An Arab American Comic Strip

Source: http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/index.php?mod=article&cat=Artamp;Culture&article=5960 , accessed September 18, 2012.

DC Comics’ Geoff Johns discusses new Arab American "Green Lantern" during visit to Dearborn

By Samer Hijazi

Friday, 09.14.2012, 11:17am

DEARBORN — Last week Geoff Johns, comic book writer and Chief Creative Officer of DC Comics returned to his home state of Michigan where he made some public appearances in Dearborn coming off DC Comics' announcement earlier this month that the comic book company's superhero "The Green Lantern" would be re-incarnated as an Arab American named Simon Baz who resides in Dearborn. 

Johns engages with fans during his visit to the museum last week.

Johns, born in Detroit, is half Lebanese and grew up in Grosse Pointe and Clarkston. As a child he discovered comic books in his grandmother's attic which quickly transformed into a passion for him. He studied Media Art, Screenwriting and Film Production at Michigan State University where he graduated in 1995 before moving to Los Angeles. During his earlier years there he worked on the production of a few Hollywood films including 1997's "Conspiracy Theory," staring Mel Gibson and Julia Roberts.

From there Johns was able to meet with DC Comics personnel and was given the opportunity to pitch ideas for the company, where he was heavily involved in the re-launch of DC's comic book "Teen Titans." Further down the road he became heavily involved in other DC comics titles which included "Aquaman" and an older incarnation of "The Green Lantern." John's work would also expand into television where he served as a writer on a few episodes of "Smallville," the popular long running series based on the early years of Superman.

Johns spoke with The Arab American News during his visit to Dearborn last Friday, saying that the updated version of  "The Green Lantern" had been in the works for about two years.

"I think diversifying our universe is really important to us.  So when I had the story of re-creating a new Green Lantern, I just thought maybe I'd look at my heritage and draw from that. Immediately the publishers and editors were on board. Diane Nelson, the president, approved it right away and they were very supportive of it," Johns stated during an interview before an autograph signing at Dearborn's Green Brian Comic Book store located on Michigan Ave., where dozens of comic book fans showed up for a meet and greet. 

Johns speaking at the Arab American National Museum

Additionally, the updated version of "The Green Lantern" comic book series, which was launched earlier this month with its first issue, will be partly set in Dearborn. The stories will revolve around Simon Baz, an out of work auto engineer who ends up as a car thief before the Green Lantern ring chooses him to be a "cosmic cop." Additionally the comics will tackle some of the struggles that the Arab-American community has been facing.  The first issue in the series begins with depicting Baz as a 10-year-old dealing with the current events of 9/11 and the toll it took on his Muslim family as well as his community. 

"A lot of it will take place in Dearborn. In the next issue there will be a scene that takes place on the roof of the Dearborn Music Building. His sister Sera, will also play a big role in the comics. She works at the Secretary of State," Johns added. 

The announcement of the new series has been well received in the Arab American community, coming as a surprise to many who had been used to the idea of a genre filled with dozens of superheroes that had previously been lacking in the diversity department. Last year, another major comic book company, Marvel Comics, was applauded for taking one of the first steps in diversifying their line-up, when they announced that Spiderman would be revamped  as a half Black-half Latino character for their new comic book series. But for the Arab and Muslim communities, an Arab American Muslim superhero is seen as a major step, especially in a post-9/11 era.

"In general, when you think about Arabs and Muslims in main roles in pop culture, they're always the villains,"  Linda Sarsour, executive director of the Arab American Association of New York told the New York Daily News earlier this week. "We're always the hijackers. We're always the bad people that the good American soldiers or CIA is trying to fight. To finally have the opportunity where the Arab-American can be the super hero, to be the one who saves people, is a lot more powerful an image," Sarsour added.   

Aside from an autograph signing and a meet and greet at the comic book store, Johns also gave a presentation at the Arab American National Museum located on Michigan Ave. on Saturday. He tells us that part of his visit back to Michigan was to speak to the youth and to encourage them to follow their dreams.

"I want to spread the message of how I got into the business...my twists and turns along the way and everything that I have done. The thing about comic books and writing in general is that there is no specific path or college course to take like other careers," Johns stated.  "But the truth of the matter is, whatever it is you have a passion for, you can succeed in it. All writers get rejected, and I remember my first pitch to DC Comics was rejected. There was a lot of struggle but it's just part of the business. Even Steven King was rejected, but don't let rejection deter you. You just need the drive to do it," Johns stated. 

Johns says while talks of a film adaption of the new Green Lantern are too soon to be put on the table (last year a film adaption starring Ryan Reynolds hit theaters and was considered a box office disappointment), the olive skin complected character, who will bear an Arabic tattoo on the same arm as his lantern ring, which stands for "courage," is expected to be turned into an action figure in 2013.  

Another chapter of the long story of U.S.-Israeli Relations

Thanks to Seth Anziska (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/a-preventable-massacre.html?pagewanted=all)

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

A Preventable Massacre

By SETH ANZISKA

Published: September 16, 2012

ON the night of Sept. 16, 1982, the Israeli military allowed a right-wing Lebanese militia to enter two Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut. In the ensuing three-day rampage, the militia, linked to the Maronite Christian Phalange Party, raped, killed and dismembered at least 800 civilians, while Israeli flares illuminated the camps’ narrow and darkened alleyways. Nearly all of the dead were women, children and elderly men.

Enlarge This Image

Edel Rodriguez

Multimedia

Interactive Feature

Declassified Documents Shed Light on a 1982 Massacre

Thirty years later, the massacre at the Sabra and Shatila camps is remembered as a notorious chapter in modern Middle Eastern history, clouding the tortured relationships among Israel, the United States, Lebanon and the Palestinians. In 1983, an Israeli investigative commission concluded that Israeli leaders were “indirectly responsible” for the killings and that Ariel Sharon, then the defense minister and later prime minister, bore “personal responsibility” for failing to prevent them.

While Israel’s role in the massacre has been closely examined, America’s actions have never been fully understood. This summer, at the Israel State Archives, I found recently declassified documents that chronicle key conversations between American and Israeli officials before and during the 1982 massacre. The verbatim transcripts reveal that the Israelis misled American diplomats about events in Beirut and bullied them into accepting the spurious claim that thousands of “terrorists” were in the camps. Most troubling, when the United States was in a position to exert strong diplomatic pressure on Israel that could have ended the atrocities, it failed to do so. As a result, Phalange militiamen were able to murder Palestinian civilians, whom America had pledged to protect just weeks earlier.

Israel’s involvement in the Lebanese civil war began in June 1982, when it invaded its northern neighbor. Its goal was to root out the Palestine Liberation Organization, which had set up a state within a state, and to transform Lebanon into a Christian-ruled ally. The Israel Defense Forces soon besieged P.L.O.-controlled areas in the western part of Beirut. Intense Israeli bombardments led to heavy civilian casualties and tested even President Ronald Reagan, who initially backed Israel. In mid-August, as America was negotiating the P.L.O.’s withdrawal from Lebanon, Reagan told Prime Minister Menachem Begin that the bombings “had to stop or our entire future relationship was endangered,” Reagan wrote in his diaries.

The United States agreed to deploy Marines to Lebanon as part of a multinational force to supervise the P.L.O.’s departure, and by Sept. 1, thousands of its fighters — including Yasir Arafat — had left Beirut for various Arab countries. After America negotiated a cease-fire that included written guarantees to protect the Palestinian civilians remaining in the camps from vengeful Lebanese Christians, the Marines departed Beirut, on Sept. 10.

Israel hoped that Lebanon’s newly elected president, Bashir Gemayel, a Maronite, would support an Israeli-Christian alliance. But on Sept. 14, Gemayel was assassinated. Israel reacted by violating the cease-fire agreement. It quickly occupied West Beirut — ostensibly to prevent militia attacks against the Palestinian civilians. “The main order of the day is to keep the peace,” Begin told the American envoy to the Middle East, Morris Draper, on Sept. 15. “Otherwise, there could be pogroms.”

By Sept. 16, the I.D.F. was fully in control of West Beirut, including Sabra and Shatila. In Washington that same day, Under Secretary of State Lawrence S. Eagleburger told the Israeli ambassador, Moshe Arens, that “Israel’s credibility has been severely damaged” and that “we appear to some to be the victim of deliberate deception by Israel.” He demanded that Israel withdraw from West Beirut immediately.

In Tel Aviv, Mr. Draper and the American ambassador, Samuel W. Lewis, met with top Israeli officials. Contrary to Prime Minister Begin’s earlier assurances, Defense Minister Sharon said the occupation of West Beirut was justified because there were “2,000 to 3,000 terrorists who remained there.” Mr. Draper disputed this claim; having coordinated the August evacuation, he knew the number was minuscule. Mr. Draper said he was horrified to hear that Mr. Sharon was considering allowing the Phalange militia into West Beirut. Even the I.D.F. chief of staff, Rafael Eitan, acknowledged to the Americans that he feared “a relentless slaughter.”

On the evening of Sept. 16, the Israeli cabinet met and was informed that Phalange fighters were entering the Palestinian camps. Deputy Prime Minister David Levy worried aloud: “I know what the meaning of revenge is for them, what kind of slaughter. Then no one will believe we went in to create order there, and we will bear the blame.” That evening, word of civilian deaths began to filter out to Israeli military officials, politicians and journalists.

At 12:30 p.m. on Sept. 17, Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir hosted a meeting with Mr. Draper, Mr. Sharon and several Israeli intelligence chiefs. Mr. Shamir, having reportedly heard of a “slaughter” in the camps that morning, did not mention it.

The transcript of the Sept. 17 meeting reveals that the Americans were browbeaten by Mr. Sharon’s false insistence that “terrorists” needed “mopping up.” It also shows how Israel’s refusal to relinquish areas under its control, and its delays in coordinating with the Lebanese National Army, which the Americans wanted to step in, prolonged the slaughter.

Mr. Draper opened the meeting by demanding that the I.D.F. pull back right away. Mr. Sharon exploded, “I just don’t understand, what are you looking for? Do you want the terrorists to stay? Are you afraid that somebody will think that you were in collusion with us? Deny it. We denied it.” Mr. Draper, unmoved, kept pushing for definitive signs of a withdrawal. Mr. Sharon, who knew Phalange forces had already entered the camps, cynically told him, “Nothing will happen. Maybe some more terrorists will be killed. That will be to the benefit of all of us.” Mr. Shamir and Mr. Sharon finally agreed to gradually withdraw once the Lebanese Army started entering the city — but they insisted on waiting 48 hours (until the end of Rosh Hashana, which started that evening).

Continuing his plea for some sign of an Israeli withdrawal, Mr. Draper warned that critics would say, “Sure, the I.D.F. is going to stay in West Beirut and they will let the Lebanese go and kill the Palestinians in the camps.”  

Mr. Sharon replied: “So, we’ll kill them. They will not be left there. You are not going to save them. You are not going to save these groups of the international terrorism.”

Mr. Draper responded: “We are not interested in saving any of these people.” Mr. Sharon declared: “If you don’t want the Lebanese to kill them, we will kill them.”

Mr. Draper then caught himself, and backtracked. He reminded the Israelis that the United States had painstakingly facilitated the P.L.O. exit from Beirut “so it wouldn’t be necessary for you to come in.” He added, “You should have stayed out.”

Mr. Sharon exploded again: “When it comes to our security, we have never asked. We will never ask. When it comes to existence and security, it is our own responsibility and we will never give it to anybody to decide for us.” The meeting ended with an agreement to coordinate withdrawal plans after Rosh Hashana.

By allowing the argument to proceed on Mr. Sharon’s terms, Mr. Draper effectively gave Israel cover to let the Phalange fighters remain in the camps. Fuller details of the massacre began to emerge on Sept. 18, when a young American diplomat, Ryan C. Crocker, visited the gruesome scene and reported back to Washington.

Years later, Mr. Draper called the massacre “obscene.” And in an oral history recorded a few years before his death in 2005, he remembered telling Mr. Sharon: “You should be ashamed. The situation is absolutely appalling. They’re killing children! You have the field completely under your control and are therefore responsible for that area.”

On Sept. 18, Reagan pronounced his “outrage and revulsion over the murders.” He said the United States had opposed Israel’s invasion of Beirut, both because “we believed it wrong in principle and for fear that it would provoke further fighting.” Secretary of State George P. Shultz later admitted that “we are partially responsible” because “we took the Israelis and the Lebanese at their word.” He summoned Ambassador Arens. “When you take military control over a city, you’re responsible for what happens,” he told him. “Now we have a massacre.”

But the belated expression of shock and dismay belies the Americans’ failed diplomatic effort during the massacre. The transcript of Mr. Draper’s meeting with the Israelis demonstrates how the United States was unwittingly complicit in the tragedy of Sabra and Shatila.

Ambassador Lewis, now retired, told me that the massacre would have been hard to prevent “unless Reagan had picked up the phone and called Begin and read him the riot act even more clearly than he already did in August — that might have stopped it temporarily.” But “Sharon would have found some other way” for the militiamen to take action, Mr. Lewis added.

Nicholas A. Veliotes, then the assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, agreed. “Vintage Sharon,” he said, after I read the transcript to him. “It is his way or the highway.”

The Sabra and Shatila massacre severely undercut America’s influence in the Middle East, and its moral authority plummeted. In the aftermath of the massacre, the United States felt compelled by “guilt” to redeploy the Marines, who ended up without a clear mission, in the midst of a brutal civil war.

On Oct. 23, 1983, the Marine barracks in Beirut were bombed and 241 Marines were killed. The attack led to open warfare with Syrian-backed forces and, soon after, the rapid withdrawal of the Marines to their ships. As Mr. Lewis told me, America left Lebanon “with our tail between our legs.”

The archival record reveals the magnitude of a deception that undermined American efforts to avoid bloodshed. Working with only partial knowledge of the reality on the ground, the United States feebly yielded to false arguments and stalling tactics that allowed a massacre in progress to proceed.

The lesson of the Sabra and Shatila tragedy is clear. Sometimes close allies act contrary to American interests and values. Failing to exert American power to uphold those interests and values can have disastrous consequences: for our allies, for our moral standing and most important, for the innocent people who pay the highest price of all.

Seth Anziska is a doctoral candidate in international history at Columbia University
.

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on September 17, 2012, on page A23 of the New York edition with the headline: A Preventable Massacre.

More to Chew On -- and This Idea Sounds Deliciously Effective

From: http://whistlepigwhiskey.com/ , retrieved 9/15/12

The State Department’s Diplomatic Culinary Partnership: peace through deliciousness, and not a moment too soon

 2 1

 

comments (0)

By Leslie Brenner, Restaurant Critic
lbrenner@dallasnews.com
1:56 pm on September 14, 2012 | Permalink

White House executive chef Cris Comerford (left) and Blair House executive sous chef Kiesha Sellers at the State Department reception (Leslie Brenner)

This time last week, I was in Washington, D.C. for the Association of Food Journalists’ annual conference — a first for me, and it was stupendous. This is the first of what I hope will be several blog posts about events surrounding the conference.
Most notably from a news point of view, as a group we were invited to a reception at the State Department for the launch of its new Diplomatic Culinary Partnership Initiative. The initiative strives to “elevate the role of culinary engagement in America’s formal and public diplomacy efforts.” (If only we could use culinary diplomacy real quick to cool things down in the Middle East….)  Washington Post restaurant critic and AFJ member Tom Sietsema wrote a fine preview story about it.  All part of the American Chef Corps, an impressive retinue of chefs, was in attendance, including White House Executive Chef Cris Comerford, José Andres, Rick Bayless, Mary Sue Milliken and many more. The program aims to “foster cross-cultural exchange” by having the chefs participate in public diplomacy programs and “enhance formal diplomacy” through food and cooking to engage foreign leaders at Department of State functions. “This is a really important moment for chefs,” said Sam Kass, assistant chef and senior policy advisor for healthy food initiatives at the White House. “Besides chefs,” he added, “grandmothers are the only ones with real food knowledge in this country.” (Well, some of the members of the Association of Food Journalists might argue with that…)
The food and drink were pretty fabulous, including a wine bar that focused on vintages from  Michigan, Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Oregon, Arizona, New York and, yes, Texas! (McPherson Cellars “Tre-Colore”), and an impressive spread of American charcuterie and cheeses. Some of the chefs were set up in stations making plates — I loved Mary Sue Milliken’s heirloom bean, avocado and bacon tostada, anchored by a wonderful, tangy version of an old-fashioned three-bean salad. Art Smith and Wes Morton’s roasted farro salad with smoked Carolina swordfish was terrific, too.

Pigs in blankets and tobiko blankets on smoked salmon pigs (Leslie Brenner)

And the passed hors d’ouevres were adorable, like spaghetti and meatballs (a forkful of spaghetti atop each small meatball with a dollop of marinara); tiny pizzas (each in its own Diplomatic Culinary Partnership pizza box); and a verdant pasture of pigs in blankets (the old-fashioned kind) and pig-shaped smoked salmon canapes, each wearing a blanket of tobiko — cute! Also of note: an excellent 10-year old rye whiskey from Vermont called Whistlepig and a cocktail called a George Washington Rye Rickey.
Follow Leslie on Twitter@lesbren and join her on Facebook

A Column To Chew On

Thank you to Michael Young [http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Opinion/Columnist/2012/Sep-13/187725-america-just-cannot-be-the-loved-one.ashx?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+WhatsNewInPd+%28What%27s+New+in+Public+Diplomacy%29#axzz26NqNiagZ#When:20:34:33Z] and Donna Oglesby, tweeting @Winnowingfan .

America just cannot be the loved one By Michael Young Dozens of disappointing Pew polls later, with the United States government having earmarked vast sums of money for public diplomacy, you have to wonder whether Washington hasn’t run up a blind alley in its desire to be popular among Arabs. An obscure Israeli-American real estate developer in California uploads a video condemning the Prophet Mohammad, and mobs storm the American consulate in Benghazi, killing an ambassador. In Cairo, demonstrators attack the fortified American Embassy building. Utterly irrelevant, evidently, is the fact that Egypt has benefited from billions of dollars in American aid for over three decades, or that the U.S. helped militarily overthrow Moammar Gadhafi last year. However, the issue here is not the ungratefulness of the Arabs. There were doubtless quite a few Egyptians and Libyans unhappy with what took place this week. There were probably many more with no opinion whatsoever, who are neither fond of America nor the contrary, largely because America is absent from their daily life. That doesn’t change the fact that anti-Americanism is more the norm than the exception in the Arab world, even if a vast majority of people never expresses that sentiment in violent ways. Yet who can deny that the mainstreaming of hostility toward America greatly facilitates the violence of minorities? At no time was this more obvious than after 9/11, whose 11th anniversary we commemorated this week, when initial shock soon made way for explanations, then implicit justifications, of the mass murder that had occurred. It was 9/11, and the question posed at the time, “Why do they hate us,” that sent American officials scurrying for remedies to that hatred. Public diplomacy was given a bureaucratic face-lift, radio and television stations were opened broadcasting in Arabic, and despite the invasion of Iraq, many thought they had discovered the best therapy in the exit of President George W. Bush and his replacement by Barack Obama, who, fortuitously, had “Hussein” as a middle name. Well, apparently not. Whether it is Obama or Bush, the American sirens calling for more love are apparently not having their effect. There are many reasons for this, but listing them would serve only to reinforce the argument that the Americans are to blame and must, therefore, reshape their conduct to please the Arabs. The Americans are indeed to blame in many ways, just as many in the Arab world are at fault, not least for their hypocrisy when it comes to America. However, the disconnect between America and the Arabs goes beyond perceptions of mutual behavior to include more systemic problems. It’s a given that the powerful are disliked, and no country has been more powerful than the United States in recent decades. If you have the ability to change things, but no change comes, then you somehow become responsible for everything that goes wrong. The Americans were indeed the defenders of a debilitating status quo in the Middle East, but since 2011 they have been on the side of emancipatory change, despite intense uneasiness. Yet they remain perpetually disliked, with the poll figures sometimes edging up, sometimes down, but always reflecting deep ambiguity toward the superpower. There is the Israel excuse, of course. Washington’s support for Israel is the knee-jerk pretext whenever an explanation is sought for why America is loathed by Arabs. There is a great deal to censure in Washington’s seemingly unquestioning devotion to Israel, frequently against America’s better interests, but let’s get a grip. For years numerous Arab countries have ruthlessly mistreated or manipulated the Palestinians and their cause, without provoking a discernibly negative reaction from Arab societies. In light of this, perhaps we must seriously consider that the Arab world has so internalized its disapproval of the United States over time, integrating it perfectly into a prevailing sense of Arab misfortune and frustration, that anti-Americanism has become a constant of Arab political discourse, a crutch of sorts. That is not to say that America is blameless or the Arabs always wrong; it’s to say that the positivist belief among Americans that they can be loved simply by altering their actions and manners is naively overstated. Being loved is not nearly as important as being respected, and in that regard the United States has been riding a roller coaster. When each post-Cold War administration has cast fundamental doubt on the Middle Eastern policies of its predecessor, holding it responsible for everything that is haywire in the region, expect Arabs to enjoy those catfights, but also to see their doubts about America reinforced. The reality is that when no clear, overriding strategy exists for America’s approach to the Middle East, administrations function more on the basis of domestic politics, calculations and rivalries, and these tend to be alien to the concerns of the Arab countries they influence. Few Arabs held dear Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, but America fundamentally and advantageously overhauled its policy in the region during the 1970s under their stewardship, on the basis of a careful, long-term reading of Washington’s well-being. In contrast, though George W. Bush injected democracy into America’s regional perspectives, he soon recoiled on that front, before his legacy was overturned by Barack Obama, whose principal motive in the Middle East is to minimize American involvement. The White House and the State Department would do best to save their public diplomacy funds and focus more on a redefining a lasting, bipartisan strategy toward the Middle East that can span antagonistic administrations. This has not been done in a serious way since 9/11, and it needs to be at this essential moment when Arab countries are facing momentous change. In politics, love is overrated. Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR. He tweets @BeirutCalling.

---

Copyrights 2011, The Daily Star - All Rights Reserved

13/09/2012