On July 7, a truck exploded in the Iraqi town of Amerli.  Estimates of causalities vary; however the local police reported 140 people are dead, 20 are missing, and more than 270 were injured.  The truck carried over two tons of explosives and was set off during the busy hours of the local market.  The explosion left a twelve foot crater and destroyed more than 50 houses and 45 shops.  Many of the causalities resulted from inhabitants being crushed as the buildings collapsed.  Rescuers worked to remove victims from the rubble and to transport the injured to hospitals.

While no group has claimed responsibility for the bomb, government officials, both Iraqi and American, blame Sunni insurgents, like Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. 

In addition to this attack, the past two days saw an increase in violence across all of Iraq.  On July 8, another car bomb exploded in the town of Haswa, located 30 miles west of Baghdad; killing 20 new army recruits and wounding 27 others.  Two more car bombs exploded in Baghdad on July 9, killing twelve and wounding 35.

In addition, 29 unidentified bodies have been found in Baghdad on July 8; among them were the bodies of twelve abducted factory workers.  Officials believe that the workers were on their way home when Shia militants stopped the vehicle and then separated the Sunni workers from their Shia colleagues.  Of the group that was abducted, nine are still missing.

The recent increase in violence caused some Iraqi lawmakers to call for civilians to be given weapons and training to protect themselves.  Prior to July 7, local officials and residents of Amerli asked for an increased police force to provide protection against such attacks.  Many citizens are frustrated with the lack of security against sectarian violence.  Abbas al-Bayati, a Shiite Turkoman lawmaker, stated that in the absence of effective policing, residents should be able to take up arms and provide their own protection.

These sentiments were echoed by Sunni Arab vice president, Tariq al-Hashemi.  He stated that when the police and army are unable to protect civilians, that they have the right to defend themselves.  This idea has had a mixed reception among Iraqis.  Some Iraqis are frustrated by the lack of protection and feel that they cannot count on Iraqi police to provide the necessary security.  Others fear that arming civilians would lead to more sectarian violence and thereby decrease overall security.

For more information please see:

BBC:  “Abducted Iraqi Sunnis found dead”  9 July 2007. 

CNN:  “12 killed in Baghdad area attacks”  9 July 2007. 

The Independent:  “Iraqi politicians call on civilians to arm themselves”  9 July 2007. 

Washington Post:  “In Iraqi hamlet, ‘a funeral service in every house’” 9 July 2007. 

BBC:  “Iraqi PM slams ‘heinous’ bombers”  8 July 2007. 

NY Times:  “Around 150, death toll in Iraq attack among the war’s worst”  8 July 2007. 

Reuters:  “Iraq truck bomb death toll may be 150”  8 July 2007. 

Al Jazeera:  “‘More than 150’ dead in Iraq blast”  7 July 2007. 

CNN:  “At least 117 killing in Iraqi village market blast”  7 July 2007.

In June, an Islamic leader issued a fatwa against liberal Muslims.  Sheik Saleh al-Fozan said, “Calling oneself a liberal Muslim is a contradiction in terms … one should repent before God for such ideas in order to be a real Muslim.”  (Reuters)  The edict has caused liberal Muslims to fear attacks from Islamic militants. 

A fatwa is a religious edict issued by an Islamic cleric.  Typically, a fatwa is used to express disapproval against someone whose actions contradict the issuing cleric’s interpretation of Sharia law.  Sometimes violence follows the issuing of a fatwa.  This happens when militant followers enforce the fatwa by killing the target of the edict.  For example, in 1989 a fatwa was issued against Salman Rushdie. Although, he has survived the fatwa by going underground for many years, some of his book Satanic Verses translators were killed, as well as his Norwegian publisher. Also, 37 people died while his Turkish translator was targeted.

For this reason the Liberal Muslims are fearful that violence will ensue from this fatwa. “Even if his (Fozan) intention is not calling for violence, the implication is violence,” replied Turki al-Hamad.  (Reuters)  Hamad is a novelist targeted by Saudi Islamists because of his desire to expand the freedom of the individual. 

Saudi conservative Muslims are conflicting with liberal Muslims on whether the influence of the clerics should be limited.  The liberals also desire to limit the Saudi royal family’s power through implementing parliamentary elections.  The discord between the factions of Islam could cause violence amongst the factions.  If this happens it is likely that the Saudi government would have to intercede and the Royal Family would seize the opportunity to cement its power.  If the discord does not lead to open violence, it could create the necessary tension to limit the influence of radical militant clerics. 

Reuters. Saudi fatwa against liberals raise fears of violence. 8 July 2007.
Fars News Agency. Enemies seek to Sow Religious Discord among Muslims. 7 July 2007.
CNN. Iran dissacociates itself from Rushdie death sentence. 24 September 1998.

On July 4, Alan Johnston was released after spending 16 weeks in captivity.  His car was found in Gaza on March 12.  Prior to being kidnapped, he spent three years as the BBC’s permanent correspondent in Gaza.  For 114 days, Johnston was held captive by the Army of Islam, led by the Doghmush clan.  The group demanded the release of Muslim prisoners in British custody in exchange for Johnston’s freedom.

According to Johnston, he was held in four different locations, two for only a short period of time.  While Johnston was kept in chains and taunted by his captors, he reported that he was not physically harmed until the last half hour of his ordeal.  He was able to track global demonstrations for his release by listening to the radio and these demonstrations were a source of comfort for him.

Also, Johnston stated that Hamas played a large role in his release.  Prior to Hamas’s takeover of Gaza, his kidnappers were calm.  However after Hamas gained control of Gaza his kidnappers became increasingly nervous.  While the Army of Islam had associated with Hamas in the past, Hamas neither encouraged nor condoned the group’s kidnapping of Johnston.  After Hamas gained control of Gaza, its goal was to restore the laws and wanted to secure the release of Johnston.

After Hamas gained control of Gaza, it immediately called for Johnston’s release.  Hamas’s military wing was deployed to the areas where the Dugmush clan’s presence was strong.   However, instead of using pure military force and engaging the Army of Islam in direct conflict, Hamas cut of water and electricity and detained at least five members of the Army of Islam.  While details of his release is still unclear, it is known that Johnston was escorted from a building and driven directly to the house of Ismail Haniya, the recently fired Palestinian Prime Minister.  Later, he arrived at the British Consulate in Jerusalem, where he gave a press conference and rested before returning Britain.

For their role in securing Johnston’s release, Hamas may experience an improved international reception.  Since 2005, when they won a majority in the Palestinian parliament, the Quartet (the US, UN, EU, and Russia) and other western countries refused to work with Hamas.  However, shortly after news of Johnston’s release reached the UK, twenty British MPs signed a motion, calling for greater engagement with Hamas.  The motion recognized that Hamas played a pivotal role in Johnston’s release and that showed that they should be included in reconciliation efforts.  It remains too soon to gauge whether Hamas will be treated differently by the UK or by the members of the Quartet.

 

For more information please see:
Al Jazeera:  “Johnston case ‘exposes hypocrisy’” 5 July 2007. 

BBC:  “MP urging engagement with Hamas”  5 July 2007. 

Christian Science Monitor:  “Hamas acts to show it’s in charge”  5 July 2007. 

Haaretz: “Hamas delivers proof, at last”  5 July 2007. 

London Times:  “‘I literally dreamt of being free, and always woke up in that room’”  5 July 2007. 

BBC:  “Hamas role in Johnston’s release”  4 July 2007. 

BBC:  “Timeline Alan Johnston abduction”  4 July 2007. 

BBC:  “BBC’s Alan Johnston is released”  4 July 2007. 

BBC:  “Hamas seeks to gain from release”  4 July 2007.

BBC:  “Hamas arrests over BBC reporter”  2 July 2007. 

The Jerusalem Post:  “Johnston released from 4 month captivity”  4 July 2007. 

The Jerusalem Post:  “Hamas hopes for legitimacy after Johnston’s release”  4 July 2007.

New York Times:  “No fast gain for Hamas after release of journalist”  4 July 2007.

New York Times:  “BBC journalist freed in Gaza”  4 July 2007.

        Lakshmi Parvathi is an Indian immigrant worker in Bahrain.  She was hired by her sponsor as a maid. Recently, she was found in tattered clothing wandering the streets of Bahrain, following her attempted escape from her employer.  This was the second time she was unsuccessful in her attempt to flee from her abusive sponsor and return to her husband in Andhra Pradesh.  Previously, the police captured her and returned Parvathi to her employer.  The Indian Embassy would not issue her a return ticket, because she had not completed her year long obligation to the employer.  Therefore, she was not legally entitled to a ticket.  Additionally, she was unable to purchase a ticket on her own, because her employer had withheld three months of her wages. 
    Migrant workers are regularly mistreated in the Middle East.  The migrant workers, usually from Asia, are drawn to higher paying salaries.  The wages are usually around $4 for menial jobs. The workers are mostly women.  They usually work as maids at homes and cook, clean, and take care of children.  In exchange for their services, their sponsors provide the workers with housing and transportation.  Thus, the women send their salaries back to support their families. 
    The migrants are in weak positions to stand up for themselves.  Many of the nations fiercely protect their citizens and are repressive toward the migrant workers.  Therefore, it is difficult for the workers protect themselves from their sponsors’ abuse.  For example, when a migrant complains against her employers, it is easy for the employer to retaliate by making a false accusation against the worker.  The sponsors’ word is almost automatically trusted and the worker is quickly tossed in jail.  Once released from jail, the worker is returned to her employer to finish her obligation.  Also, it is difficult for the employee to protest that she is not being compensated her scheduled amount. The reason is that the employer can hesitate to pay the woman until the fulfillment of their obligation.  Immediately, upon the termination of the agreement happen, the woman’s visa expires expelling her from the country, and further isolating the employer from repercussions of the withheld payment.
    The local governments must protect these women.  Abusive sponsors have taken advantage of these women by beating them and also withholding payment from them.  The sponsors need to be made accountable for their actions.  This could be done by the Asian embassies issuing the visas to the sponsors by taking a more proactive approach to protecting their citizens.  For example, each sponsor should have to go to through a verification process.  Thus, it will at least protect the women from serial abusers.  Also, it should charge the sponsors a certain premium on the issuance of the visa to pay for an exit interview of the migrant workers.  The other solution for the women is to place outside pressure on the Middle Eastern countries to monitor the abusive employers.
Gulf Daily News. Maid found wandering in the street. 5 July 2007.
Bits of News. Migrant Workers in the Middle East. 2 July 2007.
Independent Online.  Migrants and the Middle East: Welcome to the other side of Dubai. 28 March 2006.
Middle East Report Online. “Model Employees:” Sri Lankan domestics in Lebanon.

On June 29, hundreds of Palestinians staged a protest and marched three miles from Baddawi camp to Nahr al-Bared.  Most protesters were Palestinian refugees who fled the Nahr al-Bared camp after fighting began in late May.  The purpose of the protest was to regain access to their home.  Many fear that the damage resulting from the heavy fighting will prevent them from returning to their homes. 

During the march, Lebanese soldiers fired on the protesters, killing two and wounding many more.  Witnesses stated that when marchers drew close to an army checkpoint, the soldiers fired in the air above them.  When the crowd did not disperse, soldiers fired their weapons at the protesters.  While witnesses and protesters stated that the march was a peaceful demonstration, the Lebanese army issued a statement that marchers attacked the soldiers with sticks and knives. 

For more information please see:
ABC News:  “2 shot dead in refugee protest in Lebanon”  30 June 2007. 

New York Times:  “Lebanese troops kill 2 Palestinian protesters and wound 30”  30 June 2007. 

BBC:  “Lebanese army ‘kills protesters’”  29 June 2007. 

Guardian:  “2 Reported killed in Northern Lebanon”  29 June 2007. 

Reuters:  “Lebanese troops fire at Palestinian protest, 2 die”  29 June 2007. 

VOA News:  “Lebanese army fires at protesters outside Palestinian camp”  29 June 2007.