.يوم الخميس الماضي كان هناك مؤتمر صحفي في جامعة اريزونا عن الحاجة لإصلاح احوال الهجرة المكسيكية

و قدم مركز الدراسات اللاتينية الأمريكية  دراسة جديدة عن المشاكل التي يواجها المهاجرين المكسيكيين عندما ضباط حرس الحدود يرحلوهم. اعتمدت الدراسة على مقابلات واستطلاع آراء أكثر من الف من المهاجرين المكسيكيين الذين تم ترحيلهم عن تجربتهم فى الترحيل. قال عشر بالمئة من المهاجرين انهم تعرضوا للعنف من ضباط حرس الحدود

  وبالاضافة الى ذلك، قال خمسة و عشرين بالمئة ان عندهم اولاد ولدوا في  امريكا لذلك احيانا الترحيل يفصل افراد الاسرة عن بعض.

و فوق هذا كله، فيرحل ضباط حرس الحدود بعض من المهاجرين بالليل الى مدن ليست آمنة حيث حياة الشخص تتعرض الى الخطر. الحالة على الحدود تعتبر ازمة كبيرة و تصر الدراسة فى مركز الدراسات اللاتينية الأمريكية  على تحسين احوال المهاجرين واصلاح بعض من جوانب   .الهجرة المكسيكية

I think it’s safe to say that for many of us American women, Valentine’s Day is a day we wish we could fast forward through, or skip all together. If you don’t have someone, it can be a reminder of recent heartbreak, or worse – it can reinforce the message that we’re not loveable, or that our lives are lacking without a special person. Here’s a suggestion single ladies – this Valentine’s Day, celebrate yourself!

Recently, someone asked me to write down the Valentine’s Day message I would most like to receive this year. This is what I wrote: You’re my one and only. I love you with all my heart and soul and I want to grow old with you.

I realized a few things as I read this out loud. I have been programmed since I was a little girl to desire this. And finding and sharing this kind of love with someone is no doubt special – those that find it are truly blessed, even with the ups and down and all the struggles that come with any relationship.

But I also realized that I could in fact deliver this message to myself this Valentine’s Day. It occurred to me that perhaps I am my one and only. Perhaps what I need most is to love myself with all of my heart and soul. God wiling, I will no doubt grow old – perhaps as the years pass I can engage in the kind of self-love that doesn’t seek approval, validation, and self-worth from a man. Perhaps I can come to know with absolute certainty that I am enough as I am – imperfect but striving all the time to improve and grow. And that is beautiful.

Besides, I really do love my life. I am chasing my dreams, and slowly realizing them, and that is extremely fulfilling. And I am so grateful to be in a position that allows me to do that. The more that I become the woman I want to be, the more I love myself, the less and less I will feel compelled to look outward for validation. Remember gals, we complete ourselves by becoming our true selves. If and when the men do show up, they will be the icing on the cake, a complement to a beautiful life and self that we have invested so much in. So this Valentine’s Day, love yourself! You are, after all, your best life-long partner. Happy Valentine’s Day, single ladies. May you find and honor the beauty within.

Two years ago I was afraid of my future. I was scared that going off to grad school wouldn’t take me where I wanted it to. Was it the right decision, I wondered? Two years ago I could not imagine that I’d be where I am today – living and working as a journalist in Cairo, and able to get around okay with Arabic. It all seemed impossible back then. The thought of learning Arabic overwhelmed me, and many people told me that I wouldn’t be able to do it. It was hard to believe I would ever get a handle on the language, and in fact most days I am certain I will never master it.

Wadi Food's Wadi Natrun Organic Olive Grove

But tonight during my cab ride home tonight, I had a full conversation with my driver in Arabic. I had to ask him to repeat himself, and it took us a few tries to really understand each other on a few occasions. But it worked. When I think back to how badly Arabic fried my brain when I  first began learning it, I can’t help but be in awe of how much I can understand and communicate now. Of course, I have a long way to go, and this journey of Middle East journalism that I’m on is just beginning. But it’s happening, one step at a time. The impossible is becoming possible. I may never master Arabic or any of its dialects, but I will get by. The pieces are all falling into place. It may not be glamorous. Yet. But it will be.

Tonight I covered an event called “Paving the Way to a Sustainable Egypt.” It was an interesting panel discussion about some of the challenges and needs of developing an environmentally sustainable future in Egypt. One of the panelists had been a previous source for the  first story I wrote here. He recognized me as I sat in the audience. And as I listened to the panelists speak, I realized the benefit that comes with having a beat as a reporter. You get to know the issues better and better. You develop sources. You start seeing the same people at different events. And this is how it works, this is how you build those relationships you need to do your job effectively. The more time you spend in a place, the more familiar you become with the issues, and the deeper you can go with your reporting.

Watching the Transit of Venus

I didn’t think I would end up writing for the Environment section of the Egypt Independent. But I realized very quickly upon my arrival to Cairo that Egyptian politics in the wake of the revolution is dynamic, complex, and changing on an almost minute-by-minute basis. It became clear to me that with my lack of familiarity with Egypt’s history and politics, that I was at a disadvantage considering the short amount of time I’m here – only 2 months. But thankfully the editor of the Environment section approached me with story assignments. Were it not for that, I’m not quite sure what would have become of me here! And oh yeah, I am eternally grateful that she has taken me under her wing.

Endangered Egyptian Tortoise at Wadi Food's Km 54 Farm

Writing for the environment section has provided me with some excellent opportunities, not the least of which is learning about an aspect of Egypt that I would not have otherwise delved into. And issues surrounding the environment and sustainability are dire, anywhere in the world. So I feel fortunate that I have been able to experience that part of Egypt. I have also discovered that half way around the world in a city as crazy as Cairo, my editor can give me an assignment and I can in fact go out and get the story. Actually, this has probably been the single most important aspect of my internship experience. And it has built my confidence. Next time I come to the Middle East I will be able to handle more. Next time I will be able to go deeper, and cover more. Next time I will do it all better. And there will be a next time. Mark my words. I’ve only just begun.

My time in Cairo is winding down. I meant to write more, but then again I meant to do a lot of things while I was here. Alas, we can’t do it all. Every one of us has limits, and although traveling has its way of pushing you through and beyond what you thought your limits were, you can also learn a lot about what you need, and where you draw the line in certain aspects of your life. There is nothing like traveling to open up a portal into your own soul. Let me share with you some of what I’ve discovered along this journey.

I came here with too much to realistically accomplish in such a short time – an internship, thesis research, and blogging. And of course finding time to experience the place and people, all while trying to wrap my head around the ever-changing political landscape here. Yet much of my time and energy was initially spent wading through the many wonderful discomforts traveling alone brings, and finding my way through this overwhelming city. Ah yes, Cairo – a city of survival. A city of so many sights and sounds – a city alive with art, creativity, politics, and protest. A city of great frustration and immense inspiration undergoing rapid transformations. Beautiful beyond words, even with the piles and piles of garbage that plague the city’s streets and sidewalks. Simply amazing.

I have learned so much about Cairo and myself during the last six weeks. However I’m feeling contemplative today so this post will focus on my journey. I’ll get to Egypt and Cairo in the next post, I promise. I’ve rediscovered that facing my greatest fears and moving through them can reap the greatest rewards. But I have also learned that I am not a machine, that success is relative, and that perhaps my greatest accomplishment here is not in any story I’ve written and will not be manifest in my thesis once it’s done. No, perhaps my greatest success here is that I have survived the experience. I have done something that I was afraid to do, in fact terrified to do, and I am better and stronger now for it.

But I have also learned that I need friends and family, lots of fresh fruits and vegetables, and plenty of exercise. Sure, I can survive without these things and nothing can force us to make peace with our solitude quite like traveling alone, and living without the creature comforts that make us feel grounded. Hell, I can appreciate just about any circumstance and find beauty in almost any moment no matter where I am in the world, and no matter how ungrounded I feel. But at the end of the day, what I long for most is the company and affection of good friends and family, and the warm glow that structure and routine can bring. Taking that act on the road is nearly impossible. Especially as a journalist. Journalists, I’ve noted, love to drink and smoke. And many of them are alone, because it’s not a life conducive to building lasting relationships.

And those relationships, I’m realizing, are precious. But they take time to nurture and build. And because I’ve moved around so much in my life, I know that very well – loneliness is nothing new to me. I have made many friends and acquaintances who have scattered to the wind as I’ve jumped from place to place. And I have realized in recent weeks how much starting over from scratch time and time again has exhausted me. I’ve also come to the conclusion that maybe I don’t need to keep proving my inner strength to myself over and over again in this particular way. Nonetheless, it’s a skill I’m grateful to have. A lot of power comes from knowing that you can step out into the world on your own, and find your way.

Yet there is a price to pay for living a life of adventure and travel, even though it’s a life I’ve worked hard for, and a life that I have earned with every brave choice. But every time I’ve jumped off the face of the Earth into the great unknown, I sever my roots. It’s beautiful, but it hurts. It’s a contradiction with no resolution and a truth that’s hard to hold. Looking back, would I trade all the gorgeous moments in my life that have left me in awe for a more rooted life of stability? In all honesty, I really don’t know. But I am still grateful to be here now. And I suppose that’s all that really matters. Not everyone gets to travel. I’m truly blessed to have the opportunity to see so much of the world.

But Cairo has also taught me that we are never really alone. At every turn there has been some beautiful soul there to assist me and guide me. Cairo, a city full of angels. Who knew? They are everywhere I think, these worldly angels. And this is the beauty of traveling. Having to rely upon the kindness of strangers uncovers our universal humanity. It requires trust, and builds faith. It forces you to reach out to people and to ask for help. It makes you incredibly vulnerable. And that can be terrifying.

Nothing could possibly sum up my the kind of trust travel requires quite as well as the motorcycle ride I took about a week ago. Talk about sheer terror, extreme discomfort, and cultural differences. Wow! How did I find myself one of three passengers (four if you count the bag of Koshari takeout my friend carried with her) on a motorcycle whizzing through the hectic streets of Cairo? With no helmet, and defying every rule of safety and order I grew up with, we wove in and out of traffic. We sped along, squeezing into the narrowest of spaces, and found room where none seemed to exist. We plowed head first into incoming traffic, and drove on a sidewalk along the Cornish packed with pedestrians. With one near miss after another, I clung onto the driver for dear life, believing with every swerve that my life was about to end. Trust. Surrender. Letting go of everything that makes you feel safe. It’s terrifying and exhilirating all at once. And it takes you outside of yourself.

I have not accomplished all that I wanted to accomplish while here, or at least what I thought I should accomplish. But sometimes we have to wrestle with ourselves to make peace with who we are versus who we think we should be, and then give ourselves permission to have a different experience. I’ve managed and navigated Cairo successfully. I’ve made a few friends along the way. I’ve published 5 articles and might squeeze another one or two out before I leave. And it looks as though I will be able to conduct some interesting research in the last few weeks that I’m here. Not bad, I’d say. But most of all, I did it. Maybe I didn’t do it as well as someone else could have. Maybe I didn’t even do it as well as I could have. But I still did it when I wasn’t sure if I could. And sometimes that’s the greatest victory.

So I’m in Cairo, Egypt! I’ve been here for 6 days now and what an adventure it’s been so far. I’m here to conduct research for my thesis regarding the transformations to the Egyptian press since the fall of Mubarak, but I’m also here to intern with the Egypt Independent newspaper, and blog for Foreign Policy Association. I haven’t truly gotten underway with any of these tasks yet, but not to worry. I’ve spent the last 6 days looking for a place to live, suffering the consequences of accidentally drinking the tap water on day 2, and just generally adapting to my new, and often overwhelming, environment. The good stuff is set to begin any minute now… Just kidding. The good stuff is already happening!

However first, I will make a confession, which might seem a bit ridiculous for someone who wants to be a foreign correspondent based in the Middle East. I haven’t traveled completely on my own before, though I have previously spent nearly 8 months in the region including Israel, the West Bank, Jordan, and Morocco, mostly in organized programs or with the support and help of good friends. Yet despite this previous experience, I was really nervous before I left for Egypt. Actually, that’s a bold-faced lie. I was terrified!

But sometimes we don’t know exactly what we’re capable of until we push ourselves completely outside of our comfort zones, and force ourselves to confront what we think we might not be able to do. And what better way to find out if I actually have what it takes to be a foreign correspondent than to dive head first into it without making sure there’s water in the pool? And what do I mean by that?

Graffiti in Tahrir Square at Mohammad Mahmoud Street

I mean that I had no place to live lined up before I got here, not many contacts in Cairo to speak of, and I was pretty unclear regarding exactly what my internship would entail and how much support I would have. But I got on the plane and flew here anyhow. And I’m glad I did. Because even after only a week of navigating Cairo on my own, I’m more confident, I feel more alive, and I am more sure that I can do just about anything placed before me than I was before I left.

And now, a little something about Cairo. This city is a dizzying whirlwind of sights and sounds. Or maybe that’s just the effects of all the cigarette smoke and pollution. Car horns blare at every hour of the day and night. There is no seeming order or rules guiding the flow of traffic. Cars, motorcycles, bicycles, and pedestrians all mingle together in an endless stream of near misses. But somehow it works. And within the midst of all this chaos, I have encountered the kindness of strangers at nearly every turn. In many ways, meeting people who are willing to help me out and guide me, and expect nothing in return, helps to restore my faith in the goodness of humanity.

And what about the politics? Well, the political landscape here is very complex. I’m not  sure that I can even begin to wrap my brain around it all in the two short months that I am here. Perhaps this is why foreign correspondents who spend years and years based in a region are so invaluable – it takes a lot of time to understand the complexities and nuances of a place, not to mention to develop adequate language skills. Add to all of that an ongoing revolution and you can begin to see how difficult it can be to get a firm understanding of what’s happening on the ground in Cairo, particularly in an environment where things seem to change every day.

Protestor in Tahrir Square

On Monday the Presidential Elections Commission officially announced Ahmed Shafiq and Mohamed Morsy as the two contenders for the Presidential run-off to take place in mid-June. However, much controversy, including accusations of voter fraud, and displeasure seems to surround these results. Shafiq, Hosni Mubarak’s former Prime Minister, is feloul (former regime). Many people I’ve spoken to say that a Shafiq win would simply re-entrench the old regime, and solidify the SCAF’s grip on power.

Then there’s Morsy, the Muslim Brotherhood candidate. The Brotherhood initially promised it wouldn’t run anyone for president so as not to betray the revolution. Moreover, there seems to be disappointment in the Brotherhood’s parliamentary performance thus far, as well as a lot of confusion regarding whether or not a Muslim Brotherhood president would impose Sharia law. Neither choice in candidates, from what I’ve gathered in talking to people on the street, is satisfactory to the revolutionaries.

And let me be clear. The revolutionary atmosphere here is intoxicating, alive, invigorating, and awe-inspiring. People again took to the streets after the PEC announcement on Monday, ending up in Tahrir Square and chanting one of the same slogans they’ve been chanting all along: “the people want the downfall of the regime.” And the torching of Shafiq’s campaign headquarters Monday night surely drove this message home. More demonstrations are called for on Friday. Please stay tuned as I try to wrap my brain around what’s going on here and spew it forth for your reading pleasure. There is surely much more to come this summer from the great city of Cairo.

Drinking the Sea at Gaza: Days and Nights in a Land Under Siege by Amira Hass, 1996.

In Drinking the Sea at Gaza, Israeli journalist Amira Hass paints a nuanced and humane portrait of the hardships of life and politics unique to Gaza, from the first Palestinian Intifada through 1996. She connects this to the larger issue of the Palestinian pursuit of self-determination vis-à-vis the Oslo Accords and traces Israeli policies of de-development that have inevitably led to Palestinian dependence. According to Hass’s account, this process was vastly accelerated during the Oslo era, the primary backdrop of the book.

The main conclusions reached by Hass provide critical background information necessary to understand the continued statelessness of the Palestinians and the current humanitarian crisis in Gaza today, and the role that Oslo played in shaping both. In fact, according to Hass’s meticulously documented reporting, the siege of Gaza did not begin in 2007. It is a process that was set in motion in 1991 during the first US-led Gulf war. Hass further demonstrates how the Oslo process and the limited self-rule introduced to Gaza and Jericho served to separate Palestinians, destroy the already debilitated Palestinian economy, and shifted responsibility from enforcing the occupation from the Israeli military to the Palestinian Authority security forces, which created further Palestinian divisions. Palestinians began to direct their anger not at the occupation, but at each other.

The Palestinian Hamas: Vision, Violence and Coexistence By Shaul Mishal & Avraham Sela (2000)

Introduction

Mishal and Sela’s book chronicles and scrutinizes the roots of Hamas, its emergence onto the Palestinian political scene during the first Intifada – including its political struggles with the PLO and PA after the signing of the Declaration of Principles during Oslo, and its record since its establishment. The authors begin the book by noting that Hamas is primarily identified as a murderous terror organization associated with Islamic fundamentalism and suicide bombings – an organization that is unshakably fundamentalist and monolithic with a fanatic vision.

Yet contrary to the prevailing image, the authors’ main argument is that Hamas is essentially a social movement, and that it is much more flexible and willing to adapt to prevailing political realities than it is given credit for. The authors place Hamas within the context of other Islamic movements, asserting that, “violence has been relatively marginal in the conduct of mainstream Islamic movements in the Arab world, embodied primarily by the Muslim Brotherhood whose activities and interests have focused on religious guidance and education, communal services, and, since the early 1980s, increasingly on political participation.”

Historical Background

In fact, Hamas evolved from the Muslim Brotherhood. Islamic political activity emerged in the late 1920s in Mandate Palestine with the young Muslim Men’s Association. The Muslim Brotherhood then came onto the Palestinian scene in 1945; by 1947 there were 38 branches with more than 10,000 members. In 1973 the Muslim Brotherhood was institutionalized with the foundation of the Islamic Center in Gaza. The Muslim Brothers in Palestine generally refrained from violence, like their predecessors, and focused on social, religious and cultural activities instead. Because of this, Israel generally tolerated them, and continued to do so even through the first year and a half of the first Intifada, before they started to crack down on the organization.

Hamas eventually emerged from the Muslim Brotherhood in 1987 within the context of the first Intifada. The Muslim Brotherhood (the Mujamma’) had mostly refrained from violence until then, but felt compelled to adopt “an actively combatant posture” that was more in line with the mood of the Palestinian population at the time.  Hamas split off from the Mujamma’ as a separate body in order to protect the latter from Israeli reprisals. Thus, the authors argue that Hamas adopted jihad as a strategy because of the Intifada. The authors assert that Hamas rewrote its pre-Intifada history and framed itself as a jihadist nationalist movement that had merely been preparing for the Islamic nationalist armed struggle, to refute the claims that it had been dragged unwillingly into the Intifada, which the authors suggest was actually the case. Throughout the book, the authors argue that violence is a strategy for Hamas and not a goal, presumably to illustrate that its violence can be abandoned.

Hamas

Outwardly and publically Hamas’ s agenda, embodied in its charter, includes liberating Palestine through a holy war against Israel, establishing an Islamic state on its soil, and reforming society in the spirit of true Islam. Outwardly, Hamas also refused to recognize the PLO and later the PA as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Yet privately, Hamas was willing to solve its ideological and political dilemmas, including the risk of direct confrontation with the PLO/PA and Israel, through flexibility and adaptability.

The authors argue that, “A comparison of Hamas’s declared principles with its concrete actions shows that it has been in Hamas’s interest to become politically active, to ensure its survival, and not to exclude the possibility of a settlement – albeit temporary – through nonviolent means.” Thus the organization has invested it’s “political imagination… and its organization energies” toward balancing “constantly growing conflicting considerations, competing demands, and contradictory needs.”

To support their argument that Hamas is a pragmatic organization willing to adapt to realities on the ground, the authors include a lengthy secret document that was circulated among Hamas’s rank and file in 1992 as a response to the Madrid talks in 1991 and the burgeoning peace process. The document reflects the understanding on the part of Hamas that it could not preclude the possibility of “an Israeli-Palestinian-Jordanian settlement.” The document was written with a nonideological and non-Islamic tone, and without the demonization of Israel or Jews, who the authors note are “usually referred to as descendants of Satan, monkeys and pigs” in Hamas propaganda. The document laid out the possible political scenarios that could emerge from the peace process and possible elections, as well as the various responses Hamas could take, including the advantages and disadvantages of each.

Conclusion

The authors argue that adaptability, not fanaticism, is the cornerstone of how Hamas conducts itself politically. Hamas managed its conflicting and contradictory commitments to a renewed Islamic Palestinian nationalism, the fostering of a new Islamic social order, and the liberation of Palestine through holy war on the one hand, and communal interests on the other with controlled violence against Israel, negotiated coexistence with the PLO and PA, and calculated participation in PA administration. The authors assert that it’s extremist tendencies are balanced by its recognition of political constraints and the political realities on the ground by noting that Hamas did not eliminate the possibility of joining the new, emerging Palestinian political order. Indeed, in 2006 Hamas did attempt to join it.

Assessment

The book is not a polemic, nor is it apologetic toward Hamas – it does not shy away from what the authors call the “horrific” impact of the suicide bombings. Yet it is a dispassionate attempt to provide a thorough and realistic revisionist understanding of the organization – where it came from, what its policies have been, and placing those policies within the context of the political realities from which they emerged. It’s informative, if slightly repetitive at times, but well worth the read if you seek a deeper understanding of Hamas.

“Dispatches From Palestine: the Rise and Fall of the Oslo Peace Process”

By Graham Usher, 1999

Graham Usher is a British journalist whose experience with Palestine is long and runs deep. He first experienced Palestine in Gaza in 1985, where he spent 2 months teaching English to Palestinian refugees. A teacher in his native England, he connected the struggle of Palestinians to the struggles of his students at home, many of them immigrants and refugees of Iranian, Sri Lankan, Chilean and Kurdish descent.

Usher says he grew up inculcated with images of Palestinians as terrorists at worst, and freedom fighters at best. His experience in Gaza changed his perception of Palestine and Palestinians forever. Through time spent on the ground in the Occupied Territories, he grew to identify very deeply with the people of Gaza. Many of the pieces contained in the collection reflect the stories he heard from ordinary Palestinians. Thus, Usher takes seriously the tenet of journalism’s social responsibility theory: to give voice to the voiceless and bear witness to their struggles. According to Usher, he seeks to provide context, not “scoops.” He wants to understand why certain things have happened, and where things are headed.

The pieces contained in this collection were originally published in Race and Class, al-Ahram Weekly, the Journal of Palestine Studies, and Middle East International. The collection contains in-depth interviews, feature stories, and in-depth political analysis. Usher makes clear his political position in relation to the question of Israel/Palestine in the book’s introduction. He uses words like “outrage,” “carnage,” “apartheid,” and “supremacism” to describe Zionism, Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, and the 1982 Lebanon war. In fact, Usher asserts that until Zionist “supremacism” is overcome, Palestinians and Israelis cannot coexist as equals, whether together as citizens, or separately as sovereignties. Thus, he acknowledges his book will be read with bias. In fact, he openly declares himself an anti-Zionist writer.

Despite this, Usher asserts that he attempts to adhere the journalistic principle of including many perspectives and utilizing a variety of sources. He offers interviews with revisionist historian Ilan Pappe, former Israeli Labour Cabinet member Yossi Beilin, Marwan Barghouti of Fatah, Palestinian-Israeli activist Azmi Bishara, Aryeh Deri from the Shas party, and Ibrahim Ghoshah of Hamas. He also carefully traces the connection between the use of Palestinian violence and increased Israeli repression during the Oslo era. His writings display a deep knowledge of Palestinian, Israeli and regional politics, no doubt acquired from extensive time spent on the ground. And this is what makes this collection so valuable: Usher was in Israel and the occupied territories before, during and after Oslo. This enabled him to get a good sense of the mindset of Palestinians, and what was happening on the ground throughout all of these phases. It also puts him in the position of being able to legitimately discuss the effects of the Oslo process, and I believe entitles him to his assessments of and opinions on Palestine.

Some take away points from the Collection

Usher asserts that the Palestinian mood after the signing of the Declaration of Principles (DOP) was one of fear and uncertainty about the future. The majority of Palestinians accepted the DOP, preferring it to bloodshed, but this acceptance came from a place of weakness, and with the understanding that eventual statehood would emerge from Oslo. On numerous occasions, Usher and those he interviewed, asserted that if these hopes were dashed, the forces unleashed from this, and from Oslo as a whole, were completely unpredictable.

One of the most notable aspects of the DOP was the shift it produced from direct Israeli military rule in the Occupied Territories to indirect or neocolonial forms of domination. This meant the burden of providing security was largely transferred from the Israeli military to the Palestinians. According to Usher’s interview with Ilan Pappe, the primary purpose of Oslo for Israel was reaching an agreement without reopening the issues of the 1948 war. Thus, there was a huge difference in negotiating positions between the Israelis and Palestinians. The Palestinians were demanding the right of return for the refugees, and a viable Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital; all issues which were rooted in the 1948 portion of the conflict.

However, what Israel found in the PLO was an entity willing to accept, from a position of weakness, an agreement on Israel’s terms. Those terms sought to replace the issues stemming from 1948 with 1967 issues: settlements, borders and the prospect of a demilitarized Palestinian state. Additionally, Pappe asserted that the main problem with Oslo was not written in its text, but resided in its spirit. The interim period of Oslo was not a waiting period that would lead to Palestinian statehood; it was a probation period. The test was the PLO’s ability to safeguard Israel’s security concerns. If it was able to pass this test, then the final status negotiations (the 1948 issues) could commence. Thus, according to Pappe, Oslo embodied the immense imbalance in power between the two parties. That is to say, Israel could do what it wanted during the interim period; most notably continue building and subsidizing settlements. Arafat, on the other hand, could not discuss the 1948 issues, which the Palestinian people were not willing to compromise on.

This design left Arafat and the PLO in a tough and weak position, and left them vulnerable to the violent interference of Hamas. Under the DOP, Arafat was responsible for reigning Hamas in. However, when Hamas began launching attacks within Israel, which was beyond the PLO’s scope of security, it sent a message to both Arafat and former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin: there is no agreement without Hamas. The tension this caused between the PLO and Hamas brought them to the brink of civil war on numerous occasions – a precursor of the events we witnessed following the Palestinian elections of 2006, and the bloody takeover of Hamas in Gaza in 2007.

Yet the Islamist Palestinian parties, including Hamas, recognized that the signing of the DOP was irreversible. They sought reconciliation with PLO and in April 1994, they signed a non-belligerence accord. Publically, Rabin threw a fit that Arafat accepted the agreement without condemning Palestinian terror attacks on civilians. However, privately the Israeli government, particularly former Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, expressed willingness to negotiate with Hamas if it renounced violence.

However, Hamas had its own conditions for renouncing violence. It offered a ceasefire in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders, the disarming of settlers as a prelude to the dismantling of all settlements, the release of Palestinian prisoners, and election of a sovereign body that would represent all Palestinians. Israel rejected this, however it served to highlight the deficiencies of the DOP. In turn, this placed Hamas within Palestinian Nationalist discourse through its de facto recognition of Israel on the 1967 borders. As the failures of Oslo became more apparent, support for Hamas and its tactics increased.

Usher’s collection delves into another important aspect of Oslo: the formation of the Palestinian police forces. Many different branches were developed under and according to the DOP, but with no overarching structure. Therefore, it was not possible to clearly define roles and responsibilities. The result is that the Palestinian police forces operated more as militias; they were not subject to judicial scrutiny. Here, parallels to the way Israeli occupation forces operate in the territories should be noted. Like Israeli forces, the Palestinian police forces arrest and round people up with out charge or trial; they permit the use of secret evidence in courts; they often refuse to allow legal representation and family visits; torture is common; and cases were judged by military personnel (Israel judges Palestinian cases in military courts). Moreover, verdicts were the sole prerogative of Arafat. Thus, the DOP exacerbated the authoritarian tendencies already inherent in Arafat.

Finally, the DOP also had severe implications for the Palestinian economy. The agreement stemmed the flow of Palestinians entering Israel for work, increasing unemployment in both Gaza and the West Bank. Additionally, Israel moved to curb the trade of Palestinian goods in world markets. Therefore Palestinians could only trade their goods with Israel. This benefitted the Israeli economy, but created a deepened dependency of the Palestinian economy on Israel’s.

It is interesting to read this collection now, nearly 18 years after the signing of the DOP. For the most part, the system and structures described above remain in tact. Oslo has since been exposed as an agreement that further entrenched Israeli control and domination of the Occupied Territories. Israeli settlements have continued to grow and expand unabated, and the system of bypass roads that serve the settlements have further cantonized Palestine. The only difference is that Hamas now rules Gaza, and the PLO, particularly after the fallout from the Palestine Papers, has lost most of its legitimacy with the people. Usher’s collection is a good read for background on the Oslo era, particularly to understand  its consequences, which can be clearly seen in the situation on the ground today.

Ninety-four percent of men who rape will never spend a day in jail. That statistic, according to the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, applies to a Sam Hughes resident, who a woman says raped her at 3 a.m. on April 24, 2009.

She agreed to sleep over at his house after a night of drinking with him. The victim told police she pretended to be asleep during the assault because she felt afraid he would hurt her. She later drove herself home and took a shower before calling the police.

However, like many women who have been raped, she chose not to press charges. Despite vast improvements in legislation, advocacy, and DNA testing since the birth of the anti-rape movement, sexual assault still gets ensnarled within blurry definitions of consent and shameful stigmas. Women remain reluctant to report cases of rape, and seek prosecution.

FBI uniform crime statistics recorded 88,097 forcible rapes in the U.S. in 2009, with a per capita rate of 28.7 per 100,000 people, an apparent reduction from 1992, which saw the highest per capita rate of 42.8. The FBI estimated 21,407 arrests for forcible rape in 2009, a rate of about 25 percent.

Accordingly, Arizona had 2,110-recorded rapes for 2009 in Arizona with a per capita rate of 32.0, and 226 total arrests, a rate of about 11 percent. Tucson recorded 204 rapes reported in 2009.

However the FBI statistics utilize the oldest definition of rape around. They define rape as “the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.” This definition does not include forced oral or anal sex, penetration with objects, sexual assault against men or by women, and does not account for the high number of cases that go unreported.

Therefore it provides only a small window through which to view the pervasiveness of sexual assault. The U.S. Justice Department estimates that 60 percent of victims never report their rape to police.

Angela Baldasare, former director of community education and outreach at the Southern Arizona Center Against Sexual Assault, said under-reporting is largely due to “misinformation and rape myths within our culture that are pretty deeply embedded, and that serve as justifications for sexual violence.”

Some of these rape myths remain deeply embedded, particularly the idea that women somehow deserve to be sexually assaulted. “Either they’re asking for it, they wanted it, or they put themselves in dangerous situations; therefore it’s their fault. Those kinds of things really still act to stigmatize the victim,” Baldasare said.

According to the National Institute for Justice 2005 report on sexual assault on college campuses, 1 in 5 young women experience rape during their college career. Half of all student victims do not label the incident “rape,” and in 80 – 90 percent of these cases, the victim and assailant know each other, the report said.

It’s mostly not “the stranger lurking in the bushes” that commits the majority of sexual assaults in the U.S., though that certainly can and does continue to happen.

“Typically what we see are sexual assaults that arise through a social setting. They met someone through a friend or online, so there is a basic relationship there,” Sgt. Juan Alvarez of the University of Arizona Police Departmentsaid. Alvarez also said that more often than not, alcohol is involved.

“That’s where the line gets blurry. Those cases are hard to prosecute because it’s difficult to determine if there was consent or not, especially if the parties were too intoxicated,” Alvarez said. However, Arizona state law says a person who is incapacitated, even by self-induced intoxication, can’t give consent.

“We need to find the actual evidence that sexual assault occurred. Bruising, tearing, ejaculation, a used condom somewhere, statements from witnesses, and forensic evidence – we try to get the whole picture. If we can develop probable cause then we’ll make an arrest,” Alvarez said.

DNA testing and “rape kits” are useful in gathering evidence that sexual assault occurred, and can help verify a victim’s story. Yet even with the advent of DNA testing, arrests and prosecutions for sexual assault remain low. One possible reason for this? An extraordinary number of DNA samples collected from rape kits don’t get tested.

In Nov. 2009 CBS News Chief Investigative Correspondent Armen Keteylanuncovered thousands of untested rape kits sitting in storage. According to the report, the arrest rate for sexual assault in the U.S. in 2008 was 25 percent. However, the arrest rate was 70 percent in New York City. Why? Because they test every rape kit.

In 2000, U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner D-N.Y., initiated the DNA Backlog Elimination Act, which secured nearly $1 million in federal funding for the first time for rape kit testing in addition to the $12 million in funding that came from New York City.

Weiner also co-authored the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2002 with U.S. Vice President Joe Biden. It provides $25 million in federal funding per year to help eliminate the DNA backlog. As a result of this legislation, New York City has eliminated its DNA backlog.

However, many experts believe greater diligence in testing DNA plays only one part in addressing the issue of sexual assault. In cases where the victim and offender know each other and the offender acknowledges sexual contact, DNA evidence becomes irrelevant. In these cases, the primary issue becomes consent, and prosecutors remain reluctant to pursue these cases.

Deputy Pima County Attorney Susan Eazer, supervisor of the special victims unit responsible for prosecuting sexual assault cases said “most of these cases usually never make it past investigation.”

Eazer said when deciding which cases to pursue, they’ll only go after cases that have a substantial likelihood of obtaining a conviction. “In many (acquaintance rape) cases, I know that no matter how hard we fight, no matter how credible the victim is, the jury is not going to convict,” Eazer said.

This is where those long-standing rape myths factor in, and why women remain reluctant to report cases of acquaintance rape. Moreover, Eazer said she’s seen the re-victimization and vilification of victims during the prosecution process destroy women’s lives.

Eazer also said she believes we have yet to experience the cultural shift that views sexual assault as a serious crime, particularly within our own justice system and in the minds of jury members.

In this regard, Erin Strange, the violence prevention specialist with theOASIS Program for Sexual Assault and Relationship Violence at the University of Arizona said she thinks we are fighting “an uphill battle.”

While she sees the importance of encouraging women to report sexual assault to police, her focus with the OASIS program revolves around the idea of prevention through education and advocacy, and teaching women how to protect themselves and reduce the risk factors.

She also indicated a great need to educate men. “Going forward I think what we need to do is focus on that idea of consent, and really give people clues as to what it means and how you know you have it. And if you are ever confused, you have to ask,” Strange said.

Strange says she feels overwhelmed when she thinks about trying to change the larger culture, but feels empowered and able to make a difference on a community level.

Maintaining a presence and “getting out there” on campus and in the community to raise awareness and talk about these issues is key, she said. “We’re trying to reach as many people (on campus) as possible because what they learn here then goes out into the community and it’s a trickle effect,” Strange said.

One in 3 women in the U.S. will have at least 1 abortion before the age of 45.

That statistic, from the Center for Reproductive Rights, can be attributed to the 1973 Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion for all women in the U.S.

Yet since that landmark ruling, anti-abortion groups have been working diligently. In the absence of an outright reversal on Roe, they’ve been chipping away bit by bit at the ability of women to access abortion, at both the federal and the state levels. And the chips are adding up, particularly over the last few years.

As a result of these efforts, abortion is inaccessible to millions of American women, primarily low-income women. And with the results of the recent midterm elections, it looks as though abortion might become even more inaccessible.

On that note, some experts say they see signs indicating we might be entering a new era in the struggle for abortion rights.

For the first time since 1995, 3 consecutive Gallup Polls on abortion have found that more Americans, 47 percent, identify as anti-abortion, while only 45 percent support abortion rights. The May 14, 2010 Gallup Poll concluded that although the margin is small, a real shift is taking place in public opinion on this issue.

However, it’s not just a shift in public opinion. States are placing increasingly restrictive limitations on access to abortion, including here in Ariz., that has some abortion rights advocates worried.

“I do think there is a concern. The right wing is becoming more right wing, and it’s harder to find a good middle ground,” Lisa Pearlstein, Health and Reproductive Rights Fellow at the National Women’s Law Center said.

At least 5 of our newly elected state representatives believe life begins at conception. They want to see abortion criminalized, and would make no exceptions, even in cases of rape and incest. Protecting the life of the mother doesn’t seem to be a dependable compromise on this issue anymore, either.

State representative-elects Frank Guinta (R-N.H.), Francisco Canseco (R-Tex.), Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), Mike Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), and Todd Young (R-Ind.) wouldn’t make exceptions for abortion even if the life of the mother were in danger.

This is not just rhetoric. More restrictive beliefs on abortion are being woven into legislation that limit access to abortion at both the federal and state levels.

Part of President Barack Obama’s health care plan, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which passed earlier this year, will require each state to set up an insurance exchange by 2014. The uninsured will be required to purchase insurance from them.

Each individual state will be responsible for setting up the exchanges, and will determine what gets covered and how it will be funded.

“One of the biggest debates right now is whether abortion will be covered under these exchanges,” Pearlstein said.

Under the Nelson Amendment, Pearlstein says that, “each state can pass a law that prohibits abortion coverage in the entire exchange. These laws can’t be challenged. The Affordable Care Act specifically says that states can do this.”

Arizona was the first state to pass such a law. In April, Ariz. Gov. Jan Brewer signed SB 1305, which prohibits the use of public funds to cover abortions, except if the mother’s life is in danger, but not in cases of rape or incest. It will also opt Ariz. out of providing coverage for abortions in the state’s exchange as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee and Louisiana also passed similar laws. Both the Tenn. and La. laws make no exceptions for rape or incest, or for the health of the mother. Pearlstein said she expects to see many more states passing similar laws in 2011.

Yet, anti-abortion advocates here in Ariz. were pleased with SB 1305. “It’s a good start in prohibiting our tax dollars from being used to fund abortions,” said Jinny Perron, former president of Arizona Right to Life.  Calling abortion “America’s Holocaust,” Perron added that although she was pleased with the legislation, the best scenario would be “legislation that would eliminate the legality of abortion altogether.”

This raises an interesting question concerning the likelihood of criminalizing abortion across the board. If Roe were overturned, jurisdiction on abortion would return to the state. However, there’s currently no consensus on when Roe could be overturned, and if it were, what might happen on a state-by-state basis.

“Some people think that if Roe were overturned, there would be slow reinstatement of abortion rights, state by state. I think the current political climate makes that unlikely. Rather, there would again be some states that protected the right and others that did not. So women would again have to travel to get these services,” said Toni Massaro, riepe chair in constitutional law at the James E. Rogers College of Law at the University of Arizona.

Yet Massaro also pointed out that Roe has been narrowed in recent years, and most experts now look to Gonzales v. Carhart to reflect the current state of the law on abortion. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to outlaw what some call the “partial-birth abortion” procedure. The ruling made an exception to protect the life of the mother, but not the health of the mother.

According to a May, 2007 article in the New England Journal of Medicine, this was the first time the Supreme Court permitted congressional judgment to replace medical judgment. Prior to that, the Court upheld the importance of non-interference in physicians’ medical judgments in protecting a patient’s health. The significance of this ruling is being felt at the state level.

Massaro says this is because, “as the court retreats, it gives the states more legislative leeway to impose restrictions on reproductive rights.”

This has emboldened those pushing for tougher anti-abortion legislation. In the coming years Massaro says, “we can expect to see legislation designed to test, indeed to exceed, the existing limits on state legislative power to regulate abortion.”

“There is no doubt that the political pressure to write increasingly strict laws regarding the woman’s right to choose is a major development,” Massaro said.

This does indeed seem to be a major development. Anti-abortion advocates within the political sphere have traditionally only been able to restrict the use of federal funds for abortions. The Hyde Amendment, passed in 1976, accomplished this.

Former U.S. Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) sponsored the budget amendment, which prohibited Medicaid from covering abortions. Before the Hyde Amendment, Medicaid paid for almost one-third, approximately 300,000, of abortions annually.

This result of the Hyde Amendment is that the most vulnerable, low-income women, often can’t access abortion because they can’t afford to pay out of pocket for abortion services. The Guttmacher Institute estimates that 18 – 35 percent of women who would have had an abortion carried their pregnancies to term after the Hyde Amendment cut off federal funding for abortions.

Additionally, the Hyde Amendment now also prohibits coverage of abortion in the military’s TRICARE program, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, federal prisons, Indian Health Service, the Peace Corps, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. This leaves millions more American women to fend for themselves if they want or need an abortion.

The original text of the Hyde Amendment made no exceptions for abortion. However abortion rights advocates challenged the amendment, and were able to include exceptions for cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother. This has generally been the acceptable compromise, but that is changing now, too.

Pearlstein says she sees a shift taking place with states now going after private insurance companies, and not just public funds anymore, to prevent them from covering abortion. Moreover, the traditional exceptions are often not being incorporated into state-level legislation. “That’s what’s new and what’s really scary right now,” Pearlstein said.

Additionally, the numbers of restrictive laws states are passing are on the rise. “Every year, quite a few states propose quite a few bills, some 500 – 600 bills per year, that would impact women’s reproductive rights. However, in the past few years, particularly in 2010, we saw quite a few of these bills pass… particularly in Oklahoma, which passed 7 anti choice bills, and also in Nebraska,” Jordan Goldberg, state advocacy council with the Center for Reproductive rights said.

“It’s important to understand that states have enormous power to impact women’s access to reproductive health care,” Goldberg added.

Idaho, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Missouri, and North Dakota have all passed laws banning all insurance coverage of abortion. And Arizona has passed some very restrictive laws in recent years, in addition to SB 1305.

In 2009, Ariz. passed SB 2564. The bill requires a woman to wait at least 24 hours before obtaining an abortion after her first trip to the abortion provider. As a result, women must make multiple trips to the doctor.

The bill also allows a pharmacies, hospitals and health professionals to abstain from providing abortion services and prescribing abortion medication or emergency contraception, if they object to these practices on moral or religious grounds.

The bill also carried other requirements that have since been enjoined, such as having minors present notarized permission slips from their parents in order to obtain an abortion.

It also stated that physicians tell their patients in person that assistance benefits may be available for prenatal care, childbirth and neonatal care, that the father of the child is liable to assist in the support of the child, and that public and private agencies are available to assist a woman during her pregnancy and after childbirth, if she chooses not to have an abortion.  This part of the bill has also been enjoined.

Opponents of the bill, such as Planned Parenthood say it further restricts a woman’s ability to access reproductive health care, and that the impact will be most severe among low-income women.

“Eighty-seven percent of counties do not have an abortion provider in Ariz. So, you’ll have to make an appointment, go to the provider, and then come back 24 hours later. You’ll have to stay somewhere, pay for travel expenses, food, etc. By setting up these barriers, the residual effect is that it impacts low-income women more. These kinds of barriers always impact the poor disproportionately, always,” said Michelle Steinberg, director of public policy with Planned Parenthood Arizona.

Yet groups like Arizona Right to Life and the Center for Arizona Policy strongly support such legislation, saying it empowers women to make better choices about reproductive health. These groups also play a significant role in shaping and helping to pass anti-abortion legislation in Ariz.

And according to Perron, these groups feel more empowered now that they have a governor who will sign anti-abortion legislation into law.

So is there any room left for negotiation or compromise on this issue? Would a conflict resolution approach help to navigate this highly polarized and divisive issue? Don’t count on it.

“Opinions on abortion are non-negotiable.  They speak the core identity of each person, and to change or compromise one’s position is to change or compromise one’s identity, one’s very personality,” said Brien Hallet, associate professor in Peace and Conflict Resolution at the University of Hawaii.

“Conversion, as Paul on the road to Damascus, is possible and happens, but a sit down negotiation to resolve a difference on this issue is not possible,” Hallett said.

It seems Hallett might be correct. Abortion rights groups, such as the National Women’s Law Center, have vowed to continue the struggle to protect a woman’s right to access abortion. “We are working to ensure that Roe v. Wade is never overturned, and working on a daily basis to ensure that women have access to reproductive healthcare,” Pearlstein said.

As for the other side, there doesn’t seem to be any room to budge there either.

“An anti-abortion agenda should always override choice, because what we are talking about is an act of violence that kills a child and harms a woman. There is no room for compromise. No one has the right to determine who should live and who should die in the name of choice.  Abortion is never a solution.” Perron said.