
migrants: the local population of South Tel Aviv, incited by right-wing
politicians, is also embittered by the influx of outsiders taking over
their neighbourhood. Racial tensions escalated in late May, when
hundreds of residents led by Jewish settlers marched into African areas
of Tel Aviv, looting, attacking and chanting discriminatory slogans.
It
is difficult to trace the bitter animosity in South Tel Aviv. Some
migrants say the violence began when two Molotov cocktails were hurled
at their building in April, while locals say it began with a series of
crimes and rapes on the part of the Africans.
Abdullah
Mustafa, a Darfuri asylum seeker who owns a Sudanese restaurant on Neve
Shaanan street, told Al Jazeera: "Israel is not safe for us".
Mustafa blames the Israeli government for the violence against his community.
"The
[Israeli] government is mobilising the community against the refugees,"
Mustafa said. "We don't have a problem with the public, but with the
government."
Economic migrant or asylum seeker?
Some
Israelis believe that the government has neglected the issue of African
migrants from its onset, and are only dealing with it in a reactionary
form.
"One
thing which is a common denominator for all government activity
regarding the refugees is the problem that it is more reactions, instead
of thinking ahead, and thinking systematically about the whole issue,"
said Dvorah Blum, the director of the Ruppin Academic Center's Institute
for Immigration and Social Integration in Israel.
With
no official policy for asylum seekers, African migrants who were
smuggled into the country by Bedouins through the Sinai, were initially
granted papers upon their arrival. These documents gave them temporary
protection and allowed them to stay, but did not provide them with work
permits or healthcare. After administrative work, migrants were able to
get temporary employment permits, usually valid for three month at most.
However, the government has not examined these cases individually, to
distinguish between asylum seekers and economic migrants.
"It
[the policy] is not logical - the big mistake is the collective
temporary protection. They [the government] need to interview us and see
who is a refugee and who is not," Mustafa said.
There
is no official system for asylum seekers in Israel. According to Blum,
Israel's immigration process is based on two laws - the right of return
for all Jews to the land of Israel, and the law of entrance, which gives
power to the interior ministry to decide in an ad hoc manner who can
enter and on what terms.
"Given
a choice between being called 'an enlightened liberal' without a Jewish
and Zionist state, and being called a ‘benighted racist' but a proud
citizen, I choose the latter," Eli Yishai, Israel's interior minister,
said on Sunday. "The era of slogans is over, the era of action has
begun."
Migration
is a universal phenomenon. But the way the issue has been treated in
Israel has fuelled passionate arguments. While some Israelis say that
Jewish history means that Israel should bear the responsibility for
these asylum seekers, others maintain that Israel has been overrun at
its borders and should evict these foreigners to maintain the
territorial integrity and national identity of the Jewish people.
"We
know that the Jews were persecuted, and they have a right to a state.
Sometimes when a lot of refugees come to your state you have to host
them; they will not stay forever." Mustafa said. "They just need
protection and when they get the stability or peace they will go."
|
Russia denies U.S. claims it is supplying attack helicopters to Syria
Friday, 15 June 2012
The Syrian army has used attack helicopters to pound
opposition strongholds in cities across the country and the shelling
often resulted in the deaths of unarmed civilians. ( File photo)
Russia said Friday it is not making any new deliveries of attack
helicopters to Syria and confirmed there were “previous planned repairs
of (helicopters), which were delivered to Syria many years ago.”
“There are no new supplies of Russian-made attack helicopters to Syria,” the foreign ministry said in a statement, adding that “previous planned repairs were carried out earlier on helicopters delivered to Syria many years ago.”
“There are no new supplies of Russian-made attack helicopters to Syria,” the foreign ministry said in a statement, adding that “previous planned repairs were carried out earlier on helicopters delivered to Syria many years ago.”
United States Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton on Tuesday accused Russia of fuelling the violence by
sending attack helicopters to Syria. Her spokeswoman said Thursday that
Russia was sending back refurbished helicopters.
The claim had complicated the Obama administration’s larger goals for Syria and U.S.-Russia relations before a key meeting of the nations’ two leaders.
In answering a question at the Brookings Institution on Tuesday, Clinton omitted the detail that the helicopters were not new when she said the U.S. was “concerned about the latest information we have that there are attack helicopters on the way from Russia to Syria.”
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland insisted that the nuance meant little, even as she refused to explain why the department didn’t divulge the information earlier.
“Whether they are new or they are refurbished, the concern remains that they will be used for the exact same purpose that the current helicopters in Syria are being used, and that is to kill civilians,” Nuland told reporters. “These are helicopters that have been out of the fight for some six months or longer. They are freshly refurbished. The question is simply what one expects them to be used for when one sees what the current fleet is doing.”
“When you look at the Soviet- and Russian-made helicopters that are in use in Syria today, every helicopter that is flying and working is attacking a new civilian location,” she added. “So the concern is when you add three more freshly refurbished helicopters to the fight, that is three more that can be used to kill civilians.”
With opposition groups estimating that 13,000 people have died, the impasse over Syria will likely be a main topic of President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s meeting next week. It is the two leaders’ first face-to-face since Putin’s return to the presidency last month, and the Russian leader is likely to use the session to set out complaints about U.S. foreign policy in several areas.
On Syria, the administration is hoping to persuade Russia to change its position.
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said on Friday that major world powers could hold a conference on Syria on June 30 in Geneva.
“There is a possibility, I don’t know if we’ll get there, but there is a possibility of holding a conference in Geneva on June 30,” Fabius told France Inter radio. Participants would include countries on the U.N. Security Council but the meeting would be held “without the constraints of the Security Council,” he added.
The claim had complicated the Obama administration’s larger goals for Syria and U.S.-Russia relations before a key meeting of the nations’ two leaders.
In answering a question at the Brookings Institution on Tuesday, Clinton omitted the detail that the helicopters were not new when she said the U.S. was “concerned about the latest information we have that there are attack helicopters on the way from Russia to Syria.”
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland insisted that the nuance meant little, even as she refused to explain why the department didn’t divulge the information earlier.
“Whether they are new or they are refurbished, the concern remains that they will be used for the exact same purpose that the current helicopters in Syria are being used, and that is to kill civilians,” Nuland told reporters. “These are helicopters that have been out of the fight for some six months or longer. They are freshly refurbished. The question is simply what one expects them to be used for when one sees what the current fleet is doing.”
“When you look at the Soviet- and Russian-made helicopters that are in use in Syria today, every helicopter that is flying and working is attacking a new civilian location,” she added. “So the concern is when you add three more freshly refurbished helicopters to the fight, that is three more that can be used to kill civilians.”
With opposition groups estimating that 13,000 people have died, the impasse over Syria will likely be a main topic of President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s meeting next week. It is the two leaders’ first face-to-face since Putin’s return to the presidency last month, and the Russian leader is likely to use the session to set out complaints about U.S. foreign policy in several areas.
On Syria, the administration is hoping to persuade Russia to change its position.
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said on Friday that major world powers could hold a conference on Syria on June 30 in Geneva.
“There is a possibility, I don’t know if we’ll get there, but there is a possibility of holding a conference in Geneva on June 30,” Fabius told France Inter radio. Participants would include countries on the U.N. Security Council but the meeting would be held “without the constraints of the Security Council,” he added.
Fifty aid groups call for end to Gaza blockade
Thursday, 14 June 2012
A man holds a bottle filled with water from the Gaza Strip
that is unsuitable for drinking during an event in Gaza City to mark
the fifth anniversary of the tightening of the blockade. (AFP)
Fifty international NGOs and United Nations agencies on Thursday
called on Israel to lift its Gaza blockade, first imposed in June 2006
and ratcheted up a year later.
“For over five years in Gaza, more than 1.6 million people have been under blockade in violation of international law. More than half of these people are children,” said a statement signed by Oxfam, Amnesty International, Medecins du Monde, Save the Children, UNICEF, the World Health Organization and others.
“The government of Israel is facing mounting international criticism for the Gaza blockade,” said the statement, timed to mark the fifth anniversary of the tightening of the blockade.
“For over five years in Gaza, more than 1.6 million people have been under blockade in violation of international law. More than half of these people are children,” said a statement signed by Oxfam, Amnesty International, Medecins du Monde, Save the Children, UNICEF, the World Health Organization and others.
“The government of Israel is facing mounting international criticism for the Gaza blockade,” said the statement, timed to mark the fifth anniversary of the tightening of the blockade.
“We are calling for the blockade
to be lifted,” Maxwell Gaylard, U.N. humanitarian coordinator for the
Palestinian territories, told reporters in Gaza, calling for an end to
the “collective punishment of Gaza residents.”
Filippo Grandi, commissioner general of UNRWA, the U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees, added: “What Gaza needs is real development but because of the blockade we have to concentrate on humanitarian work, that's a waste of money.”
“The blockade is also counterproductive because it does not bring the security it is purported to bring.”
Oxfam data submitted with the statement said that, since 2007, “nearly 30 percent of Gaza’s businesses have closed and an additional 15 percent have laid off 80 percent of their staff.”
It said 80 percent of Gazans are dependent on aid.
Israel first imposed the blockade in June 2006 after militants there snatched one of its soldiers. The captive, Gilad Shalit, was finally freed last October in exchange for 1,027 Palestinian prisoners.
The blockade was tightened in June 2007 after the Islamist Hamas movement seized power in the strip, ousting forces loyal to Western-backed president Mahmud Abbas.
It has been eased somewhat, but severe restrictions on the movement of goods and people remain in place.
Filippo Grandi, commissioner general of UNRWA, the U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees, added: “What Gaza needs is real development but because of the blockade we have to concentrate on humanitarian work, that's a waste of money.”
“The blockade is also counterproductive because it does not bring the security it is purported to bring.”
Oxfam data submitted with the statement said that, since 2007, “nearly 30 percent of Gaza’s businesses have closed and an additional 15 percent have laid off 80 percent of their staff.”
It said 80 percent of Gazans are dependent on aid.
Israel first imposed the blockade in June 2006 after militants there snatched one of its soldiers. The captive, Gilad Shalit, was finally freed last October in exchange for 1,027 Palestinian prisoners.
The blockade was tightened in June 2007 after the Islamist Hamas movement seized power in the strip, ousting forces loyal to Western-backed president Mahmud Abbas.
It has been eased somewhat, but severe restrictions on the movement of goods and people remain in place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)