Respondents in three countries favoured taking the Palestinian side (not surprisingly these were Egypt, Iran, and Turkey). India remained divided. No country favoured taking Israel’s side, including the United States, where 71 percent favor taking neither side.

A majority of people in Muslim majority countries (Indonesia, Nigeria and Azerbaijan), rejected taking sides, as did the EU countries covered by the survey (Britain, France, Spain).

There was also significant support for the UN to be more involved through the use of peacekeepers.

(Via Glenn Greenwald, who also discusses what these sorts of views mean for American politics.)

The FAC said there should be a thorough analysis of interrogation techniques used by the US given the differences in how torture is defined by the two countries. The committee also reminded the government that it was under a legal obligation to ensure flights entering UK airspace or land at UK airports are not used for extraordinary rendition, even if there are no detainees on board (e.g. refueling).

The report also called on the government to investigate Pakistan’s role in torturing British suspects who have dual (British/Pakistani) nationality.

The full report by the FAC can be found online (pdf).

Glenn Greenwald has some more on this from an American perspective.

In Turkey, 700 academics have filed a case against the government to stem the increasing presence of creationism in science classes. Teachers and academics are concerned that a powerful creationist lobby is exerting more and more influence on the country’s government […] And, this war between theology and science is creating some strange bed fellows as US Christian fundamentalists are joining forces with Muslim creationists in an effort to change the teachings in Turkey’s classrooms.

The radio programme discusses the involvement of the American creationists, and in particular The Discovery Institute, involved in the Turkish creationist movement. American creationists see their Muslim counterparts as allies in their battle against Darwinism.

The documentary also highlights how the Turkish military dictatorship in the 1980s intended to use American creationist material to combat left-wing political movements.

(Via an emailer.)

Some lump together all forms of Islamism as a deadly enemy, akin to fascism and communism. A more accurate analysis, and a better strategy, would be to disaggregate the problems. The rhetoric of the “global war” on terrorism only strengthens global jihad. As the West learns the limits of force, it is Muslims, not foreign soldiers, who will defeat al-Qaeda.

As the FaithWorld blogger, Aziz El-Kaissouni, notes, this is a good example how Muslim states enlist “Islamic scholars into echoing the government’s grievances with an added Islamic flavour”. No Orientalism here, I am afraid. The more uncomfortable truth may be that a major Muslim institution is acting in the service of an autocratic regime (with the added phenomenon that it is ‘nationalising’ itself further).

Iran has responded by saying the film does no represent the official view of the state and has been made by a “private organisation”. On this point, El-Kaissouni notes:

[Iran’s official stance regarding the documentary] is one of the cultural issues that pops up every time something like this happens. During the Danish cartoons controversy, various figures in the religious or political establishments of Muslim countries demanded the offending paper and artists be prosecuted. They seemed to operate on the assumption that all states can control media output in their countries, as many Muslim and Arab governments do.

I don’t know if this response by Arab religious and political establishment figures can be necessarily called a ‘cultural issue’. I suggest it is more likely these establishment figures are interested in shoring up their political power. I do agree, however, that culture may play a part in what can or cannot be subjected to media scrutiny and intensity in different countries.

Brown depicted the then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon eating a Palestinian child during an election campaign. The cartoon came under fire for being antisemitic by invoking the blood libel slur against Jews. The Independent had to defend itself against (the admittedly toothless) Press Complaints Commission. Brown, and his defenders, argued they were satirising Sharon’s election campaign and Brown had alluded to Francisco Goya’s frightening painting, Saturn Devouring His Son, rather than an ancient anti-Jewish slur.

The critics agreed with Brown; his cartoon won an award that year.

(Perhaps more ’shocking’ would be the fact that as Saturn had to be eating his own children, then Sharon had to be eating one of his own too, i.e. the Palestinian child had to be his own.)

Prof James Pounder, the acting provost of Abu Dhabi University, who comes from Sheffield, thought there were dangers as Dubai became increasingly popular with – and affordable to – younger, less sophisticated people. It was not just that some would behave as badly as Ms Palmer and Mr Acors had allegedly done, he said; there was also likely to be a long-term impact on Emirati youth. Prof Pounder said when he moved to Hong Kong in 1984, local youngsters were quiet and demure; when he left 21 years later, they were thoroughly westernised.

The challenge facing Dubai and the rest of the UAE, he said, was to retain its traditional values. It would not be easy. “Young Emiratis will be influenced,” he said. “The question is, by how much and what can the country do about it?”

…what we also want to do is to shrink the pool of potential recruits. And that involves engaging the Islamic world rather than vilifying it, and making sure that we understand that not only are those in Islam who would resort to violence a tiny fraction of the Islamic world, but that also, the Islamic world itself is diverse.

And that lumping together Shia extremists with Sunni extremists, assuming that Persian culture is the same as Arab culture, that those kinds of errors in lumping Islam together result in us not only being less effective in hunting down and isolating terrorists, but also in alienating what need to be our long-term allies on a whole host of issues.

The African Union has warned against such a move, and some aid agencies expect a serious backlash against their staff.

The Economist seems more upbeat about these proposals.

Tomorrow, July 8th, could mark the beginning of official condoning of warrantless surveillance of law-abiding citizens in the US, not to mention foreign nationals.

1. ALL AMERICANS: Go to the EFF website here and put in your zipcode to find your Senator’s phone number. Call them and read the short script on the same page. If no answer, click the link at the bottom of the page to e-mail them.
(Tell others verbally to go to “www.eff.org” and click “take action”)

2. OBAMA SUPPORTERS: Go to My.BarackObama.com here and join the group requesting he oppose (as he did earlier) the amendment. This takes about 30 seconds. I suggest changing “ListServ” in the bottom right to “Do not receive e-mails.”
(Tell others verbally to search “obama please vote no” on Google and My.BarackObama.com will be in the top 3 results, currently #1)

Discuss.

The SI has been monitoring the CHP for its commitment to democratic principles since the summer of 2007.