On the Big Screen, Where All the Arabs Are Israeli
- Details
- Written by Dan Ephron, NEWSWEEK Dan Ephron, NEWSWEEK
- Published: 22 December 2008 22 December 2008
- Hits: 4116 4116
Anyone watching HBO's ongoing miniseries "House of Saddam" surely must be struck by the lead actor's resemblance to the late Iraqi dictator. Me? I was struck by something else: his Israeli accent. "Why does Saddam Hussein sound like my old grocer in Jerusalem?" I called out before checking the movie credits online. (Yes, an Israeli, but no, not my grocer.)
The post-9/11 era might be Hollywood's Arab moment. But Israeli actors seem to be reaping the benefit, getting many of the best parts. Take Yigal Naor. Before portraying Saddam Hussein, the stout actor from Tel Aviv played Iraqi Ahmed Chalabi in "10 Days to War," an Arab interrogator in the Hollywood film "Rendition" and a Palestinian militant in Steven Spielberg's "Munich." One of his costars in "House of Saddam" is Israeli Uri Gavriel, who portrays the depraved Chemical Ali. Gavriel also played a Saudi terrorist in "The Kingdom."
The cultural crossover has a long history and has made a few Israelis regulars on the Hollywood character-actor circuit. Sasson Gabai says his run began with "The Impossible Spy," a 1987 British film in which he played Syria's defense minister. Since then, he has portrayed Arabs or Muslims in at least 10 films, most notably "Rambo III." (He was Sylvester Stallone's Afghan guide.) "It's probably a combination of my Mediterranean look and my acting skills," he says. Even Chaim Topol, who played Tevye in "Fiddler on the Roof" in the West End, has an Arab role to his credit: in the 1966 Kirk Douglas war drama "Cast a Giant Shadow."
Israeli actors are often preferred, some in the industry say, because their English tends to be good and their acting style is Western—as opposed to the more florid, theatrical technique popular in Arab drama. "It's hard to find good actors anywhere," says Avy Kaufman, a New York casting agent. "Israel happens to have some phenomenal ones." In terms of technique, the crossover is not much of a stretch. Many Israeli actors grew up hearing Arabic and know something about the culture.
Certainly, plenty of Arabs are getting Arab roles. The Egyptian actor Amr Waked is riveting as Saddam's brother-in-law in the HBO series, and he also had a good role in "Syriana." Often, however, Arab characters in Hollywood films are terrorists—and many Arab performers won't take those parts. According to Jack Shaheen, whose book "Reel Bad Arabs" chronicles the history of Arab stereotyping in U.S. cinema, nuanced roles for Arabs are rare. "I don't believe casting directors think of Arabs in any other way except as playing terrorists or villains," he says. But Alon Aboutboul, an Israeli actor who plays Al-Saleem in the recent thriller "Body of Lies," says there's a universalism in the anger and alienation of the characters he portrays. "I don't think of playing a terrorist," he says. "I think of someone who's idealistic and believes passionately in what he's doing." Oscar nominee Shohreh Aghdoshloo, who is a star in her native Iran, plays Saddam's wife in the HBO series and once played a terrorist on "24."
Still, moviegoers across the Arab world must find it unsettling to see themselves so often depicted by their enemies. Arab conspiracy theorists, already convinced that Israel engineered the war on Iraq, must view "House of Saddam" as further evidence. As for my old grocer, he might be wasting his time. He could be a movie star.
'Baghdad Clogger' suffered brutal beating after arrest
- Details
- Written by Afif Sarhan Afif Sarhan
- Published: 22 December 2008 22 December 2008
- Hits: 3864 3864
Muntazer al-Zaidi has not been seen in public since he hurled his shoes at President George Bush. In Baghdad, Afif Sarhan talks to witnesses who claim that a series of savage attacks left him with a broken rib and serious damage to his eye
The Iraqi journalist who hurled his shoes at President George Bush was viciously beaten after being taken into custody, according to a police officer who accompanied him to prison.
Wrestled to the ground and then buried under a frantic mound of security officers, Muntazer al-Zaidi was last seen being dragged into detention. Controversy has since raged over what treatment was meted out to the man hailed a hero in many parts of the Arab and Muslim world for his protest against the invasion of Iraq. Yesterday there were further demonstrations in the Middle East calling for his immediate release.
Witnesses to his arrest and imprisonment have told the Observer Zaidi was badly beaten, during and after his arrest last Sunday, and that he risks losing the sight in one of his eyes as a result.
He is expected to be charged with insulting a foreign leader, which carries a prison sentence of up to two years. His family have received offers from hundreds of lawyers across the region willing to represent him.
An Iraqi judge appointed to investigate his treatment, and who has seen him in his prison cell, said Zaidi has bruises on his face and around his eyes. These, said the judge, had been sustained during his arrest at the Baghdad news conference during which Zaidi threw both his shoes at Bush, shouting: "This is the farewell kiss, you dog."
His family, who have been denied access to him, have claimed he suffered far more extensive injuries and was subjected to a prolonged and vicious beating, suffering a broken arm, broken ribs and internal bleeding. The allegations appear to be borne out by those who have seen him since his arrest.
One police officer, who accompanied him to prison, said the journalist, a Baghdad correspondent for the Cairo-based Al-Baghdadia TV, had been subjected to violence throughout the journey. The officer, who asked not to be named, said he witnessed security forces beating Zaidi in the car with such force that his ribs were broken. "I felt sorry when I saw them beating him. His mouth was badly injured and he did not utter a single word throughout until one of the guards hit him in his left eye with a gun. Then he cried out that he couldn't see, and I saw blood inside his eye. I am a police officer but even I have to say I felt proud of what he did."
A doctor called to examine Zaidi said his right arm had been broken and he had haematomas - indicative of internal bleeding - all over his body, particularly on his left leg, shoulders, face and head. The doctor, who also asked to remain anonymous, said specialists called in to treat him warned security guards that they must make sure his eye was protected for fear of a further haemorrhage which could cause him to lose his sight.
Zaidi's family allege that it is because of the severe nature of his injuries that he has not been called before a public court. As calls for his release were continuing, details of how he planned his extraordinary protest have begun to emerge.
Born into a traditional Shia family, Zaidi made no secret of the fact he was vehemently against the US-led occupation of Iraq and, according to family and friends, had said many times he would like revenge on Bush. A younger brother, Haythem, said Zaidi had unexpectedly found himself called on to cover the press conference held by Bush and Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki. His first action, it seems, was to return home immediately to change his foreign-made shoes into Iraqi-made ones.
A colleague at the TV station said Zaidi mentioned just before going home that "if something had to be done, it had to be 100 per cent Iraqi".
"Muntazer had repeated many times that if he had the chance, he would take revenge against the US president," said the colleague. "He held him responsible for the deterioration of the conditions we were living in. He just didn't have the chance before, and being asked to cover the conference was an opportunity for him. I am proud of him because he did what all of us have dreamed of doing, but were too scared to do."
Yet there is some confusion over whether the world's most famous shoes were indeed Iraqi. While another brother, Durgham, has insisted they were from the Baghdad factory of Iraqi shoemaker Alaa Haddad, cobblers from Turkey, Lebanon and even China - where most of Iraq's shoes are produced - have lodged rival claims.
Istanbul producer Ramazan Baydan insists the brown thick-soled shoes are his and currently known as Model 271 but soon to be renamed the Bush Shoe, or the Bye-Bye-Bush Shoe. He has hired an agency to promote them, claims to have taken 300,000 orders since the protest and plans to employ 100 extra staff to meet demand.
The originals, however, have been destroyed by investigators trying to determine whether they had contained explosives, which may come as a blow to Zaidi when he learns that Saudi Arabian Mohamed Makhafa had, reportedly, offered $10m for his 'shoes of dignity' and their 'high moral value'.
Friends of Zaidi speak of a dedicated journalist who lives in a small flat filled with books, many of them religious, and who was deeply interested in humanitarian issues. His political beliefs, however, remain unclear.
One colleague alleged he had been a Baathist under Saddam Hussein's rule and after the US-led invasion turned into a defender of religious cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's ideals. "I know people are seeing him as a hero, but he would do anything to become famous," said the colleague. "He said many times that he would like to become president of Iraq." Others, however, vehemently disagree with these claims.
Ahmed Ayssam, who graduated with him at the Communication College in Baghdad, described him as hard working and preferring to spend time with his books and family rather than going out. "He wanted to make a difference since he was a student, and he did it,' said Ayssam. "He is an example of faith and strength. He is a loyal friend, a hard worker, and if the Iraqi government allows it, a brilliant journalist without limits."
Zaidi, according to the prime minister's spokesman, has since written a letter begging for a pardon and regretting his "ugly act". His family are sceptical about this, believing it either to have been written under duress, or to be a straightforward fake. "I am suspicious ... because I know my brother," said Durgham.
The family believe his actions may have placed both them and himself in danger and claim to have received threatening calls. "There are thousands of supporters out there who applaud what he did, but there are also thousands that regret his actions and it has put his life in danger," said another brother.
"I am worried this has become dangerous for him, and about how long he will be alive for when he comes out of prison. It is a very delicate situation. I believe we will have to fight to stop him becoming a martyr."
Framing, Principle and Elements: Obama and the Israel-Palestine Conflict
- Details
- Written by Jeff Halper Jeff Halper
- Published: 21 December 2008 21 December 2008
- Hits: 3922 3922
Their assessment is correct, of course. Addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an urgent priority. It is a conflict with global ramifications in a part of the world crucial to Western, and especially American, political and economic interests. The Israeli Occupation fuels anger and alienation among Muslims – as well as among peoples beyond the Muslim world, including in Europe – towards the US and its European allies. And the Palestinians are the gatekeepers that cannot be by-passed. No matter what peace plan is devised or how much pressure is exerted on the Palestinian leadership to accept it, until the Palestinian people everywhere, including the refugee camps, say that the conflict is in fact over, it's not over. This is their ultimate clout. Only when a just solution is reached that genuinely addresses their grievances and needs will they signal to the rest of the Arab and Muslim worlds that the time has come to normalize relations with Israel and its American and Western patrons. This reality is obliquely acknowledged by Scowcroft and Brzezinski when they write: "Not everyone in the Middle East views the Palestinian issue as the greatest regional challenge, but the deep sense of injustice it stimulates is genuine and pervasive."
Yet every peace initiative since 1967 has been stymied – let's be honest – by Israel's determination to make permanent its control of the land "between the river and the sea." Why compromise if you can have it all? Israelis today enjoy a high degree of security (Gaza being little more than a nuisance), the settlement project proceeds unhindered, the economy (based on diamonds, arms and security) is sound and their country's international status only rises. The status quo, far better, more predictable and more manageable than any "peace" might be, can be maintained indefinitely, especially given US support which, because of the bipartisan support Israel enjoys in Congress, does not seem threatened by the incoming Obama Administration. The problem is framing. However much Israel undermines what would otherwise be a straightforward negotiating process, it cannot be publicly criticized lest one appears to be "anti-Israel" – or worse. And non-critical engagement with Israel has never succeeded in eliciting a single meaningful concession.
How, then, when the pressing need to resolve the conflict runs head-on into Israel's uncanny ability to derail, delay or defeat initiatives towards peace, can the Israeli veto be neutralized and genuine negotiations leading to a genuine resolution proceed? What is needed is a "package" beginning with an American framing and then proceeding to principles and finally to the specific elements of a solution. The current approach, as exemplified by Scowcroft and Brzezinski's list of technical "elements" that must be addressed, illustrates the backward approach which has led nowhere – though towards the end of their piece they recognize the need for framing.
Just to show how self-defeating the elements-first approach is, let us begin with the four "well known" elements which Scowcroft and Brzezinski suggest as essential for resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict.
(1) Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders with minor, reciprocal and agreed-upon modifications. This is indeed a central element in any two-state solution, but it conceals the dangers inherent in all negotiations between a strong Occupying Power and a powerless people under its control: the likelihood that "minor, reciprocal and agreed-upon" will be defined by the strong side and imposed on the weaker one, to its detriment. Merely the annexation of Palestinian East Jerusalem to Israel, only a "minor" adjustment of just over 1% to the 1967 borders, will rob a Palestinian state of its political, cultural and religious center, not to mention its economic heart. Israel's annexation of its West Bank "settlement blocs," containing fully 80% of its settlers, would involve a "minor" adjustment of only 7-10% of the 1967 borders, but it, too, eliminates a viable Palestinian state.
Reciprocal? Is the exchange of 10% of West Bank land containing East Jerusalem, the settlement blocs, some of Palestine's richest agricultural lands and its water resources for an equivalent amount of land in the Negev desert truly "reciprocal"? Does the notion of reciprocal land exchange include such considerations as the territorial integrity of a Palestinian state, freedom of movement or, in the end, genuine sovereignty? If, for example, Israel was to annex or "lease" the Jordan Valley, which it has always insisted must be done, it could easily "compensate" the Palestinians with another few percentages of land within Israel, but how could that "reciprocal" exchange compensate for the loss of a border with an Arab country, something that would turn a Palestinian "state" into a mere Bantustan?
And "agreed upon," as we have seen in previous negotiations, means little if there is no parity of power between the sides. Only a peace process based on international law, human rights conventions and UN resolutions – all studiously eliminated from negotiations by the US and Israel – will level the playing field. So while Scowcroft and Brzezinski's "element" is indeed fundamental to a just peace, it must be embedded in three other principles that make up the underlying approach and prevent abuse: negotiations based on international law, human rights and UN resolutions; the principle of return to the '67 borders agreed upon before modifications begin, in conformity to UN resolution 242 (and not to Israel's self-serving interpretation of it); and commitment to a viable Palestinian state possessing territorial contiguity, control of borders, airspace, resources and movement of people and goods. Only then will negotiations be able to avoid the pitfalls of power differentials.
(2) Sharing Jerusalem as a capital of two states. This is actually an important step forward, but it's certainly not "well known," since the "Clinton Parameters" which guided discussion over Jerusalem, envisioned a divided city. This is, indeed, the way to approach the issue of Jerusalem. But here, too, the devil is in the details. Who defines "Jerusalem"? The Israeli definition incorporates the eastern side of the city, annexed to Israel already in 1967, but plans are almost completed for the further annexation – de facto if not de jure -- of what Israel calls "Greater Jerusalem." Not only will an additional 150,000 Jews be added to the Jerusalem population, but the Palestinians in the city will be isolated from the West Bank, thereby depriving a Palestinian state of its main source of income, tourism, as well as other crucial economic and political resources. Indeed, Israel has defined, for planning purposes, a "metropolitan" Jerusalem that includes Ramallah and Bethlehem, effectively turning those Palestinian cities into economic satellites of an Israeli Jerusalem. Palestinians, on the other hand, while agreeing with Scowcroft and Brzezinski's "element" of a shared Jerusalem, consider it an integral part of their country. This element, then, must also be anchored in a principled approach: Jerusalem should not only be shared but it must be wholly integrated into the political, economic, social and cultural fabric of the Palestinian state, not simply accessible from a few bus routes.
(3) No right of return into Israel, but compensation and agreements with Arab states for the granting of citizenship. Again, a technical "solution" to a problem that will simply not work because it ignores the principle of justice. It is true that, technically, a resolution of the refugee issue may not be difficult. Studies indicate that only 10% of the refugees have a desire to return to what is today Israel, and those are mainly the elderly. Others will return either to a Palestinian state, stay where they are in an Arab country or expect resettlement and compensation in another country. Israel could also allow a limited return: Ehud Barak, when he was Prime Minister, once spoke of 150,000.
But, as Jews well know, victims of an injustice on the scale of the Nakba require more than merely compensation, especially if they are expected to give up their right to return to their country – and they do have an absolute right to return that cannot be taken from them. Two preconditions, symbolic but indispensable, must precede any negotiations. First, Israel will have to acknowledge the right of the refugees' return. Palestinians will not allow their 60-plus year nightmare of suffering and injustice to be dismissed as merely a "humanitarian" problem. By the same token, Israel will have to admit and acknowledge its role in creating the refugee issue in 1948. Victims need the injustice they suffered to be acknowledged if the wounds are to heal and reconciliation take place. (We may even need a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.) Getting Israel to do these two things is the most difficult part of the refugee problem; Israel will resist doing so. But unless this principled approach is adopted, the refugee issue – which is central in the Palestinians' view of the conflict – will never be truly resolved and the conflict never really ended.
(4) A demilitarized Palestinian state, perhaps with NATO and other foreign troops to protect Israel (!) and the Palestinians. This element of Scowcroft and Brzezinski's approach exposes the bias and naiveté of the traditional US position. Why in the world does Israel, a nuclear power with an army that rivals any in Europe, need foreign troops to protect it?! And what of the Palestinians? Even if they also receive some foreign protection, why should they be the world's only demilitarized state and, given Israel's military aggressiveness, will a foreign contingent really protect them against Israel? Once again, principle must precede technical "elements" of a peace agreement. The Palestinians should be guaranteed what every other country has, actual sovereignty, including unmediated borders with its Egyptian and Jordanian neighbors, the essential corollary of national self-determination. Once genuine sovereignty and viability are defined to the Palestinians' satisfaction, and in line with international norms, negotiating the details specified by Scowcroft and Brzezinski can proceed.
Scowcroft and Brzezinski then add one other element to the mix:
(5) The president speaking out clearly and forcefully about the fundamental principles of the peace process [and pressing] the case with steady determination. This, however, is more than an "element." It represents precisely what I have been advocating: the realization that without a declared and principled approach underlying a peace process, we have nothing more than the failed Oslo process, open-ended negotiations towards no clearly defined goal, which, in the end, only permit Israel to entrench its control. And its absence is not simply an oversight; nor is it as easy to articulate as Scowcroft and Brzezinski indicate. The problem has to do with framing.
And here is where a president hits up against Israel's fundamental refusal to enter into a peace process that might actually threaten its hold over the Occupied Territories. A framing based on the principles I enumerated or the elements of a genuine Israeli-Palestinian peace as outlined by Scowcroft and Brzezinski will simply not be accepted by either Israel, its allies in Congress or sectors of the American public Israel is capable of mobilizing. For both the principles and the elements are already framed as "anti-Israel" because they lead precisely to what Israel has avoided these past 40-odd years: a complete dismantling of its Occupation and the rise of a genuine Palestinian state. Any presidential statement, especially if it is forceful, that does not place Israel's Occupation at the forefront is simply not acceptable. And yet, without it, there can be no fruitful negotiations or an end to the conflict.
If framing is the problem, it may also be the solution. If the elements listed by Scowcroft and Brzezinski must be anchored in a set of principles which direct the negotiations, then those principles themselves must be anchored in an American reframing. Obama could by-pass the Israeli framing by taking a lesson from Reagan, who faced a similar problem in 1981 when he sought to sell AWAC surveillance planes to Saudi Arabia. When it became clear that AIPAC might actually muster enough opposition in Congress to block the sale, Reagan pulled rank – which is just what Scowcroft and Brzezinski seem to be suggesting that Obama do. Reagan told Congress: I am the Commander-in-Chief, and I am telling you that this sale is in the vital interests of the United States. Framed like that, Congress could hardly reject the deal. In order for President Obama to "speak out clearly and forcefully about the fundamental principles of the peace process," as he will have to if he wants to enter into meaningful negotiations, he must anchor those principles in American interests. A complete end to Israel's Occupation and the establishment of a truly sovereign and viable Palestinian state next to a secure state of Israel, he must state, is in the vital interests of the United States.
Only that package – identifying the essential elements of a peace agreement, anchoring them in an approach based on overarching principles of justice acceptable to the Palestinians, and then framing it all in terms of American interests in seeing this conflict resolved – will enable a president to finally break through the obfuscation created by the Israeli framing, the major obstacle standing in the way of a just and sustainable resolution of the conflict. But in reversed order: first the framing, which will present the president's case in a coherent and compelling fashion to the public, followed by the principles and then the specific elements. Tiny points in a global conflict, but then again, if Israel has taught us anything these past four decades of fending off attempts to end its Occupation, it is that the devil is in the details.
Jeff Halper is the Director of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD). He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
Israeli blockade 'forces Palestinians to search rubbish dumps for food'
- Details
- Written by Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor
- Published: 21 December 2008 21 December 2008
- Hits: 3967 3967
UN fears irreversible damage is being done in Gaza as new statistics reveal the level of deprivation
Impoverished Palestinians on the Gaza Strip are being forced to scavenge for food on rubbish dumps to survive as Israel's economic blockade risks causing irreversible damage, according to international observers.{josquote}"Silence on the [Gaza] blockade is disgraceful. Silence on the blockade
amounts to participation in the [Israeli] occupation,"{/josquote}
Figures released last week by the UN Relief and Works Agency reveal that the economic blockade imposed by Israel on Gaza in July last year has had a devastating impact on the local population. Large numbers of Palestinians are unable to afford the high prices of food being smuggled through the Hamas-controlled tunnels to the Strip from Egypt and last week were confronted with the suspension of UN food and cash distribution as a result of the siege.
The figures collected by the UN agency show that 51.8% - an "unprecedentedly high" number of Gaza's 1.5 million population - are now living below the poverty line. The agency announced last week that it had been forced to stop distributing food rations to the 750,000 people in need and had also suspended cash distributions to 94,000 of the most disadvantaged who were unable to afford the high prices being asked for smuggled food.
"Things have been getting worse and worse," said Chris Gunness of the agency yesterday. "It is the first time we have been seeing people picking through the rubbish like this looking for things to eat. Things are particularly bad in Gaza City where the population is most dense.
"Because Gaza is now operating as a 'tunnel economy' and there is so little coming through via Israeli crossings, it is hitting the most disadvantaged worst."
Read more: Israeli blockade 'forces Palestinians to search rubbish dumps for food'
The DIGNITY arrives in Gaza
- Details
- Written by Greta Berlin, Free Gaza Movement Greta Berlin, Free Gaza Movement
- Published: 20 December 2008 20 December 2008
- Hits: 3597 3597
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 22:25:38 -0800
To: Gazamedia list<This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Subject: [Future-of-Free-Gaza] "We are going to Gaza"
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
For More Information, please contact:
(Gaza) Ewa Jasiewicz, +970 598 700 497 / This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
(Gaza) Huwaida Arraf, +970 599 130 426 / This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
(Cyprus) Greta Berlin, +357 99 081 767 / This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
(Gaza Port, Gaza, 20 December 2008) The DIGNITY pulled into Gaza Port at 8:00 am today after the Israeli Navy threatened to board them and take the two Israelis off the boat. "We know you have Israelis on board, so either turn back, or we will board and take them off," said the voice on the radio.
"We are going to Gaza," Huwaida Arraf, the delegation leader, replied.
Neta Golan, one of the Israelis on board and a co-founder of the International Solidarity Movement stated, "Countries that commit crimes against humanity often hide those crimes from their own people. Israel is doing exactly that, by not allowing Israelis to come in to witness what they are doing in our name."
The Dignity also carries two envoys from the Eid Charity in Qatar who are going to Gaza to assess the tragedy there. They will go back with concrete proposals on what they can do to help alleviate Israel's collective punishment of the 1.5 Palestinians.
"This is just the beginning. We are delighted that we are finally able to see the shores of Gaza and be the first Arab envoys to arrive. We will see how we can work together to help relieve this terrible situation in Gaza," said Alaze Al-Qahtani.
This is the fifth voyage for the Free Gaza movement. "Everyone said it couldn't be done, that we would never be able to get to Gaza. But we have now arrived for the fifth time. Now, other ships, especially cargo ships, need to follow in our wake," said Darlene Wallach, one of the internationals kidnapped from a Palestinian fishing boat by the Israeli navy on l8 November.
Greta Berlin
Media Team
Free Gaza Movement
357 99 08 17 67
www.freegaza.org
www.anis-online.de/office/events/FreeGazaSong.htm
www.flickr.com/photos/29205195@N02/