Click on map to enlarge. Courtesy of Ir Amim.

Worldfocus spoke with Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow at the American Task Force for Palestine, a non-profit dedicated to a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Originally from Beirut, Ibish is the former Washington D.C. correspondent for Lebanon’s Daily Star and current author of IbishBlog.

Worldfocus: How would you characterize the current situation in Jerusalem?

Hussein Ibish: Jerusalem is the most divided city in the world. Israelis in West Jerusalem and the Jewish quarter feel like normal citizens of the Israeli state living under Israeli law. For them, life is very normal.

But East Jerusalem is more than 80 percent Arab. The situation is similar to that in the rest of the occupied territory, but it’s starker in Jerusalem because they’re living in such proximity. Insofar as an analogy to “apartheid” applies, this is more stark in Jerusalem than anywhere else, where separate and unequal is almost universal.

Most Jerusalem Arabs are not in effect subjects of Israeli law but practically live under martial law. In many cases, they’re technically residents of Israel — but not citizens. They can’t vote in national elections. And they generally don’t vote in municipal elections. Jerusalem is the flash point for the conflict.

Worldfocus: Why can’t the leaders on both sides reach a rational agreement about sharing the city?

Hussein Ibish: The cultural, religious and political importance of the holy places means that Jerusalem is central to both populations. Both sides are becoming increasingly influenced by right-wing religious rhetoric. The conflict is transforming from an ethnic struggle over land and power in a small area — into a religious struggle between bearded fanatics on both sides about the will of God and holy places.

The Old City of Jerusalem requires a creative solution and the unique formula like the Vatican City. It can’t be the exclusive preserve of any of the religious or ethnic groups. A unique formula has to be found. But it’s not beyond the wit of man to come up with a solution for this, because the national interests of all parties require it.

Worldfocus: Are there certain deal-breakers on the issue of Jerusalem?

Hussein Ibish: For the Israeli side, the “right of return” (for Palestinian refugees) is a deal-breaker just like the claim that Jerusalem is the undivided and eternal Israeli capital is for the Palestinians. This kind of rhetoric acts as a political narcotic: it makes people feel good, but it’s extremely damaging.

But when you get into the final status agreement, these are all issues that can be negotiated successfully. Both parties have a stake in making it work. That could keep Jerusalem united and parts of the city jointly administered — although with separate sovereignty. All it takes is political will and some creativity. I’ve thought about it a lot, and I’m a skeptical person, but it seems possible to me. It’ll be an unusual arrangement reflecting the unique character of the place.

There are reciprocal bitter pills on the right of return and Jerusalem both sides must swallow in their own existential national interests.

The only serious player really resistant to this idea [to create two capitals in Jerusalem] is the Israeli government, which is trying to prevent Jerusalem from being a topic of discussion in any the final status talks. But Obama made it very clear that the terms of reference need to be clear and precise — and involve security for both parties, borders, refugees and Jerusalem. The U.S. position on Jerusalem is closer to the Palestinian view than to the Israeli one. There is implicit understanding in the U.S. that most of East Jerusalem needs to be the Palestinian capital.

There will also clearly have to be a land swaps. The Palestinian people accept that, and the leadership accepts it. Not every settlement in and around Jerusalem must be evacuate. I don’t mean that the Palestinians will be unwilling to have Israelis [in Palestinian-controlled East Jerusalem] or elsewhere in the Palestinian state. But the Israel government would probably not want to face the crisis of some incident involving Israeli citizens living in newly sovereign Palestinian state, and I think it will be they who push for
evacuation in the event of an agreement.

Both sides should be creative and flexible and Israel should be willing to evacuate settlements that make Palestinian statehood impossible. It’s politically problematic but not impossible. These are painful concessions for both but they are obviously necessary. It’s all about a series of complicated quid pro quos. This is not a menu where you can go through and choose what you want based on your tastes, its a delicate pattern of concessions. It’s also a kaleidoscope. Every time you move the image a little, the whole pattern shifts.

Worldfocus: Do you envision that Jewish Israelis will be able to stay on in the areas that become Palestine in East Jerusalem and the West Bank?

Hussein Ibish: Palestinian citizenship or dual citizenship for them is possible, but I don’t think the Israeli government will allow it in the West Bank, though they might find a way to make it work in East Jerusalem.

An agreement is in the core existential national interest of both parties. Settlements will be evacuated according to a variety of formulae. At least 75,000 [Jewish settlers] will need to be removed. That means perhaps up to 200,000- 300,000 will be staying where they are in the small parts of West Bank such as Ma’ale Adumim that will become part of Israel.

The bottom line is that the Palestinians cannot be denied 22% of Mandatory Palestine — the equivalent of East Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank. I think they need and deserve that.

Worldfocus: What role will Palestinian Gaza play if it continues to be a separate entity from the Palestinian West Bank?

Hussein Ibish: Gaza has no independent future from the rest of Palestine. The idea of a political status that is separate is completely wrong. Very few people in the Gaza Strip want that. Israel is strategically trying to emphasize these divisions, but it’s not something that will take.

I don’t think we’re looking at a scenario yet where Hamas can really succeed in replacing the PLO. They’re quite far away from that. All they hope to do so is for negotiations to break down. Hamas are weak and isolated — only able to maintain control in Gaza through brute force and oppression. Hamas thrives on chaos, stalemate [in talks] and a rhetoric of confrontation and violence. Their core constituency — at most 13-15 percent of the Palestinian population — believes in the Muslim Brotherhood model. But that’s not really a major political force unless there is no hope for peace.

Worldfocus: How about fresh alternatives to the Fatah-Hamas split?

Hussein Ibish: Salam Fayyad a very serious actor on the scene, yet he’s not a politician. Fatah is a dysfunctional political party but commands major support. The PA could use Fatah’s political authority to facilitate Fayyad’s state-building agenda and technocratic prowess. This is crucial because Fayyad’s plan provides another avenue for progress, change and momentum towards ending both the occupation and the conflict. If 1/20 of Fayyad’s plan could be implemented, there would be a serious transformation of the strategic environment, greatly enhancing Palestinian interests and the prospects for peace.

I think his plan could serve as a crucial augmentation of diplomacy and a parallel track that is constructive, serious and transformational. The biggest threat to it at the moment is the idea of dissolving the PA and going back functioning strictly through the PLO as a diplomatic but not a governing entity. With international financial support and political protection, it would be very difficult for Israel to block this institution-building plan. In short order, this could really change the Palestinian political scene and the strategic environment for the better.

- Ben Piven

Listen to Worldfocus Radio: Martin Savidge hosts “Jerusalem United or Divided?” with Mustafa Barghouti of the Palestinian National Initiative and Gershon Baskin of the Israel-Palestine Center for Research and Information.

In one of the world’s most contentious cities, there are two conflicting claims to sovereignty over holy places and residential neighborhoods. East and West Jerusalem are divided along ethnic and religious lines — in addition to the separation fence that Israel built to secure the city.

Palestinians claim the eastern sections of the city as the capital of a future Palestinian state. While successive Israeli prime ministers have announced support for a two-state solution, there is ambivalence about how and when to alter the city’s political fabric.

Martin Savidge hosts Mustafa Barghouti and Gershon Baskin on this week’s Worldfocus Radio show “Jerusalem United or Divided?”

The radio show builds upon three Worldfocus signature videos about Israel — on hi-tech, divorce and settlements — and will focus on the following areas:

• Geography of Jerusalem: East and West, Old City, Temple Mount and security barrier
• Demographic Shift: secular flight, “Judaization,” and “united” capital city
• Shared Capital: unilateral statehood, joint sovereignty and Palestinian government

Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Photo: Ben Piven

GUESTS:

Mustafa Barghouti is the secretary-general of the Palestinian National Initiative (al-Mubadara), also known as the “third way.” A Ramallah resident, he serves in the Palestinian parliament (PLC) and was the Minister of Information in the short-lived Palestinian unity government. He came in second (with 19%) to Mahmoud Abbas in the 2005 presidential elections. He also appeared on the Daily Show last month.

Gershon Baskin is co-chairman of the Israel-Palestine Center for Research and Information, a Jerusalem-based organization committed to the two-state solution. He specializes in the future of Jerusalem, strategic cooperation and water issues. He was also on Israeli PM Ehud Barak’s team of Jerusalem experts following the Camp David talks.

Credits:
Host: Martin Savidge
Producers: Ben Piven and Lisa Biagiotti
Researcher: Mohammad al Kassim

Martin Savidge hosts Filipino peace negotiator and Catholic priest Eliseo Mercado and security analyst Zachary Abuza when Worldfocus Radio explores the forgotten terrorist front in the Philippines.

For more on Worldfocus’ coverage of the Philippines, including original videos, click here.

Since 9/11, the U.S. has stationed 500 to 600 troops in the Philippines to strengthen military forces there. The U.S. counter-insurgency effort in the Philippines has been applauded as a success story for its mix of military action and soft power — including one of the largest USAID packages in the world.

But how lasting is this counter-insurgency success? Does it solve the root problems of poverty and lack of schools and infrastructure? And, if the U.S. pulls out, is the Philippines prepared to stop the tide of terrorism?

The U.S. strategy has been to root out terrorists from the lawless jungles of the south, which is home to the country’s Muslim minority and vulnerable to external terrorist groups like al-Qaeda.

The show:

• explains the current insurgency in the poor, predominantly Muslim south of the Philippines
• evaluates how Filipino counter-insurgency tactics measure up to other Southeast Asian counter-insurgency efforts
• examines the mix of U.S. military might, diplomacy and humanitarian aid to combat local and regional instability
• discusses the importance of peace and reconciliation between the numerous Filipino ethnic groups

Martin Savidge hosts the following guests:

Zachary Abuza is a professor at Simmons College, Boston, specializing in Southeast Asian politics and security issues. He visits the region four to five times a year. Zachary is the author of Conspiracy of Silence: The Insurgency in Southern Thailand and its Implications for Southeast Asian Security, Muslims, Politics and Violence in Indonesia and Militant Islam in Southeast Asia, among other publications. He contributes frequently to the Jane’s Intelligence Review, the Counterterrorism Blog and the Jamestown Foundation’s Terrorism Monitor.

Father Eliseo “Jun” Mercado, Jr. is a Catholic priest and peace advocate who has been extensively involved in the peace process in Mindanao, the southern part of the Philippines. He is an expert on the role of Islam in the Philippines and led the independent cease-fire between the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front separatist group. Father Mercado has also been extensively involved in peace process in Mindanao. In October 2007, he was selected to be one of the 20 delegates representing all NGO and CSO accredited at the UN to the High Level UN Session on inter-religious dialogue.

Credits:
Host: Martin Savidge
Producers: Lisa Biagiotti and Ben Piven

Correspondent Gizem Yarbil and producer Bryan Myers report on how traditional religion and modern democracy are trying to coexist in Turkey today.

For more on secularism in Turkey:

• Read Do Islamist groups pose a threat to democracy in Turkey? by Dr. Ömer Taşpınar, the director of the Turkey Project at the Brookings Institution
• Tune in to Worldfocus Radio: Turkey torn between East and West where we examine push and pull factors

Shah Rukh Khan’s name came up on a computer alert list and he was then questioned at length. Khan, a Muslim, was in the U.S. to promote a film, “My Name is Khan,” that explores the racial profiling of Indian Muslims living in the U.S. after 9/11.

Following the incident — which was widely reported in the Indian media — several of Khan’s supporters gathered in India to protest, and some burned an American flag. View a video of protests in New Delhi courtesy of YouTube user midday:

Was Khan’s detainment the result of insensitive racial profiling, or was the actor simply accustomed to India’s VIP culture?

Worldfocus asked Nitin Govil — an assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego and the co-author of “Global Hollywood” — for his thoughts on how the incident has been perceived in India:

For much of his career, Shah Rukh has rather carefully avoided putting his Muslim identity at the forefront. This is why his forthcoming film “My Name is Khan” is so interesting given the context of his stardom in India.

Responses in India have varied from protests to the burnings of U.S. flags, condemnations by high-ranking Indian politicians, celebrities, cricketers and other public figures, to a kind of “what else can one expect in America” kind of attitude that confirms what most around the world think about the U.S. policy on travel and detention.

Given that all Indians have a deep familiarity with bureaucracy in their everyday lives, there has been a general sense that a short questioning period for Khan might have been alright, but that U.S. authorities clearly took things too far. Although Khan has called for folks back home not to, in his words, “take things too far,” at the same time, many think that he has quite smartly used the incident as a way to promote the new film as well as the issues it addresses.

NDTV, a leading English-language news channel in India, covered the incident — calling it “a huge, huge embarrassment” — and spoke with Khan:

Comments on an Indian social networking site, iTimes, reflected the smattering of opinion in India:

Gayatri Goswami writes:
This is no joke people. Shah Rukh Khan is the biggest movie star in India, a country of 1.3 billion people, thereby making him the biggest movie star in the world. I’m struggling to find a comparable here in the US. No offense to Will Smith or Matt Damon or Pitt, Cruise, Clooney, Angelina or whomever else you can think of, but they all pale in comparison.The detention was shameful and U.S should apologize, they better

Dilnaz Seth writes:
i think U.S should apologize, but why r we making so much of noise abt it, because it is SRK, there are so many innocent muslims with surname Khan who go through this everyday, what about them, do we care for all or just the celebs

Kaushik Sanyal writes:
Hey guys, I think India should learn that, “VIP treatments” which are part of everyday life in India, does not happen in other parts of the world. Even, ex-president of USA Al Gore has to go through security checks in US airports ! I don’t know why SRK is making such a big issue out of it or so called patriotic Indians are raising such a noise ! Everyday in our lives, we see or meet people who takes advantage of their VIP status in India and resent that - why should it be different in this case. I am no USA lover but I recognize the fact that a small time Immigration official can insist to follow the rule book. I hope it also happens in India.

Rragijav Achar writes:
I feel appreciating the US for talking this step. They have given the highest level of interest to their countrymen, unlike India. Wake up India, the US doing the right stuff so only they could stop the terror in their country. Imagine India how many times this happened with us and what actions we have taken against it. They have full rights to do so, as they consider their countrymen as their biggest asset. Count how many times the underworld dons escaped from the hands of Indian government and image what would have US done if the same thing had happened. Think out of the box. Wake up India wake up… it’s time for tight security… I would appreciate if India takes similar actions against each and every person enters and exits India.

Christians account for only about 1.5 percent of Pakistan’s 167 million people.

In Pakistan on Monday, members of the minority Christian community staged protests after eight Christians were killed over the weekend in an unusual wave of violence against them by Muslim extremists.

The violence took place in the eastern city of Gojra when hundreds of Muslims stormed a Christian neighborhood after reports that a Quran had been desecrated. Dozens of houses were burned in the rampage. Six people died in the fires and two others were shot to death.

On Monday, Christian schools were closed throughout Pakistan to protest the violence, while hundreds of people took to the streets to demand justice. Christians account for only about 1.5 percent of Pakistan’s 167 million people.

Faisal Kapadia, a Worldfocus contributing blogger, condemns the violence and urges Pakistani Muslims to speak out against the attacks:

I am ashamed, we are always worried about our image these days and the image of our country [...] We tout the fact that Islam is a religion of peace, we scream to the rafters when a hate incident against Muslims takes place anywhere in the world, are we going to stay silent when our own countrymen are slaughtered in the name of Islam?

This is not what Pakistan is or should be known for [...]Let us unite and stand with the christian community in gojra and other minorities who face persecution for what is their right, to pray to whomsoever they wish.

Pakistani Frederick Masih, a Christian himself, comments hopefully on a post about the violence at “All Things Pakistan:”

Of course this incident has left all of us dejected and heartbroken. But I am heartened by the reactions and comments and ordinary Pakistanis, mostly Muslims, reacting with such compassion. I think that is true for the overall reaction in the country. Maybe the tide is changing. As a Christian who grew up in power, most of my memories of childhood were pleasant and nice. But being a minority anywhere is not easy. I hope this incidence will help all of us Paksitanis to realize that we must do to others what we want for ourselves. Tolerance and goodwill to all.

Adnan Siddiqi comments on the same article, writing that if Christians indeed desecrated the Quran, they too should be punished:

Those minority champs should realize that EVERY RELIGION must be respected; be it followed by minorities or majorities. Just like one does not have right to offfend Bible or any other religious book similarly no one has right to offend Quran either. One can’t say,”Oh they are minorities, let them offend Quran”. Those who have burnt these Christians and those who have really offended Muslims’ Holy book MUST BE punished.

“Adonis” comments on the “Pakistan Politics” blog to blame Pakistan’s justice system:

If there were an effective blasphemy law, there would have been no protests in gojra. People take to the street only and take law into their own hands when they are certain that the authorities are not going to take any action against the culprits.

The fact is that no one has ever served sentence for blasphemy in Pakistan. Even if someone is convicetd in lower courts, during appeal either the culprit is given bail during proceedings when he is whisked away to some western country or the case is withdrawn.

If people are certain that if somebody really commits blasphemy, then nothing would save hin from punishment and if someone falsely accuses anyone else for blasphemy, he would also be severely dealt with, then we would not have things that are happening in gojra.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user leeno under a Creative Commons license.

As ethnic clashes between the Muslim Uighurs and Han Chinese turn deadly, Worldfocus.org’s weekly radio show explores the recent riots involving China’s Uighur minority. The show also looks at Uighur aspirations of secession, Han Chinese immigration and Chinese nationalism.

The Muslim Uighurs live in the oil-rich Xinjiang region, north of Tibet. The Chinese government has imposed restrictions on the Uighurs’ religious practice in this autonomous region and many Uighurs resent Chinese rule and complain of discrimination.

Worldfocus anchor Martin Savidge hosts the following panel of guests:

Many Uighurs complain of discrimination and higher rates of unemployment.

Enze Han is a PhD candidate in political science at George Washington University. He grew up in Hangzhou, China, and came to the U.S. in 2004. His research focuses on ethnic minorities in China, and he received a fellowship to study the politics of separatism.

Andrew James Nathan is a political science professor at Columbia University. His teaching and research interests include Chinese politics, foreign policy, and human rights. His books include Constructing Human Rights in the Age of Globalization and How East Asians View Democracy. Watch the Worldfocus’ television interview with Prof. Nathan: Scores killed in China in violent ethnic clashes.

Alim Seytoff is spokesperson for the World Uyghur Congress, Vice-President of Uyghur-American Association, and director of the Uyghur Human Rights Project. He came to the U.S. from China in 1996.

The show also includes a statement from Wenqi Gao, the spokesperson for the Consulate General of China in New York, and, as always, questions from our listeners.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Kaj17 under a Creative Commons license.

Credits:
Host: Martin Savidge
Producers: Lisa Biagiotti, Katie Combs and Ben Piven

Uighurs are the largest minority in Xinjiang but are dwarfed by the Han Chinese population in the capital city Urumqi.

On Sunday, riots erupted in China’s far-western autonomous province of Xinjiang where ethnic tension were mounting for days.

In the provincial capital of Urumqi, riots were reportedly led by Uighurs, an ethnically Turkic-Muslim group. Clashes between the Uighurs and Han Chinese, the majority ethnic group outside of Xinjiang province, have killed more than 150 people and wounded more than 1,000.

Police have arrested more than 1,400 people in connection to the widespread rioting. Since that time, the unrest has spread to the border town of Kashgar, where demonstrators demanded the release of Uighurs detained during Sunday’s rioting.

Yitzhak Shichor, a professor in the department of East Asian studies at the University of Haifa, blogs at OpenDemocracy about the surfacing tensions in Xinjiang and the history of the Uighurs.

The reports of violence and deaths in the city of Urumchi, the capital of Xinjiang province in northwest China, draw renewed attention to this comparatively neglected region of China and of central Asia. The exact details of what happened there on the night of 5-6 July 2009 are unclear and (inevitably) disputed, though the background may include the assaults on Uighur migrant workers at a toy factory in Guangdong province on 26 June (in which two are reported dead and dozens injured).

But if the details of the immediate incident await to be confirmed, there is less doubt over the larger context of Uighur experience - both under Chinese rule and in the exile which over many years many Uighurs have been driven towards or chosen.

Uighurs are a Turkic-Muslim ethnic group which has been living in East Turkestan for centuries. This region, reoccupied by the Qing dynasty in the mid-18th century, had become a Chinese province named Xinjiang in 1884; in 1955, after the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in October 1949, was reorganised as the Xinjiang-Uighur Autonomous Region. The official statistics for 2007 suggest that Uighurs now number more than 10 million, and thus constitute Xinjiang’s largest minority at almost 50 percent of its population - though this is a sharp reduction from 95 percent at the time of the communist takeover in 1949, the result of significant Chinese settlement in the region. The numbers of Uighurs and Han Chinese are now roughly equal.

Uighurs, claiming Xinjiang as their historical homeland, have repeatedly tried to gain independence and set up their own state - but just as repeatedly failed. Beijing, considering them a separatist and “splittist” group, has used a variety of means - cultural, social, economic, political and military - to crush any sign of restiveness among Uighur.

For many years Beijing had regarded Uighur unrest in China as an internal problem that should and would be settled without external interference. Since the early 1990s, however, Beijing has become aware of the growing concern in the international community about the Uighurs’ persecution in China. This concern has been kindled and promoted by Uighur diaspora organisations all over the world. [...]

Uighurs migrated from China in waves, usually following deteriorating conditions or, conversely, when the doors were opened. Some left by the mid-1930s after the first - and short-lived - Eastern Turkestan Republic had collapsed, mostly to Turkey and to Saudi Arabia. Several hundred Uighurs fled China in late 1949, following the Chinese communists’ seizure of Xinjiang. [...]

Uighur diaspora communities have formed their own associations (occasionally more than one) in every area they have settled. These have the aims of preserving Uighur collective identity (i.e. culture and language), and sustaining and promoting shared national aspirations - ultimately, independence for East Turkestan. In trying to overcome the fragmentation and disagreements that have characterised these associations, attempts have been made to set up international Uighur “umbrella” organisations (such as the Eastern Turkestan National Congress, set up in Turkey in 1992; and the East Turkestan Government-in-Exile, formed in Washington in autumn 2004).

Most such attempts have failed to achieve the unity they sought. A movement that has a chance to survive is the World Uighur Congress, inaugurated in April 2004 in Munich.

To read more, see the original post.

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user eviltomthai under a Creative Commons license.

More than a decade after the war’s end, Bosnia and Herzegovina may once more be on the brink of conflict.

The 1992-1995 war in Bosnia left approximately 100,000 dead and divided Muslim, Serb and Croat communities.

Though the U.S.-brokered Dayton peace agreement brought an end to the war, the country remains divided, and officials worry that the peace agreement could soon collapse.

In late May, U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden visited Bosnia and voiced concerns, saying “To be very blunt with you, I personally, and the leadership of my country is worried…about the direction of your country and your future.”

Worldfocus.org’s weekly radio show explored the roots of conflict and Bosnia’s fragile peace, looking at life on the ground in the tension-filled country.

Worldfocus anchor Martin Savidge hosted a panel of guests:

Nenad Pejic is the Prague-based associate director of broadcasting for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. He has been the director of the South Slavic and Albanian Language Broadcast Service, and has worked as a Belgrade correspondent for Sarajevo Television.

Sarah Meharg is a senior researcher at the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre in Ottawa City, Canada. She has worked with the Canadian, American, and NATO forces through her research. Her most recent book, “Measuring What Matters in Peace Operations and Crisis Management,” focuses on the effectiveness of the international community’s peace operations.

Srecko Latal currently writes for the Balkan Insight think tank. He worked for the Associated Press as as the bureau chief during the Bosnian war. A multi-ethnic native of Sarajevo, Srecko has also worked for the European Union and the World Bank.

Credits:
Host: Martin Savidge
Producers: Lisa Biagiotti, Katie Combs and Nicole E. Foster

“Remember Me”: A bust commemorating Kemal Ataturk. Photo: Bryan Myers

Worldfocus producer Bryan Myers is currently reporting from Turkey. He writes from Istanbul about the country’s love for one of its most famed figures, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who appears on everything from office buildings to lapel pins and souvenirs.

It’s not a sight an American is accustomed to encountering when checking into a large hotel. Instead of the usual flowers or water fountains, in Istanbul, it’s a bust accompanied by the words “Remember Me.”

Those words, and the image above them, belong to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the modern Turkish Republic. And in Turkey, they are as inescapable as minarets and kebab shops. They are emblazoned everywhere — on the walls of schools, in public parks, at entrances to bridges and even in the lobby of private office buildings. Visit the souvenir shops in Istanbul, and they’re there too. Ataturk wrist watches seem to be the hottest item.

This Ataturk omnipresence isn’t merely a gesture of respect — it’s worship. That observation isn’t meant to belittle his memory. In fact, to do so is a crime in Turkey. It’s just that as an American, it is rare to see a politician so beloved. The last time I can remember seeing a politician’s face on a watch in America was Nixon or Agnew in the early 1970s, and I’m pretty sure those watches weren’t meant to be a tribute.

Having forgotten much of my high school world history lessons, I decided to do a little boning up. Kemal Ataturk rose to prominence as a military officer in World War I. Unfortunately, Turkey — then called the Ottoman Empire — picked the wrong side, allying itself with Germany and the other Central Powers. After its defeat, Turkey was carved up by the British, French, Italians and Greeks (mention of the Greeks’ role in World War I in particular seems to irk the Turks, but perhaps that’s a topic for another blog).

Ataturk led the army that chased the foreigners out and unified the country once again (his official bio goes on to note his love of animals and his prowess as a ballroom dancer). The name “Ataturk” literally means “father of the Turks,” and was bestowed on him by the Turkish parliament in the 1920s. According to fellow Worldfocus producer Gizem Yarbil, herself a native Turk, the Ataturk story is so moving, it’s been known to reduce small children to tears when taught in elementary school.

But for adults, the image of Ataturk has become a potent political symbol, and I think that gets to the root of why his image is found all over town. Besides being a war hero, Ataturk was also a fierce advocate of a secular state. He thought the only way to bring Turkey into the modern era was by rejecting traditional ways rooted in religion. That was a bold stand in a country that was just about entirely Muslim. And today, while many Turks are not devout Muslims, some are, and they’d like to see a return to the Islamist ways of old.

So it is that today, an Ataturk lapel pin or portrait on an office wall quickly identifies one as a “secularist,” and in their view, a modernist more closely in tune with the West than the East.

All of this got me thinking about the early planning for our trip to Turkey, and our visit to the Turkish consulate in New York for visas. As often happens when journalists stop by for a consular visit, we were loaded down with books and pamphlets intended to introduce us to the country. One contained a series of official portraits of the presidents of modern Turkey, beginning with Ataturk. It is the photograph most commonly seen of Ataturk, in which he’s dressed in a white tie and tails.

I’m speculating here, but I’m guessing he picked this somewhat unusual outfit because at the time it was considered the the height of formal European fashion, and as such symbolized a clear rejection of traditional garb. That style was mimicked by all the other Turkish presidents in the book up until the 1970s. Perhaps they were hoping that by doing so, a little bit of the public’s affection for Ataturk would rub off on them.

“Remember Me?” After several weeks in Istanbul, it will be hard to forget Turkey’s founding father.

- Bryan Myers

Watch for Worldfocus’ signature series from Turkey in the coming months.

People all over the the Middle East — from leaders and radical groups to students and shopkeepers — reacted to Obama’s speech. See below for blogger reactions to the speech. 

Shibley Telhami, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and the Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland, joins Martin Savidge to discuss the speech, its intended audience and Obama’s other efforts to reach out to the Muslim world.

Blogger Noha Fawzy in Egypt reacted positively:

I was impressed with all that came in his speech.  It felt as if he really feels our real and deep pains and what we suffer from daily.  However, my only disappointment that he mentioned the nuclear power in Iran, but no mention of Israel that owns already nuclear power and can be threatening to the whole region. 

I must say that his speech was structured, well presented and very well accepted by the majority of the people and his call for peace as in all religions is so much needed.

We, Egyptians, thank you Barack Obama for choosing Egypt to be your platform while addressing the Muslim World, well advised and Egyptians are the most sympathetic people who will wait for you to fulfill your commitments as you promised.

We hope you enjoyed your visit, we did and we look forward for longer visits. 

I love Egypt and Egypt will prevail.

Peter Daou, a blogger at UN Dispatch, takes a more critical tone: 

I know many will gush over President Obama’s Cairo speech and I’m likely swimming against the tide of the media and my fellow Democrats and progressives. But reading the transcript, I was struck by two things:

1. Aside from a few platitudes, it is disappointingly weak on human rights and specifically women’s rights.

2. It betrays a naiveté, perhaps feigned, about how the Arab world works.

I sometimes preface my posts by explaining that my Mideast perspective is that of an American-Lebanese-Christian-Jew who grew up in Muslim West Beirut at the height (or should I say depth) of the Lebanese civil war. The tumultuous and bloody intersection of religions and geopolitical interests is painfully real to me.

Yes, Obama is targeting the Arab ’street’ and global public opinion - but to the corrupt regimes that dominate that region of the world, his oration means virtually nothing. Repression and suppression will go on uninterrupted. And to those whose abiding hatred of Israel (and thus America) is absolute, Obama’s words will be seen as empty and hypocritical.

Blogger “Ali” shares reactions from friends across the Middle East, including “Duha” in Jordan, who thinks the speech alienated many:

I think, he spoke to the average person, to the moderates and the educated, the silent majority if you may. He spoke to people’s minds and needs for peace and prosperity which are so much needed in the Muslim world, but at the same time I think he alienated so many against him mainly the extremists from all parties arabs, israelies, muslims, even in the US. I hope he stays safe, and more important I hope he delivers.

The same blogger posts a short reaction from “Noam” in Tel Aviv:

Liked the speech but might not be very realistic. 

Further brief reactions could be found on Twitter:

diptychal in Egypt: Obama is clearly playing both sides of the fence. Couldn’t really expect otherwise

NadiaE in Egypt: Audience claps to Islamic refs: are we that desperate for recognition of our faith?

donchad in Egypt: wise speech from obama

More than a decade after the war’s end, Bosnia and Herzegovina may once more be on the brink of conflict.

The 1992-1995 war in Bosnia left approximately 100,000 dead and divided Muslim, Serb and Croat communities.

Though the U.S.-brokered Dayton peace agreement brought an end to the war, the country remains divided, and officials worry that the peace agreement could soon collapse.

In late May, U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden visited Bosnia and voiced concerns, saying “To be very blunt with you, I personally, and the leadership of my country is worried…about the direction of your country and your future.”

Worldfocus.org’s weekly radio show explored the roots of conflict and Bosnia’s fragile peace, looking at life on the ground in the tension-filled country.

Thank you for your questions. Worldfocus anchor Martin Savidge hosted a panel of guests:

Nenad Pejic is the Prague-based associate director of broadcasting for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. He has been the director of the South Slavic and Albanian Language Broadcast Service, and has worked as a Belgrade correspondent for Sarajevo Television.

Sarah Meharg is a senior researcher at the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre in Ottawa City, Canada. She has worked with the Canadian, American, and NATO forces through her research. Her most recent book, “Measuring What Matters in Peace Operations and Crisis Management,” focuses on the effectiveness of the international community’s peace operations.

Srecko Latal currently writes for the Balkan Insight think tank. He worked for the Associated Press as as the bureau chief during the Bosnian war. A multi-ethnic native of Sarajevo, Srecko has also worked for the European Union and the World Bank.

Are capitalism and Islam at odds?

Luv Puri is a journalist who has reported on the Jammu and Kashmir conflict from both sides of the Line of Control for The Hindu newspaper. Now in New York, he writes to explore how Muslim-American entrepreneurs reconcile the economic guidelines of their faith with the capitalist system in the U.S.

Shabir Mohammad Aziz came to New York City in 1988, with a burning ambition to become an entrepreneur in the United States. He was 22 years old, with a wife and two kids. Aziz’s family business had suffered huge economic losses and crumbled.

Aziz had a liking for perfumes and wanted sell perfume products. To become an entrepreneur in the United States, it was essential for him to follow the rules of a capitalist system — but some of the regulations were at odds with his religious beliefs. He was a devout Muslim and his religious beliefs prevented him from borrowing money on interest. Islam forbids all forms of interest; it is believed that interest involves both oppression and exploitation.

After a decade of hard work as a tailor in Brooklyn, Aziz almost had the seed capital required to buy a store on lease. In 1999, he spotted a store on sale for $100,000 in Brooklyn. A childhood friend living in the city agreed to pool the half of the sum. Even then, Aziz was short of $25,000. He could borrow the money on interest, but the religious stricture prevented that. As a last resort, he contacted his brother, who told him that he could give him the money without interest in three week’s time. On that assurance, Aziz borrowed money from a bank. He purchased the store and within a month returned the borrowed money to the bank without interest. His store, Dream Land, brought him a profit of nearly $200,000 in a year’s time.

Aziz’s story is emblematic of American Muslim entrepreneurship, successfully blending Islamic beliefs with the core capitalist system and free market economy. Even then, there is a widespread perception that Islam is at odds with the American economic system. Some view Islamic beliefs as medievalist and, therefore, not in conformity with that of the modern economic system.

Forty-eight-year-old Zafar Iqbal, a Pakistani immigrant who employs over 100 workers in his company, Carpet City, represents the successful blending of capitalism and devout Muslim faith. The son of a poor farmer, Iqbal’s company has become one of the most popular carpeting enterprises drawing clients from New York City and New Jersey.

“What I achieved here financially I could never dream anywhere else,” he says. “But more than that, my example demonstrates that it is possible to abide by Islamic principles and do business in a capitalist society. The two concepts are not antithetical.”

Islam has a social and economic code for its followers, and the Qur’an is their guidebook. Iqbal avoids lending money on interest. He possesses a checking account, but no saving account. This distinguishes him from many of his competitors. He even does not have a stock portfolio. But Islam also stresses the concept of equality and dignity of labour.

“My organization’s work ethics are based on Islam and therefore I lead by example. Many a time people in the organization are surprised when they see me doing hard labour just like any other co-worker,” Iqbal says. “But this is what my religion teaches me and I have no shame doing any sort of work even though I am the owner.” A fiercely competitive merchant, Iqbal incorporates the religious teachings of Islam in his business. 

Islam also encourages charity, a concept popularly known as Zakat. “It is incumbent on every Muslim to make contributions to the needy,” Iqbal says. “Besides making direct contributions to the needy, I have devised an organizational strategy which directly serves the purpose. For instance there are many within my organization that I have given employment not because of their ability but their respective need. This is my contribution to Zakat, though to other people it may seem to be an unwise business strategy.”

“Religions do not choke — it’s the follower’s interpretation which chokes. The very fact that Islam and American business ethics are not contradictory concepts clearly illustrates this,” he adds. 

- Luv Puri

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user borman818 under a Creative Commons license.

Afterwards, Clinton met with her Indonesian counterpart, Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda. Wirajuda said he expected their talks to focus on Indonesia’s strategic importance in the region, the Iranian nuclear dispute and the war in Afghanistan.

At a news conference, Clinton praised Indonesia for its efforts in fighting Islamic militancy. Despite being the world’s most populous Muslim country with some 230 million people, Indonesia maintains a secular government.

Salman Al Farisi, the deputy chief of mission at the Indonesian embassy, joins Martin Savidge to discuss the message that Clinton’s trip sends to the rest of the Muslim world and Indonesia’s role in the U.S. war on terror.

Thailand’s southern insurgency has killed thousands. Photo: Ara Ayer

Muslims make up less than 5 percent of Thailand’s 63 million people and most live in the southernmost provinces. Ethnic and religious divisions have generated tension in this region, which was formerly part of Malaysia.

In 2004, Bangkok declared martial law in the south after violence erupted. Continued conflict — from bombings to shootings and beheadings — has since claimed more than 3,500 lives.

Watch our Worldfocus signature video to learn more: Muslim insurgency simmers in southern Thailand.

Luke Hunt is a Hong Kong-based correspondent who writes at World Politics Review about the solidification of the separatist movement and Thailand’s approach to dealing with the insurgency.

Thailand Rethinks Approach to Southern Insurgency

Regular bombings, killings and skirmishes between rebels and the military in southern Thailand have forced Thai authorities to finally grasp the scope of a conflict that has scarred thousands and changed the lives of millions.

Previously, Thai police, military and politicians had dismissed the attacks as random violence committed by bandits or a handful of disgruntled Islamic militants. Such attempts to play down the carnage were dismissed by Western governments, who see the confrontation with ethnic Malay-Muslim separatists in the south as a persistent threat to regional security.

Now, as the rebellion enters its sixth year, Thai police admit that the separatist movement is a well-structured organization operating across four provinces with a combined population of six million inhabitants: Songkhla, Yala, Pattani and Narathiwat.

There are also growing claims of links to al-Qaida and the regional terrorist outfit, Jemmah Islamiya (JI), which advocates for a Southeast Asian Islamic state. Diplomatic sources said their concerns were driven by a series of interviews believed to have been granted by the self-described leader of al-Qaida in Southeast Asia, known as “Abu Ubaidah,” in the middle of last year.

In the interviews, Abu claimed that the armed struggle had changed significantly since 2004, when the rebellion was based more on locally driven nationalist aspirations than on the logic of international jihad.

“What is happening in Pattani is not an internal conflict. Some [fighters] come from the neighboring country, some come from far away, many thousands of miles,” he said.

Abu maintained that the mass killings at the Kerisik Mosque in April 2004, when more than 100 people died, and further atrocities committed by the Thai military at Tak Bai in October of the same year helped in the transformation.

But security analyst Keith Loverard from Jakarta-based Concord Consulting doubts the extent of Abu’s jihad claims, and said there was no convincing evidence linking rebels with Islamic radicalism.

Noting that southern Thai separatists are Malay-speaking Muslims who feel deeply alienated from the Thai-speaking Buddhist majority, he nevertheless maintained that, “while it is logical that Islamist groups would try to capitalize on the situation and enlist the southern Thai movement to wider terrorist activity, there is no sign that there has been any success in any such endeavor.”

If the conflict remains locally contained, the patchwork of southern separatist movements has become increasingly well-organized, with police identifying five principal divisions.

To read more, see the original post.

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

The Baalbek ruins in Lebanon, where Phoenicians once lived.

Tensions between Christian and Muslim communities in Lebanon have simmered since the country’s 1975-90 civil war. Currently, Lebanon’s power-sharing agreement provides for a Maronite Christian president, a Sunni Muslim prime minister and a Shi’ite Muslim speaker of parliament.

Recently, Lebanese geneticists mapping human migration discovered that both Christian and Muslim residents share Phoenician ancestry — a legacy that was a source of dispute during the civil war. The ancient Phoenicians thrived in the Mediterranean from 1500 to 300 B.C.

Juan Cole is a professor of history at the University of Michigan and writes at the “Informed Comment” blog about what the discovery will mean for Christian-Muslim relations in Lebanon.

Lebanese are Phoenicians after all; and so are many of the rest of us

A team of biologists at Lebanese American University estimates that 1 in 17 persons around the Mediterranean carries genetic markers distinctive to the ancient Phoenician people who resided in what is now Lebanon. The Phoenicians spread out in a trade diaspora two millennia ago, establishing colonies from Spain to Cyprus. The team also found that one third of Lebanese have the markers for Phoenician descent, and that these are spread evenly through the population, among both Christians and Muslims. In fact, all Lebanese have broadly similar sets of genetic markers. The lead researcher commented, “Whether you take a Christian village in the north of Lebanon or a Muslim village in the south, the DNA make-up of its residents is likely to be identical…”

In a Lebanese context these findings are politically explosive. There is a longstanding conflict among Lebanese as to whether they are Arabs or Phoenicians, with adherents of the Phoenician identity predominantly Christian. This sort of identity politics fed into the civil wars. In fact, Arabic is a language, not a race, and Phoenician descent is a heritage of all humankind by now.

I don’t want to sound like a broken record, but the presence those distinctive “Phoenician” haplotypes on the Y chromosome only tells us about a fraction of the descendants of Phoenicians. Let’s say you had a Phoenician father in the port of Tyre in 50 BC who only had two daughters and no sons. And let us say he married one daughter to a resident Greek merchant. The sons and male descendants of the Greek merchant would lack the Phoenician signature on their Y chromosome, but would have a genetic inheritance from their Phoenician female ancestor. Since most genes get mixed up in every generation, there just would not be any way, after a while, to tell it.

Almost everyone in the world by now probably has some Phoenician ancestry. What the LAU team is finding is those lineages that retain markers for it. It is conceptually a difficult thing to keep in mind, but I am alarmed that a kind of Y chromosome or mitochondrial DNA fundamentalism will make people divide themselves up on these grounds and create new forms of racism.

To read more, see the original post.

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user aldask under a Creative Commons license.

A school building in Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina, bears the scars of war.

The 1992-1995 war in Bosnia left 100,000 dead and divided Muslim, Serb and Croat communities.

Though the U.S.-brokered Dayton peace agreement brought an end to the war 13 years ago, the country remains divided, and officials worry that the peace agreement could soon collapse. 

Nenad Pejic, the director of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s South Slavic Languages Service, writes about one source of continued ethnic tension in Bosnia and Herzegovina — its schools. 

Bosnian Schools Teach Reading, Writing — And Division

The other day I was with my 6-year-old daughter at the international school she attends in Prague. She particularly wanted to show me the lunchroom, not because the food there is so good but because the ceiling is covered with the national flags of all of the students who attend the school. Fifty-eight flags, it turns out.

In my home country, Bosnia-Herzegovina, schools are completely different. But before I go into that, allow me to mention that Muslims in Bosnia are now celebrating Eid al-Adha (Kurban Bayram), and amid the festivities on December 8 came word that a mosque in the village of Fazlagica Kula, in the Republika Srpska (the Serbian-majority entity of Bosnia), burned to the ground.

Although the cause of the blaze is not known, there is widespread suspicion in the country that such a thing at such a time could hardly be an accident. Incidentally, most of the Muslim residents of Fazlagica Kula fled during the 1992-95 war and few have returned.

The roots of hatred and intolerance in Bosnia today do not only stem from the traumas of the war. After all, the fighting ended 13 years ago, which seems ample time for any competent leadership to at least begin the process of reconciliation. But this has not happened. Instead, each day, families and ethnically divided schools drive those roots deeper and deeper into the national psyche.

The mission of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in Bosnia conducted a study of 230 schools there and documented an alarming national pattern. Many children are spending hours each day just going to and from school. Not because the more distant school is better, but because their parents want them to study in a school where their ethnic group dominates. In some cases, children even cross international borders to go to an “acceptable” school.

To read more, see the original post.

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user cristophotos under a Creative Commons license.

Muslims make up less than 5 percent of Thailand’s 63 million people and most live in the southernmost provinces. Ethnic and religious divisions have generated tension in this region, which was formerly part of Malaysia.

In 2004, Bangkok declared martial law in the south after violence erupted. Continued conflict — from bombings to shootings and beheadings — has since claimed more than 3,300 lives. Read more about the historical and political background to Thailand’s separatist movement and the situation of Malay Muslims here.

Worldfocus special correspondent Mark Litke and producer Ara Ayer report from Thailand.

Below, read what bloggers and commentators have said about Thailand’s struggles in the south.

John Virgoe of “OpenDemocracy” writes that the political situation in Bangkok is distracting Thailand’s leaders from the urgent need to find solutions to the southern insurgency.

Prashanth Parameswaran of “World Politics Review” writes that progress has been made, including implementation of more security checkpoints, but that the Thai government needs to address the needs of Malay Muslims and give them an enhanced role.

Blogger “gerrypopplestone” at “NowPublic” writes that Muslims in the region have been treated poorly, and that there have been a range of human rights abuses.

Photographer Masaru Goto posts images of “red zones” in southern Thailand where support for separatists is strong.

A foreign editor at “The Australian” writes an editorial claiming that although the insurgents in Thailand are not affiliated with al-Qaeda,  they fit into a global pattern of Islamist insurgency.

The attacks in Mumbai have brought new attention to an old dispute between India and Pakistan about the land of Kashmir.

The region of 13 million straddles Pakistan, India and China, but India has controlled the majority of Kashmir for decades. Pakistan controls a much smaller area, as does China.

Since 1947, India and Pakistan have fought three wars over the part of Kashmir controlled by India. Though India is mainly Hindu, two-thirds of the population in this part of Kashmir is Muslim, the predominant religion of Pakistan.

An anti-Indian insurgency in Kashmir has recently intenstified, and India believes such insurgents may have been responsible for the attacks in Mumbai.

Haley Duschinski is a cultural anthropologist at Ohio University who regularly travels to Kashmir, most recently in February. Her research focuses on violence and war, human rights and transitional justice in Kashmir within the context of the ongoing peace process between India and Pakistan.

Thank you all for your questions. Professor Duschinski has answered them here.

The region of 13 million people straddles Pakistan, India and China, but India has controlled the majority of Kashmir for decades, while Pakistan controls a smaller area.

Vikram Singh, a fellow with the Center for a New American Security, joins Martin Savidge to discuss the importance of Kashmir, the Lashkar-e-toiba group thought to be behind last week’s attacks in India and what Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice’s visit to India may mean for the conflict over Kashmir.

Have questions about Kashmir? Ask cultural anthropologist and Ohio University professor Haley Duschinski here.