Caelum Moffatt reflects on this the 60th anniversary of Israeli independence/the Palestinian Nakba, in MIFTAH:

Following the Second World War, the holocaust and the termination of the British Mandate, UNCSOP passed Resolution 181 in November 1947 which called for a partition of the British Mandate into two bilateral states – Israel and Palestine. Even with a quarter of a decade of immigration and colonization, Jews still only comprised 30% of the population and owned just 7% of the land. Despite these facts, the state of Israel would be granted 55% of the former British Mandate. A war ensued firstly between Palestinians and Jews, then later between Arabs and Israelis after Israel had claimed independence on May 14, 1948.

The Arabs were defeated and by the time the armistice lines were drawn in July 1949, Israel had extended its territory to 78% of historic Palestine. 800,000 Palestinians were forced from their homes, 530 villages were destroyed and 86% of the Palestinians who now fell within the 1949 armistice lines were displaced. Of the 14% that remained, 70% of their land was confiscated or made inaccessible to them.

According to UNRWA estimates, there are presently 5.5 million refugees spread across 58 camps in the occupied Palestinian territories, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan.

These have been replaced by some 5.5 million Jews living in Israel flourishing in freedom, prosperity and international acceptance in what can only be described as obstinate blindness and pure disregard for the brutality they employed and still adopt today in order to sustain their existence. They maintain that their actions are justified after being subject to worldwide contempt, suffering years of persecution and anti-Semitism. It is as if their unwavering resolve to achieve their goal supersedes Palestinian claims and relegates them to the unfortunate byproduct or obstacle standing in the way of their destiny.

Source

I plan to commemorate the Nakba throughout this week. There are many events going on around town to mark the tragedy and I actually have someone to go with me for a change — progress!

Cultural Week

Guardians of the Memory — A week marking the 60th anniversary of Al Nakbeh. Starting May 10. Until May 16.

Tel: 079 5222512

May 10 Drawings Exhibition

Carlos Lattof, Naji Al Ali, quotes,

Ghassan Kanafani

Location: Al Hannouneh

Time: 7:00pm

May 11 Gallery

Tamam Al Akhal, Ismael Shamout drawings

Location: Directorate of Arts and Theatre - Jabal Luweibdeh

Time: 8:00pm

Screenings of short films

Location: Al Hannouneh

Time: 6:00pm

May 12 Poetry Night

Jerees Samawi, lute player Sakher Hattar

Location: Daret Al Funun

Time: 8:30pm

May 13 Bazaar

Traditional products, food and handcrafts

Location: `Ebaal Charitable Organisation

Time: 5:30pm-10:00pm

May 14 Al Hannouneh Folkloric Dance

Location: King Abdullah Cultural Centre - Zarqa

Time: 8:00

May 15 Al Hannouneh Folkloric Dance

Location: Radisson SAS Hotel

Time: 8:00pm

May 16 Concert

Sho Hal Ayam band

Location: Directorate of Arts and Theatre - Jabal Luweibdeh

Time: 7:00pm

I must say that I wasn’t always aware of the dimensions and the sheer injustice of the occupation of Palestinian land and the dislocation of its people until recently, and I am ever so glad I achieved that state of awareness. It is angering how the international community embraces Israel as a model of democracy and a shrine for human rights, when in truth the country’s history and current treatment of Palestinians testify to its violent and brutal ways. Remember, dear readers, if you do not stand for something, you will fall for anything.

I am completely sickened this morning after reading a number of things in the papers and other places online. Here is a tour of my revulsion:

1- Human Rights Watch published a report on the situation of Saudi Arabian women. The report argued, and correctly, that these women are systematically kept in childhood as by requiring guardianship and their guardians’ approval of every step they take in their adult lives (education, work, child caring, travel, etc.) while at the same time the socio-religious system held them legally accountable for their actions as true and actual adults. Most importantly, the report mentioned that women are portrayed and treated as fitna, sources of strife and moral decay, if they are allowed any share of public life or exposure.

This same treatment of women as the sources of malice lays the foundation for the belief that men, their supposed polar opposites, are gullible and easily swayed into vice. Indeed, it argues that for men to stay virtuous, women must be covered up and must not come in direct contact with any men outside their close familial circles lest all social and moral stability come crumbling down. The mere idea that men cannot control their sexual urges, which are oh so easily aroused at the sight of a woman’s ankle or at the scent of her perfume, is absolutely offensive to me and I am not even a man. It pictures men as horny animals and women as their helpless prey, and, ironically, it puts the burden of sustaining society at the shoulders of these prey.

What I have observed is that these arrangements, though meaning well in an incredibly skewed way, actually encourage vice rather than suppress it. Is it not vice that Saudi men seek when they visit Jordan, Syria, or Lebanon in the summer? Is it not vice that Saudi women must be in the company of foreign drivers in order for them to go places? Is it not vice that even women clad in black from head to toe do not escape sexual harassment in the form of pickup lines or phone numbers on small pieces of paper, or bluetooth messages sent to their mobiles, and this does happen in Saudi Arabia because the basic human desire to interact with others, male and female, is not satisfied? Is it not vice that women are placed entirely under the mercy of their male guardians in each and every aspect of their lives? Is it not vice that a human being can die and not be missed by authorities or relatives because she has no ID and only a select few can see her anyway? Is it not vice that the kingdom of hypocrisy imposes strict and sick faith on a number of people, I would argue mostly the women, while it lets others enjoy alcohol, sex, and drugs behind closed doors inside or openly in other countries?

A friend of mine brought it to my attention that the HRW report was funded by a number of Jewish organizations. I think that is significant but it does not change the reality of the situation conveyed in the report. I suppose HRW, like my friend said, should be more selective of its sources of funding especially in these types of reports. Simply put, these fishy sources of money only contribute to discrediting the reports by the Arab public, which is quite the contrary of what they hope to achieve.

2- Allah is everywhere. I read a couple of articles in Al Ghad newspaper today, one was about secularism in an Islamic context, and the other about islamophobia. What struck me as absolutely one-dimensional was the content of the two comments posted on these pages. The commenters contended the ideas present in the articles by invoking the holier-than-thou authority of Quranic and Hadith citations.

In the first article, a commenter argued that a Muslim cannot possibly live under any law except that of Islam, and yet he provided that he lives in Jordan. I don’t know about you, but I see an amazing paradox because Jordanian laws are not,for the most part, Islamic, but secular (and let’s thank whoever it is that runs the show for not letting the Muslim Brothers rule us, amen). Then in the other comment on the second article, the commenter called for a return to the Arabic language in deriving terms instead of arabizing foreign terms, and he cited the Quran as a linguistic miracle. Fine, that is a worthy cause, but please CUT THE CRAP and stop preaching from a pedestal just because you were born into a Muslim family. Did the Arabs have no culture, no language, no identity, before the Quran was born? They did, and they better stop crying over spilled milk and get their act together already.

3- A number of distinguished college students at Al Balqa Aplied University discovered that they had been awarded scholarships by the Ministry of Higher Education, of which their university did not inform them. They made the discovery only lately, while the scholarships were awarded a year or two ago.

In a string of corruption and embezzlement scandals, Al Balqa Applied University seems to have outdone itself this time. The students will be awarded the monetary equivalent of the scholarships, officials said. But nobody commented on WHERE the money was exactly, or WHERE it would have gone had not a random student discovered this theft-corruption affair by accident while applying to another scholarship which he was denied because, hey, didn’t he know he had been awarded one two years ago? I want to see people put on trial for this. I want to see the big heads at Al Balqa University pay a price for their negligence and downright corruption. Will anyone do anything though or will they pacify the public with tales about compensating the students? We must never forget that there will be other students in the future who will be robbed of their scholarships to fatten the pockets of a person or two at Al Balqa Applied University.

4- Oy! Caramba! Nasser Judeh says relax, we didn’t sell the port you idiots, we sold the LAND. Wtf does that mean? Can someone translate it to me? Also, what does he mean when he talks about the Dead Sea Casino deal that “there was no sign of corruption, and the government and the investor agreed to exclude establishing a casino from the deal”? If it’s a “deal,” then there has to be SOMETHING in it for the investor, no? Otherwise what is he and the government agreeing upon? Let’s play a guessing game: it’s not a casino, what oh what could it be? Oh I know! Expanses of land in the Dead Sea area and in Shafa Badran in Amman. That way the government avails itself of the sin of agreeing to build a casino, a vice-house, on the holy lands of Jordan, and it also PAYS land-money to the investor at the expense of homeless and hungry, but entirely pious, Jordanians. I wonder why Judeh did not mention the one billion$$ worth of land that we are forking over to said investor at NO GAIN, and how he cites “complete transparency” at the same time. Does anyone else smell shit?

5- The Jordan Times will not be published on Monday April 28th due to Easter Holiday. As far as I can tell, newspapers run as usual on holidays. News still HAPPEN on holidays. The world does not simply stop because Jesus decides to rise.

6- Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves: “Under the measures, which came in response to Royal directives, around 40 essential commodities were exempted from customs duties and sales tax, while taxes on nonessential items like alcohol, tobacco, video games and satellite receivers were raised.” What 40 “essential” commodities have been exempted, I beg to know. How come they are never enumerated and explicitly indicated in such accounts? And how are alcohol and cigarettes and video games and satellite receivers not essential to us who are beaten down every day and find no console in a greedy system? At least neshrab meshan nensa, kill ourselves slowly with smoke, and indulge in HotBird fantasies. Give us that at least!

There’s still more where that came from. But I don’t feel like devoting any more of my time to this upsetting state of affairs. I do hope though, that the person who argued not so long ago that “Jordan isn’t so bad a country, and I want to live there,” would read this and be forewarned: be a rich foreigner in Jordan or an expatriated Jordanian abroad, and you will SWEAR by Jordan. Otherwise, run for your life.

In this Durkheim’s mechanical society, it is almost impossible to argue and be heard, or to pose a question and escape condemnation. You can never bring forth a new idea, nay, an old idea that marginally swerves away from the norm, and except it to be received by people who think critically and argue objectively. You will have to spend years, thousands of words, sanity and faith in the human race, even blood if you’re so inclined, and they will not listen.

It’s the transition to novel lands that frightens them. Tradition is safe, it’s been explored prior and it’s all predictable and stable and it works to a degree. But these new ideas, shame on you for introducing them. Shame on you for urging them to think and reconsider. You disagree? Who do you think you are? Who are you to defy ages-old, tried and true tradition?

But wasn’t novelty what propelled human advancement? Or was that also decreed by divinity and tradition? Isn’t trial and error the way we express our godliness, without attributing it to a myth? What about the supposed anomalies that add more value to the human experience than do these traditionalists? They mean nothing. Who’s going to hell now, my devil and me, or you?

Cast not your pearls before swine.

Anne Applebaum of Slate wrote an article discussing the hijab issue in Turkey and the recent attempt to sue the not-sufficiently-secular government that has unbanned it in public universities. I wrote about this before, arguing that no government has the right to dictate citizens’ fashions, and I was jubilant when hijab was unbanned, and I still am.

If you read Applebaum’s article, and you must in order to understand this post, you will find that she has practiced deliberate picking and choosing for arguments, quotations, and situations to suit her point, all the while neglecting to show counterarguments which are equally, if not more, valid. This sort of calculated coverage is not only biased, but extremely harmful as it leads recipients to form an impression which is on the whole charged with bias and twisted facts.

Then she referred to Muslim women as ‘Islamic‘ women. What is that? Is the English dictionary so vast and diversified so as to equate Muslim with Islamic now, and later with Islamicist with fascist with terrorist? Evidently, these subtle(!) and gradual substitutions serve a political goal to fragment and demonize. Applebaum certainly had an agenda writing her article, and her very choice of words reveals it.

According to the article, the “enduring significance” of the hijab is striking. Really? Is it any more “enduring” than the significance of Jesus or the Holy Trinity, the Yarmulke, or karma in Hinduism? Simply put, people will always carry out parts or all of what their religious beliefs dictate. Other people may feel threatened by that, and that’s the politics of it.

Applebaum laments her “Anglo-American bias” which so naively portrays the veil as a choice, then she proceeds to argue that “Fairly or not, in certain Turkish communities, a head covering in fact marks the wearer not just as faithful but as a believer in a particular version of Islam. Fairly or not, the head scarf carries with it, at least in Turkey, partisan connotations, as well as a suggestion of the wearer’s views of women.” As a woman living in a predominately Muslim country, and who is directly exposed to hijab, I opt for the ‘Not Fairly’ bit in Applebaum’s argument. An outsider may never learn the inner workings of a society as diversified and complex as Turkey, and to blindly support forceful implementation of secularism on the expense of basic human rights is to demolish any ‘liberal’ affiliations one claims to have.

She also hints, not so implicitly, that veiled Turkish women are less achieving than non veiled ones. “Wives of the current Turkish political leadership wear head scarves, that most of them donned the scarves after their marriages, and that most of them never worked or studied again after they wed.You can see why women who want something different might feel threatened.” Hmm. That may be because they were BANNED from studying at public Turkish universities until recently, and what ever happened to Applebaum’s “Anglo-American bias” and “personal choice“?

This polarization of Turkish, and Muslim, women as ‘veiled = uneducated, underachieving’ and ‘not veiled = educated, overachieving’ betrays Applebaum’s attempt to conceal her biases. It is an indication that people who claim to be liberal do make the very mistakes that they try to avoid, they go to extremes to protect concepts like secularism and in doing so, endanger the values and liberties they fight for.

Applebaum’s xenophobia emerges at the very end of her ill-researched article when she says “And if, someday, this argument comes to our shores, let’s not be surprised by that. In the end, the head-scarf debate isn’t about a wisp of fabric but about the viability of secular Islam itself.” This reveals that it is more of a question of Us vs. Them than a question of basic liberties and expression. It is not about secular Islam per se, it is not about oppressed Muslim women forced to wear the veil, it is not about their education and career prospects, it is not even about Turkey, for crying out loud! It is about the blatant fear of this argument coming to “our shores,” and that the free, liberal, advanced, educated, achieving West must be prepared to fight this ambiguous piece of cloth which conceals “The Other.”

Funny how people are willing to protest against certain sentences said in a TV show, but they won’t be moved by the blatant gender discrimination in Jordanian law and legal proceedings:

Woman handed death sentence for killing her husband

By Rana Husseini

AMMAN - The Criminal Court on Tuesday sentenced a 30-year-old woman to death after convicting her of stabbing her husband to death on April 20, 2007.

The tribunal declared the woman, a mother of four, guilty of the premeditated murder of her husband at their home in Irbid and handed her the maximum punishment.

Court papers said the defendant was involved in extramarital affairs and her husband of 11 years discovered them and threatened to tell her family.

Fearing a scandal, the defendant decided to kill her husband and secured a knife for this purpose, according to the court verdict.

On the day of the murder, the woman wore gloves and stabbed her husband several times in the neck while he slept, the court said, adding that she then called the police and her brother-in-law, claiming that a burglar killed her husband while attempting to rob their house.

The court did not mention how investigators determined she was the main suspect in the case.

A government autopsy indicated the victim was fatally stabbed three times in the neck and pathologists also detected defence marks on his arms, according to the court verdict.

Shortly after the murder was committed, officials had told The Jordan Times that the defendant told investigators she murdered her husband because she heard he was planning to take a second wife.

But on Tuesday, a judicial source told The Jordan Times that the woman “confessed in front of the criminal prosecutor under oath to murdering her husband to prevent him from exposing her illegitimate affairs”.

The tribunal comprised judges Omar Khleifat, Mohammad Abu Dalbouh and Hayel Amr.

The verdict will automatically be reviewed by the Court of Cassation within the next 30 days.

I say fine, if the woman is guilty then she should be punished accordingly. But I say it is NOT fine that the Jordanian law looks so superficially interested in achieving justice when the contradictions in its folds are so manifest. The men who kill their wives or female relatives when they SUSPECT them of having ‘inappropriate’ relationships are ALWAYS semi-pardoned to the extent of serving a meager three months in jail.

How many men in Jordan are involved in ‘inappropriate’ relationships? And do we really trust that the infamous article 98 will treat women killers of unfaithful men with the same leniency it treats the men? Like I argued before, it seems that Jordanians’ understanding of the word ‘honor’ is synonymous with a woman’s vagina, which is why a man does not have much honor to speak of, per se, unless he controls his female relatives ‘vaginal honors.’

Think about it. What would a woman who kills her husband upon catching him in an adulterous situation say in her self defense? ‘I killed him to protect my honor and my family’s honor’? The fact remains that the discrepancies between the theoretical and the practical in Jordan, both legally and socially, are so vast as to prevent justice from setting in this country.

Last Tuesday, Al Jazeera’s The Opposite Direction with Faisal Al Qasem hosted Wafa Sultan and an Islamic cleric to discuss the reprinting of offensive cartoons of the prophet Mohammad. Sultan is pretty well-known for her strong anti-Islam opinions, which obviously made her an ideal participant in the fight club called The Opposite Direction, especially since she was up against an Islamic cleric.

Sultan expressed herself her usual way, and many Muslims watching the show were infuriated by her lack of diplomacy and insulting Islam and its figures. Then people demanded an apology of the station, Al Jazeera, because they accused the station of supporting anti-Islamism. Al Jazeera apologized, and the right wing everywhere rejoiced because it found another reason to diss Muslims and Arabs.

My opinion is as follows:

Al Jazeera had it coming. It really, really had it coming. A show like The Opposite Direction in particular should have been stopped a long time ago. It does not encourage dialogue but cockfighting. Al Qasem sits extreme opposites on one table and fuels their disputes. He ignites them if they calm, and he encourages screaming and name-calling under the guise of conversation. This show has always been on my hate list, and now I hate it more.

Since The Opposite Direction has FINALLY crossed some public red line, the show is now under scrutiny. The ‘normal’ people who used to watch it and cheer Al Qasem on are now rebuking him and saying the show is really no good. Unfortunately, they are not doing that for the right reasons (show achieves nothing but grow resentment, stupid fighting, etc.) but they are doing it anyway. They are also projecting what one show did (which they loved in the past, remember) on an entire station that they statistically still very much love.

Saying that Al Jazeera supports anti-Islamism is an old-new conspiracy theory which until now stood ungrounded. The Opposite Direction episode with Sultan gave reason for more people to believe it. Their logic is skewed, but so was their taste in the first place to admire a show like that.

Sultan is not a very diplomatic speaker when asked about Islam. I personally do not like her way of handling issues, and I think she does have certain biases and is not entirely fair. On the other hand, Al Qasem already knew this about her as he had hosted her previously and her videos are all over the internet. I am glad that finally Al Qasem received a wake-up call, albeit for all the wrong reasons.

What makes me sad is not what Sultan said, or what Al Qasem did, or anything related to Al Jazeera. What makes me sad is how some Arab people easily distort facts and call others ‘anti-Islam’ as simple as that. What’s Al Jazeera to do if it was hosting a debate about the prophet cartoons? Host two Islamic clerics and that’s it? It’s a ‘debate’ so it should have two or more different opinions! Why is the station itself being called anti-Islam? Must it always conform to one boring line of reporting taking the side of the majority?

I think part of the reason why some people easily accuse others when they are not 100% pleased with their ideas lies in our education and in the pressures that Arabs live under these days. Our education, for the most part, does not offer the ‘counter argument’ and if it does, it purposefully marginalizes it in favor of the more popular. The pressures on Arabs and Muslims in this day and age make them hypersensitive to anything foreign, as is to be expected, much like what happened in the United Stated after 9/11.

I find it fascinating how in this part of the world, people can still unite (almost) for a cause and can protest and make demands. It is more fascinating to me how they project their current internal problems on external threats, which may or may not be relevant. The uproars caused by the prophet cartoons and now Wafa Sultan have far outreached those caused, if any, by governmental corruption, high prices, bad planning, gender inequality, and any other day-to-day obstacle to progress in Jordan and the region. It makes me wonder about our real priorities because the heights these actions and reactions have reached are truly ridiculous.

Meh. The world is such a disappointing place with plenty of grey. What a sad, sad place to be.

To all commentators on a previous post who argued for and against comparing the Israeli atrocities to the holocaust, I found a relevant article:

A ‘holocaust’ for the Palestinians too

Hasan Abu Nimah

Israel and the Zionist movement have never permitted the word “holocaust” to be applied to any tragedy except that of the attempted annihilation of the Jews in Europe, perpetrated by the same countries that now look on indifferently at the suffering of the Palestinians.

Israel has tried to appropriate the debt rightly owed to Europe’s Jewish victims by their persecutors in the form of unconditional support and obedient silence, not only from the successor governments of those countries that harmed their Jewish citizens, but from everyone else in the world. In using the tragedy of European Jews for this manifestly narrow political purpose, the Zionist movement at the same time claims that keeping alive the memory of the Nazi holocaust and wider European collusion with it is a constant warning that such horrors should happen never again.

Thus, Palestinians who often complained that they alone had to bear the price of historical crimes that occurred in Europe early last century, including the destruction of their country and society, and the dispersal of the people into an excruciating exile, have been severely criticised if they ever dared to compare their own torment to that experienced by some of their Israeli tormentors at the hands of the Nazis.

Perceptions shifted suddenly, however, after Matan Vilnai, Israel’s deputy defence minister threatened the Palestinians with a “bigger shoah”, using the Hebrew word usually reserved to describe the Nazi holocaust. Immediately after that, Israel began a series of massacres, killing dozens of Palestinian civilians, as well as resistance fighters defending their beleaguered communities in the Israeli-occupied Gaza Strip. At last it was an Israeli minister, a partner in crime, who gave Palestinians permission to refer to their tragedy as a “holocaust”.

For many, no other word can describe the debasement of human values, of common decency that allows Israel to treat the Palestinians like nothing more than millions of troublesome animals who must be kept in a zoo. Pity the world for what it has become, and for what still awaits its people!

It is painful, even revolting, in such dark times to reduce our concerns to mere haggling over what to call our calamities rather than to commit to halting and preventing them. How can we explain the shocking, damning impotence of the self-appointed “international community” as one of the mightiest armies in the world turns its full firepower on an occupied, refugee population, using tanks, fighter planes and missiles under the most ridiculous pretexts.

More…

مجلس النواب يدين المجازر الاسرائيلية فـي غزة

الاستنكارات تتواصل ازاءالعدوان الإسرائيلي على غزة

مجلس النواب يستهجن الصمت العربي إزاء أحداث غزة

دول العالم تدعو الى وقف العنف في غزة وتندد بسقوط الضحايا

I would also like to أستهجن و أشجب و أندد و أستنكر و أرفض و أدين this outrageous, inhumane, insufferable, unbelievable, atrocious, cannibalistic, internationally condoned, trivialized, Israeli operation in Gaza dubbed The Holocaust. You’d think a people who were so brutally oppressed and tortured and maimed and killed by the Nazis would not want to do the same to other nations. The fact on the ground says otherwise — they are doing exactly the same thing to another people. I suppose when a people are so profoundly maimed, they just have to take it out on others. Where is Freud when you need him, really?

The people who were killed in Gaza during the past few days were not all rocket-launchers. As a matter of fact, MOST of them were civilians, and many were children. The 116 dead, the 350 wounded, the 22 CHILDREN and 12 women dead and gone — did they all launch rockets targeting Israel? Of course not, but that is the classical Israeli excuse in global media. Collateral damage, that’s what they call them.

Bullshit.

Al Rai has graced its e-pages with a fascinating mix of science,90’s Jordanian culture, sexism, and mere retardedness courtesy of a certain Rania Tadrus.

Tadrus has sort of put together an article about smoking women in Jordan and how they are no longer embarrassed by the fact that they smoke, how they smoke in public and how they flaunt this once-taboo behavior with complete freedom.

So far so good. But then the article proceeds to quoting the most ridiculous statements such as these:

وتوضح ان الانفتاح وتوجه الفتيات نحو الدخان -سواء كان سيجارة أو ارجلية - يعود الى التأثر بالثقافات الاخرى، ويرتبط بعلو الأصوات التي تنادي بتحرر المرأة، خصوصا في ظل ثورة المعلومات .
وتتابع التدخين أمام العائلة خارج وداخل المنزل بات مؤشرا لاتجاه المجتمع نحو قيم وعادات غريبة بعيدة عن ثقافتنا العربية .

and

ولأخطر من ذلك وفق الدكتورة أيوب أن نضوج الفتاة يكتمل عند سن 25 عاما، فإذا بدأت التدخين في سن مراهقة متأخر تكون النتيجة حسب الدراسات العلمية، حدوث مشاكل في نضوج ونمو الجزء الأمامي من الدماغ، الذي يتحكم بالتصرفات والسلوكيات ،وطبعا هذا يفسر التصرفات غير المقبولة منهن .

and

ويحذر من خطورة الارجلية على أجسام النساء ويصفها بأنها موضة آخذة في الانتشار على نطاق واسع رغم خطورتها بسبب احتوائها على الملونات والأصباغ في المعسل وعدم الاحتراق الكامل ما يعد احد اسباب السرطانات

and the worst bit

اما مديرة مجموعة لينا للإبداع التربوي/ برنامج مكافحة التدخين ماويا حمّاد فتفسر إقبال النساء على التدخين لأسباب أساسية أهمها غياب التشريعات والعقوبات الفعّالة ،وكذلك سهولة الحصول عليها من حيث البيع وتواجدها في كل محل تقريبا ، إضافة إلى غياب القدوة الحسنة فالام تدخن مع بناتها وكذلك الأب عندما يطلب من ابنته اعداد الارجلية له

To sum it up, it turns out that smoking is a Western habit that Jordanian women are picking up, it causes them to behave in unacceptable ways if they pick it up before 25, it is a problem that is directly related to the increasing awareness of women’s rights, Narguile is a dangerous trend that is infesting women’s bodies with diseases, AND according to Mawya Hammad women who smoke do so because there are no regulations enforced to prevent them and because they have ready access to cigarettes coupled with lack of guidance.

I felt like I am living in the Middle Ages after reading that article, or perhaps back in the times where clerics and philosophers pondered the question of The Woman and if she has a soul. To have an article written by a woman, and featured like that in a national newspaper, is a scandal to Jordanian journalism I believe.

If the article is about smoking women in Jordan, who represent a 19% segment of our feminine population, then it should be unbiased and unsexist to say the least. Unless, of course, it aims to bash this segment, which it basically does.

I am amazed at the absence of a single word mentioning Jordanian male smokers. What is the percentage of that segment, do you think? (my guess is 50%+) How come all the negativity is directed at female smokers (Western habits, unacceptable behavior, no regulations, no guidance, etc) ?

Granted, smoking is not good for your health. I don’t care if you are a woman or a man or a goat, it will kill you eventually. I just find it absurd that this article would so portray women as if they are children who have been let out by accident and who are picking bad habits in the absence of parental control.

If an article of the same genre was written about male smokers in Jordan, would it have mentioned that they “have ready access to cigarettes” and “lack of guidance” and that they have adopted it as awareness of men’s rights started to emerge in Jordan, and with the same tone of this article? I very much doubt it.

It upsets me that even articles that fall under the “raising awareness” genre stoop to such a low level of sexism in this country. The sheer amount of bashing women smokers not because they smoke but because they are women who smoke in our society is outrageous. These articles mix science with witchcraft, so to speak.

These articles do not raise awareness as much as they raise anger and a feeling of inferiority in women. Why else would they be signaled out like that and a supposedly scientific article would mention their taboo behavior and quote people who say they are breaking with Jordan’s culture and traditions? I daresay the amount of anger this article has produced in me might push me to burn a packet today.

Now where’s that awareness it was supposed to raise?