The whys and wherefores

As this is my first post, I will have to explain what this is about. We are all familiar with the phrase "lost in translation". I personally am convinced that this has a very convicting meaning when it comes to news and "local opinion". (I put "local opinion" in quotes because it is such a terribly subjective phrase.)
However it is not the literal translation that I believe is lost when news is conveyed from the middle-eastern world, to the western world. It is the truth...it is the heart of the matters...it is the culture. These things are much more difficult to convey to a western audience than a westerner might suspect.



I will present a simple example...


For instance, how many westerners would be familiar with the term Al-Nakba (Arabic: النكبة)? It means "calamity" or "catastrophe". This is a common phrase throughout the Arab world which is used to refer to one specific event in recent history. That same event is referred to as "the war for Independence" or "the war for establishment" (Hebrew: מלחמת העצמאות or מלחמת הקוממיות), by the nation of Israel.

In short, as Israel celebrated its 60th Independence day, most of the Arab world was mourning Al-Nakba...the calamity. Now the phrase "one man's terrorist is another man's liberator" may be considered a cop-out for simplifying complicated issues, and blurring the lines of morality...but whether you agree with the reasons or not, according to the black and white print of newspapers and history books of the middle-east...one man's "calamity" is obviously another man's Independence. That may sound like the cheap excuse of someone who is afraid to make up their mind about the issues, but it serves well as an example of the incongruities of the region, and matters that may well be unknown to the western world.






Here I must clarify. I have very strong opinions about everything that goes on in this most volatile region of the world. I cannot claim to have no bias. So these postings must be taken as a two course meal: the first course is the information, the news, the conveyance, to the best of my ability, of local thought and opinion in the middle east. The second course, which you can take or leave, is my own reaction and commentary to said information.

Furthermore, I would like to say that it is too easy for Westerners to generalize "the middle-east" and I do not wish to contribute the the generic pools of unstudied opinions. Setting the various political and geographical definitions of the area to the side (to be clarified later), we are all aware that the middle-east consists of more than Arabs and Israelis. The list of people groups and political and religious ideologies is as jam-packed as the day is long. Kurdi, Turkoman, shiite, sunni, druze, Chaldean, Assyrian and, and, and...



(One must also be careful not to assume that Israel is homogonous, because it is quite the opposite, in fact)


The primary resources consist of Al-Jazeera news, Iraqhurr news, Radio Sawa news, Kol Israel (Reshet Dalet--Arabic channel), yediot aharonot, ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post (this one is in English), and Al-Quds newspaper.


The news itself is important and interesting of course...but far more telling is the reader responses to these articles/shows/caricatures/debates. If you listen to American or European talk-shows and political debates, then welcome to the Al-Jazeera version.



I was watching an episode of one of the Al-Jazeera debate shows ( one of the MANY they have ) and they were discussing the recent political turbulence in Lebanon. I jotted down my thoughts at the time (this was mid-May):


...I realized that I was way behind on what was going on in Lebanon
So Hizbullah has taken over west Beirut and their utter infiltration into all the systems and elements of the Lebanese society and rule. There are a lot of factors in this
-Fear of Iranian influence
-A split in society regarding those who welcome Hizbullah’s takeover and those who reject it
-How Israel will react to the situation
…among other things.
On the show it is stated that this is a Shi’a/Sunni conflict (where have we heard that before?) And when people say Shi’a/Sunni conflict…one of the underlying (or even outright) meanings is Iran/Arab conflict. In many people’s minds, any Shi’a influence, no matter where it’s coming from, means Iran is taking over.

Quote: “Not in all of Lebanon, but a large part of the conflict in Lebanon is Sunni/Shi’a and the Syrian-Iranian support for the Shiite sect, in this manner, and the crushing of the Sunni sect especially in Terablus (Tripoli) and in the north, is something that is witnessed and well-known and for which clear evidence can be presented” (translated from Al-Jazeera show)

Okay, this is very confusing…we have three main parties that are being discussed: Hezbollah, Amal, and 14 March…14 march is a mixed group (Sunni, Christian, Druze, Shi’a), Amal is Shi’a, and so is Hezbollah. To clarify, Hezbollah is paramilitary, well-armed, Iran-funded, suicide-bombing promoting, anti-“western-infiltration” and so on. Hezbollah opposes 14 March but both parties have seats in the government.

So, to clarify. One of the guests (on the show) is primarily concerned with the Shi’a (Shiites, whereby he means Iran and Iranian and Syrian Influence over Lebanon). He cites Hezbollah and Amal as “exploiting the resistance against Israel” in order to implement some sort of Shi’a takeover, and that “they do not give the Sunni the opportunity to oppose Israel”. (So the guy doesn’t like Hezbollah, but he still agrees with their anti-Israel objectives)The second guest says that the people who obsess with the Shi’a/Sunni conflict are ignoring the real threat, which is the American-Israeli threat in the area. He talks about how Bush is supportive of Mahmud Abbas (Abu-Mazen, the Palestinian Fatah leader), and of Al-Maliki (Iraqi PM) and Al-Sanyura, the Lebanese PM. He mentions Bush calling and Condoleeza Rice calling all the time. So essentially guest number two is thinking: “forget worrying about the Shiite thing! We’ve got bigger problems” whereby he means America and Israel. (remembering that some of Hezbollah’s tenets are to rid the region of western infiltration, as well as persistent lack of recognition of Israel)

(This was my second round with this same piece of news, when I looked at Al-Jazeera's caricatures section and found this one, on May 27th on the online Al-Jazeera website)

One of the Lebanese has “No winner” and the other says “No loser” and on the Israeli caricature is written “Loser”.

Explanation: The Qatar-run negotiations between the conflicting parties of Lebanon were based off of a “no winners, no losers” agreement. The cartoon essentially implies that if the various Lebanese factions stand together, base upon their recent agreement, they both win out and Israel loses.

As always with political cartoons on Al-Jazeera…the most interesting part is the posted comments.

One person posted that, in fact, Hizbollah came out on top.

The next one praised the cleverness of the cartoon and stated “Our Lebanese brothers must protect (keep) this victory”

The next praises Qatar for their “great efforts and this victory for the Arabs”

Some of the comments are generic declarations of fighting against Israel…quite a few of them are thanks to Qatar for hosting and facilitating the peace-reaching efforts, and warm greetings to Lebanon for having surpassed this teetering on the edge of chaos (personally I wouldn’t say they’re out of the woods yet).

Now see, a lot of Lebanese do not like Hizbullah, because to them, they represent Iran and Shi’a. The question is will they let themselves be fooled by this “I and my cousins against the world” philosophy wherein they’re willing to suffer Hizbullah to at least look like they’re “resisting” Israel.
(I against my brother, I and my brother against my cousins, I and my cousins against the world)
Are they willing to take Hizbullah’s bit into their mouth, and be led about by them, out of some irrational fear that Israel is out there to do anything more than seek and preserve their own peace and security. This goes back to the underlying belief throughout much of the Arab world (though half the people who tout this theory know better…I know they must know better) that Israel is out to conquer and occupy all the Arab nations…the whole middle-east. And whether they actually believe this theory or not…they play it like a one-eyed jack, because even though it is meaningless, it stirs up enough fear and emotion to get people’s support and, often enough, their fanaticism.
I also must comment that this whole Olmert investigation (Ehud Olmert, Israeli PM, being investigated for corruption and receiving funds through inappropriate means) is probably giving many of the leaders of the Arab world lot of steam. It’s pretty upsetting for any supporter of Israel to be constantly seeing “investigations of corruption” in the Israeli government (there have been A LOT lately), most particularly the Prime Minister…so if it’s maddening for a supporter, it must be like candy for a detractor.

Well this is the first post and it is already much longer than I'd intended it to be. And as a P.S. I am not tech-savvy. The world of blogging and the how-to's of said hobby are beyond me to some extent. So a compassionate reader would have patience with my humble attempts at getting interesting and important information out there for others to see.