“The Opposite Direction”, Al-Jazeera political discussion show (الاتجاه المعاكس). The topic of the episode is “Palestinians between importance and neglect”
The debate featured in the show is whether or not the “Palestinian Issue” deserves high priority in the Arab world. Among the introductory questions are “Don’t millions of Palestinians prefer to live outside of Palestine? So then why do the Palestinians want from the Arabs to fight for their country if they are asked to do it?” and “Is there not a Nakba (calamity) in each Arab country which exceeds the importance of the Palestinian [calamity]? Do not hundreds of Arabs die of hunger and poverty and oppression in other countries and no one hears about them so why does it become prime news every time an Israeli kills a Palestinian”
And the opposite direction part…they ask
“Is not the path of the people, all connected to Palestine? Is not what happened in Iraq tied to the Zionist plan, which began in Palestine?”
Regardless of what would seem like a lively in-house debate about why the Arab world focuses so intently on the Palestinians and Israel, when there are so many other internal issues on which no light is shed…the numbers, my friends, speak for themselves:
“Should Palestine remain the Arab’s primary cause? 91.9% yes, 8.1% no”, the host begins, directing these statistics towards his guest.
The first guest, Karim Badar, gives greeting and very soon provides this very interesting quote:
“The biggest crime that has been committed in modern history is the theft of the Palestinian cause from the hands of its lawful owners and placing it on the political table and converting it into numbers in the bank and an [idol] in the name of the central Arab cause”
From my own opinion, the Arab world seems to have a love-hate relationship with the Palestinian cause. In fact, if described in terms of a “relationship”, it is a rather abusive one. It reminds me of one story about Saddam Hussein where, in order to protect himself from being targeted, he invited a castle-load of Iraqi citizens to “spend the night”…some slumber party huh? They were his human shield. Well, then, the Palestinians are the political shield, held firmly into the “oppressed martyr” billet, by their own Arab brethren. Greeting the “Palestinian resistance” at the beginning almost every Al-Jazeera political talk show is almost like a password to prove you belong. Need I mention who it was that gave Palestinian refugees the cold shoulder in 1948, and in ensuing events? Not their “great enemy”, but their Arab neighbors…in the same vein of those who told them to flee in the first place.
I say Karim Badar has a point. These people have been converted to numbers in a bank, a bank of excuses, a bank of rhetoric…what these people need is opportunities for education, and improved living conditions, and leaders who don’t buckle under pressure of fanatics (Hamas, Hizbullah)…what they don’t need is pages of inciting “solidarity” to create the next generation of terrorists and extremists. It’s almost like a parent (the Arab world) telling their child (the Palestinians) “well, you poor thing, you’ll never amount to much, I pity you. Don’t worry we’ve found someone to blame”. Feel free to look in the mirror حبيبي.
June 11, 2008
June 05, 2008
"Without Borders" Analyzes Israel
This is from an episode of “Without Borders” ("بلا حدود"---Al-Jazeera political talk-show)…
The show is about Israel after sixty years, and about how the analyst on the show doesn't think it will last another sixty, but rather much less than that. They (the host and the guest) begin by stating a lot of well-known facts, about well-known issues. The demographic struggle in Israel, the loosening of immigration restrictions in order to encourage Jewish-associated population growth, even if that “Jewishness” is almost non-existent (case and point: that neo-nazi attack by Russian youths a little while back in Israel).
They mention public discontent with current conditions in Israel and state that Yediot Aharonot ( Israeli newspaper:ידיעות אחרונות ) has a poll with results showing 52% of Israelis are prepared to leave Israel (I looked on Yediot for the statistic, but I think it was from an older article and I couldn’t find it).
They discuss the Russian sector’s lack of genuine integration into Israel, and the social threat that it creates. All these are legitimate points that any political analyst, Israeli, Arab or otherwise cannot avoid pointing out. But the problem is that the guests on this talk-show are discussing Israel like it is a gladiator in the Roman Coliseum…already a dead man, with the only question being a matter of when and by whom. It makes me sick. With all the Arab world’s internal problems there is this fierce obsession…by the intelligentsia no less!..of trying to prove that the “end of Israel” is inevitable. We’re talking about very smart men here…analysts and free political thinkers from all over the Arab world, and I think their efforts are misappropriated.
One also gets the sense that these men, particularly the ones on this particular show, are convinced that it is Israelis who have given up on Israel. Since they are intellectuals, not men on the streets with grudges and guns, they have white-gloved conclusions…that Israel will destroy itself. I think that their wishful thinking is causing them to underestimate the Israelis as a people. They have all the expert facts, but they’re careful to only draw the conclusions that they want. A biased conclusion can only produce a biased projection.
Like I said, despite this, they make some really legitimate points.
The guest on the show proposes that Israel’s secularism is strongly linked to the "draft evasion" issue (Israelis who find ways to avoid doing mandatory military service). Also he says that people of the secular mentality “sit in a coffee shop drinking espresso” instead of talking about what’s really important in life. He calls it a “culture of the self”.
Now, (and this is just me talking here) this is not a hard line of thinking to follow because the same can be said about western culture. There is a huge gap between those who serve and those who are being served…the culture praises individualism, claiming that it inspires creativity and independence (which is often true) but failing to realize that individualism is often just a code-word for selfishness. I think self-centeredness in our society cripples us. Which is odd, because I’m coming from a politically capitalist, but personally communal, background. (Does that not makes sense? Essentially, I think that one who has more should give to one who has less, but that it should not be mandated by law because systematic charity cuts out the heart of the whole idea. I think that shunning the concept of "community" is foolish.)
Anyways…the guest (Abd Al-Wahab Al-Masiri) makes another legitimate point about Israel. He says that by getting beyond the stage of mere survival, and to the stage of cultural and artistic development…younger Israelis (and he especially mentions those of the artistic and philosophic world) lose the sense of sacrifice. Now of course, there are many people who have sensed sacrifices, but just like in the west…they either question whether it was worth it, or are faced with a society that is disassociated with that sacrifice and they are left to bear their sacrifice in the face of those who demean it.
Let’s be honest…selflessness is called naiveté by most.
And sadly, many people can’t tell the difference between devotion and fanaticism, so they lump them together and conclude that nothing is worth fighting for, or caring about…even if it is the very ground under your feet, which you need in order to remain standing at all.
(I had to stop watching the program and pick it back up later, because I kept stopping to write comments and it was taking forever)
Recapping…the guest on the show, Al-Masiri makes another point, which is worrisome in its accuracy, about the high rate of draft evasion in Israel (typically for “psychological reasons” since those are easiest to fake). For anyone who is not familiar with the system, Israel has a permanent nation-wide draft, which exempts certain parties (yeshiva students, Arab-Israelis, the medically and psychologically incapable among them). Males typically serve three years, females typically serve two.
The speaker says that draft evasion is a symptom of the previously mentioned detachment from the concept of community and sacrifice.
Here’s an interesting one: the analyst (who is introduced with the title of “A thinker, and historian specializing in the Zionist movement”, and his dialect is distinctly Egyptian) speaks of the “fall of unilateral Zionism”. He says that in “western political thought” the ‘post’ in “post-Zionism”,(or any such phrase, like post-modernism) means “the end of”, but that they fear to actually use the word “end” because of the implications regarding the Zionist movement.
Now, 27 minutes into the show, he (Al-Masiri) is quoting Ben-Gurion (after having cited multiple sources, which have grim predictions about Israel’s future). He quotes Ben-Gurion as saying, in the 1930’s, “We are not faced with terrorist operations but with a people defending its rights”
The host of the show, Ahmed Mansur, then quotes an “Akiva Eldar” (cited as a famous analyst in the Israeli press. He is, in fact, the diplomatic affairs analyst for Ha’aretz newspaper) as saying “I have inherited from my father a miracle nation, but I shall leave to my children a great question mark”
Al-Masiri then says that the country used to place the group above the individual but, he says, as in many Arab countries, the free market and capitalism places “profit” above it all, and therefore the number of millionaires in Israel increases, and so does the number of those in poverty (which is cited as having reached 25%). It is going to take me forever to get through this episode.
(finally getting back to the episode a day or two later)
Okay…so the rest of that “Without borders” discussion.
The show started taking call-ins…with questions such as “What is the weakness of their (Israel’s) citizens?”. Another question was whether Hitler served the Jewish people inadvertently. In response to the caller the guest speaker (Al-Masiri) says “If Hertzl was the Marx of the Zionist movement, then Hitler was the Lenin” and cites the rise in Jewish population under British mandated Palestine during the rise of the third Reich. He says [hitler] "served" not the Jews, but Zionism. Perhaps he’s trying to make the point that the Holocaust influenced people’s disposition towards the concept of a Jewish state, but the way he asks the question brushes over the horror of the actual event as if he were trying to say that the killer and the killed, the criminal and the victim, were in cahoots.
It is very disheartening to hear these call-ins (coming from Jordan, Egypt and Germany) and I would think “hey, these are decent people…they obviously care about politics. They want peace, right? They want what’s best for the Arab people. Surely they’re not among those who think that hating Israel is the only ticket you need to buy into the Arab world, right?” WRONG. Even if they felt Israel had the right to exist, they wouldn’t dare say so…it would isolate them. Even if they wanted peace and normalization with Israel, would they dare express that fact?
However, following that, an Italian-Arab calls in and asks “So who will fall first…Israel or the Arab system?” That question shows more introspection than the others. The caller seemed to understand that regardless of how one feels about the presence of Israel, some self-examination in the Arab world is obviously required. But the guest speaker ignores the question, brushing it off saying “You can’t compare the two. Israel is a settler nation…and has to be studied as a settler nation. Arab nations, even with their corruption, are stable (or “firmly established”) nations and one should not compare between the two”
The speaker says there are two factors that “contribute to the continuation of Israel” which are “the unrestrained support of America” and the “unrestrained absence of the Arabs” (by which I think he means, Arabs not trying hard enough to get rid of Israel??? Or Arab nations being preoccupied with their own internal conflicts, corruption and dictatorships…what? Does he think that internal problems should be ignored in order to satisfy a vendetta? And not because they gave a damn about the Palestinians but because, at the time, they wanted the land for themselves and felt Israel to be a proxy for a western threat?)
I put this next part down word for word because it’s somewhat appalling, as I see it. It begs the question as to what is the prevalence and sincerity of the following opinions.
(Caller: Muhamad Ibrahim from Saudi Arabia): “My question is, how can we, as Arab people and Muslims, how can we speed up the fall of Israel? What is our role? What should we do? Thank you.
(Host: Ahmed Mansur): An important question. How can we, as Arab people, speed up the end and the dissasembling of Israel?
(Guest speaker: ‘Abd Al-Wahab Al-Masiri): It’s the opposition movements in the Arab world that have started to rise up, with the understanding that they can conduct many activities…such as activating the sector outside [of the] government positions who are afraid of the United States”
(he means working around the system because the people in charge, in his opinion, pander to the U.S.)
“…[putting] pressure on countries and [elected officials] to help the resistance and the people of Gaza. I mean, there are a lot of problems and I propose to hold a conference of specialists to study this situation how the people and the average citizens of the population can contribute and overcome those hasty and fearful ruling [elected officials].
Later,
The host asks “What are the challenges that Israel will face in the coming phase?”
The guest responds “They are the same challenges that we have already mentioned, the elements of the crisis, which are the demographic crisis, the crisis with the settlements, corruption, absence of leadership, the ‘crisis of meaning’, draft evasion...everything we have mentioned is escalating”.
Here, ladies and gentleman, on a very popular, widely broadcast Arab talk-show, was an entire episode on the analysis of “how and when” a nation will fall, and most worrisome, advice on how to aid in that fall. Not “how we can neutralize issues”, or “how we can come to a just and peaceful agreement”, but “how can we bring this nation down to where it no longer exists”.
How come this doesn’t bother anyone? Because they either do not care…or they simply don’t know.
The show is about Israel after sixty years, and about how the analyst on the show doesn't think it will last another sixty, but rather much less than that. They (the host and the guest) begin by stating a lot of well-known facts, about well-known issues. The demographic struggle in Israel, the loosening of immigration restrictions in order to encourage Jewish-associated population growth, even if that “Jewishness” is almost non-existent (case and point: that neo-nazi attack by Russian youths a little while back in Israel).
They mention public discontent with current conditions in Israel and state that Yediot Aharonot ( Israeli newspaper:ידיעות אחרונות ) has a poll with results showing 52% of Israelis are prepared to leave Israel (I looked on Yediot for the statistic, but I think it was from an older article and I couldn’t find it).
They discuss the Russian sector’s lack of genuine integration into Israel, and the social threat that it creates. All these are legitimate points that any political analyst, Israeli, Arab or otherwise cannot avoid pointing out. But the problem is that the guests on this talk-show are discussing Israel like it is a gladiator in the Roman Coliseum…already a dead man, with the only question being a matter of when and by whom. It makes me sick. With all the Arab world’s internal problems there is this fierce obsession…by the intelligentsia no less!..of trying to prove that the “end of Israel” is inevitable. We’re talking about very smart men here…analysts and free political thinkers from all over the Arab world, and I think their efforts are misappropriated.
One also gets the sense that these men, particularly the ones on this particular show, are convinced that it is Israelis who have given up on Israel. Since they are intellectuals, not men on the streets with grudges and guns, they have white-gloved conclusions…that Israel will destroy itself. I think that their wishful thinking is causing them to underestimate the Israelis as a people. They have all the expert facts, but they’re careful to only draw the conclusions that they want. A biased conclusion can only produce a biased projection.
Like I said, despite this, they make some really legitimate points.
The guest on the show proposes that Israel’s secularism is strongly linked to the "draft evasion" issue (Israelis who find ways to avoid doing mandatory military service). Also he says that people of the secular mentality “sit in a coffee shop drinking espresso” instead of talking about what’s really important in life. He calls it a “culture of the self”.
Now, (and this is just me talking here) this is not a hard line of thinking to follow because the same can be said about western culture. There is a huge gap between those who serve and those who are being served…the culture praises individualism, claiming that it inspires creativity and independence (which is often true) but failing to realize that individualism is often just a code-word for selfishness. I think self-centeredness in our society cripples us. Which is odd, because I’m coming from a politically capitalist, but personally communal, background. (Does that not makes sense? Essentially, I think that one who has more should give to one who has less, but that it should not be mandated by law because systematic charity cuts out the heart of the whole idea. I think that shunning the concept of "community" is foolish.)
Anyways…the guest (Abd Al-Wahab Al-Masiri) makes another legitimate point about Israel. He says that by getting beyond the stage of mere survival, and to the stage of cultural and artistic development…younger Israelis (and he especially mentions those of the artistic and philosophic world) lose the sense of sacrifice. Now of course, there are many people who have sensed sacrifices, but just like in the west…they either question whether it was worth it, or are faced with a society that is disassociated with that sacrifice and they are left to bear their sacrifice in the face of those who demean it.
Let’s be honest…selflessness is called naiveté by most.
And sadly, many people can’t tell the difference between devotion and fanaticism, so they lump them together and conclude that nothing is worth fighting for, or caring about…even if it is the very ground under your feet, which you need in order to remain standing at all.
(I had to stop watching the program and pick it back up later, because I kept stopping to write comments and it was taking forever)
Recapping…the guest on the show, Al-Masiri makes another point, which is worrisome in its accuracy, about the high rate of draft evasion in Israel (typically for “psychological reasons” since those are easiest to fake). For anyone who is not familiar with the system, Israel has a permanent nation-wide draft, which exempts certain parties (yeshiva students, Arab-Israelis, the medically and psychologically incapable among them). Males typically serve three years, females typically serve two.
The speaker says that draft evasion is a symptom of the previously mentioned detachment from the concept of community and sacrifice.
Here’s an interesting one: the analyst (who is introduced with the title of “A thinker, and historian specializing in the Zionist movement”, and his dialect is distinctly Egyptian) speaks of the “fall of unilateral Zionism”. He says that in “western political thought” the ‘post’ in “post-Zionism”,(or any such phrase, like post-modernism) means “the end of”, but that they fear to actually use the word “end” because of the implications regarding the Zionist movement.
Now, 27 minutes into the show, he (Al-Masiri) is quoting Ben-Gurion (after having cited multiple sources, which have grim predictions about Israel’s future). He quotes Ben-Gurion as saying, in the 1930’s, “We are not faced with terrorist operations but with a people defending its rights”
The host of the show, Ahmed Mansur, then quotes an “Akiva Eldar” (cited as a famous analyst in the Israeli press. He is, in fact, the diplomatic affairs analyst for Ha’aretz newspaper) as saying “I have inherited from my father a miracle nation, but I shall leave to my children a great question mark”
Al-Masiri then says that the country used to place the group above the individual but, he says, as in many Arab countries, the free market and capitalism places “profit” above it all, and therefore the number of millionaires in Israel increases, and so does the number of those in poverty (which is cited as having reached 25%). It is going to take me forever to get through this episode.
(finally getting back to the episode a day or two later)
Okay…so the rest of that “Without borders” discussion.
The show started taking call-ins…with questions such as “What is the weakness of their (Israel’s) citizens?”. Another question was whether Hitler served the Jewish people inadvertently. In response to the caller the guest speaker (Al-Masiri) says “If Hertzl was the Marx of the Zionist movement, then Hitler was the Lenin” and cites the rise in Jewish population under British mandated Palestine during the rise of the third Reich. He says [hitler] "served" not the Jews, but Zionism. Perhaps he’s trying to make the point that the Holocaust influenced people’s disposition towards the concept of a Jewish state, but the way he asks the question brushes over the horror of the actual event as if he were trying to say that the killer and the killed, the criminal and the victim, were in cahoots.
It is very disheartening to hear these call-ins (coming from Jordan, Egypt and Germany) and I would think “hey, these are decent people…they obviously care about politics. They want peace, right? They want what’s best for the Arab people. Surely they’re not among those who think that hating Israel is the only ticket you need to buy into the Arab world, right?” WRONG. Even if they felt Israel had the right to exist, they wouldn’t dare say so…it would isolate them. Even if they wanted peace and normalization with Israel, would they dare express that fact?
However, following that, an Italian-Arab calls in and asks “So who will fall first…Israel or the Arab system?” That question shows more introspection than the others. The caller seemed to understand that regardless of how one feels about the presence of Israel, some self-examination in the Arab world is obviously required. But the guest speaker ignores the question, brushing it off saying “You can’t compare the two. Israel is a settler nation…and has to be studied as a settler nation. Arab nations, even with their corruption, are stable (or “firmly established”) nations and one should not compare between the two”
The speaker says there are two factors that “contribute to the continuation of Israel” which are “the unrestrained support of America” and the “unrestrained absence of the Arabs” (by which I think he means, Arabs not trying hard enough to get rid of Israel??? Or Arab nations being preoccupied with their own internal conflicts, corruption and dictatorships…what? Does he think that internal problems should be ignored in order to satisfy a vendetta? And not because they gave a damn about the Palestinians but because, at the time, they wanted the land for themselves and felt Israel to be a proxy for a western threat?)
I put this next part down word for word because it’s somewhat appalling, as I see it. It begs the question as to what is the prevalence and sincerity of the following opinions.
(Caller: Muhamad Ibrahim from Saudi Arabia): “My question is, how can we, as Arab people and Muslims, how can we speed up the fall of Israel? What is our role? What should we do? Thank you.
(Host: Ahmed Mansur): An important question. How can we, as Arab people, speed up the end and the dissasembling of Israel?
(Guest speaker: ‘Abd Al-Wahab Al-Masiri): It’s the opposition movements in the Arab world that have started to rise up, with the understanding that they can conduct many activities…such as activating the sector outside [of the] government positions who are afraid of the United States”
(he means working around the system because the people in charge, in his opinion, pander to the U.S.)
“…[putting] pressure on countries and [elected officials] to help the resistance and the people of Gaza. I mean, there are a lot of problems and I propose to hold a conference of specialists to study this situation how the people and the average citizens of the population can contribute and overcome those hasty and fearful ruling [elected officials].
Later,
The host asks “What are the challenges that Israel will face in the coming phase?”
The guest responds “They are the same challenges that we have already mentioned, the elements of the crisis, which are the demographic crisis, the crisis with the settlements, corruption, absence of leadership, the ‘crisis of meaning’, draft evasion...everything we have mentioned is escalating”.
Here, ladies and gentleman, on a very popular, widely broadcast Arab talk-show, was an entire episode on the analysis of “how and when” a nation will fall, and most worrisome, advice on how to aid in that fall. Not “how we can neutralize issues”, or “how we can come to a just and peaceful agreement”, but “how can we bring this nation down to where it no longer exists”.
How come this doesn’t bother anyone? Because they either do not care…or they simply don’t know.
June 04, 2008
A Little More on Lebanon
These were further comments on the Lebanon situation, which I originally wrote on May 28th from an Al-Jazeera article.
Now that the internal Lebanese conflict has been roughly resolved, with Al-Sanyura ultimately remaining as Prime Minister, Al-Jazeera writes an article on the development:
وقال السنيورة إن حكومته المقبلة ستعمل على إعادة إعمار ما دمره العدوان الإسرائيلي في صيف عام 2006. وإقفال ملف عودة المهجرين, وإعادة بناء مخيم نهر البارد. ودعا السنيورة إلى تعزيز بناء الجيش اللبناني واعتبرها أولوية "لمواجهة العدو".
“Al-Sanyura said that his upcoming government will work on rebuilding what was destroyed by the Israeli aggression in the summer of 2006, as well as closing the file of [those forced to immigrate/move] and to rebuild the Nahar Al-Barid encampment. Al-Sanyura called for a strengthening of the structure of the Lebanese Army and to consider it a priority in order to face the enemy”.
The opposing parties (Hizballah and Amal) are not happy about Al-Sanyura’s continuance as PM, but they have stated that they will continue to participate in the new government “as the opposition” (to mean opposition party, not necessarily militaristic resistance).
There was only one “reader’s comment” at the bottom of the article and it was as follows.
عودة السنيورة للحكومة ليس سواء لمسة امريكية لخلق البلبلة في الوسط اللبناني لتبدأ تدريجيا بالاملاآت على المولاة وخلق فتنة جديدة وقد تكون اخطر من سابقاتها
“The return of Al-Sanyura to the government is nothing more than an American imprint, to create chaos amidst the Lebanese sphere in order to gradually begin dictations [begin dictating to] the leadership [the party in power] and to create new discord and that could be more dangerous that what preceded it”
An article posted today, on Al-Jazeera states that Al-Sanyura (Lebanese PM) "is optimistic about forming the government" and that the Lebanese President Mishal Sulayman said their main option is to have dialogue "however great the problems" and that if forming the government becomes difficult then "we must discuss, in order to find the appropriate solution"
In the comments section one reader states that "the conflict between the groups is ongoing"
Another readers states "We know the meaning of all this talk, it is clear, regarding the Shiites in Lebanon, that coming to an agreement on anything doesn't matter to them, but their one concern is control over the country"
It is clear that the article is generic...the issue in Lebanon has moved from the silver screen to the small screen. It has technically been dealt with, so the news is being gently brushed to the side with a quick article full of optimistic quotes and general information...and a restless readership that is clearly not fooled. There were even some bitter accusations tossed around in the comments section.
That is all I currently have written on Lebanon, but that is not all there is to be said.
Now that the internal Lebanese conflict has been roughly resolved, with Al-Sanyura ultimately remaining as Prime Minister, Al-Jazeera writes an article on the development:
وقال السنيورة إن حكومته المقبلة ستعمل على إعادة إعمار ما دمره العدوان الإسرائيلي في صيف عام 2006. وإقفال ملف عودة المهجرين, وإعادة بناء مخيم نهر البارد. ودعا السنيورة إلى تعزيز بناء الجيش اللبناني واعتبرها أولوية "لمواجهة العدو".
“Al-Sanyura said that his upcoming government will work on rebuilding what was destroyed by the Israeli aggression in the summer of 2006, as well as closing the file of [those forced to immigrate/move] and to rebuild the Nahar Al-Barid encampment. Al-Sanyura called for a strengthening of the structure of the Lebanese Army and to consider it a priority in order to face the enemy”.
The opposing parties (Hizballah and Amal) are not happy about Al-Sanyura’s continuance as PM, but they have stated that they will continue to participate in the new government “as the opposition” (to mean opposition party, not necessarily militaristic resistance).
There was only one “reader’s comment” at the bottom of the article and it was as follows.
عودة السنيورة للحكومة ليس سواء لمسة امريكية لخلق البلبلة في الوسط اللبناني لتبدأ تدريجيا بالاملاآت على المولاة وخلق فتنة جديدة وقد تكون اخطر من سابقاتها
“The return of Al-Sanyura to the government is nothing more than an American imprint, to create chaos amidst the Lebanese sphere in order to gradually begin dictations [begin dictating to] the leadership [the party in power] and to create new discord and that could be more dangerous that what preceded it”
So if Hizballah represents Iran, and Al-Sanyura, and those that align to him, represent the west then its seems Lebanon is in that same old catch-22. Who does Lebanon consider the greater enemy?
Accepting a "western" imprint has always been a source of contention in the Arab world. In the eyes of many, with western influence, comes western control...western "dictations". "Becoming westernized" can signify losing your roots in the Arab world, in the eyes of your Arab neighbors. And we're talking about a country whose captial is referred to as the "Paris of the Middle-East"
What I find strange is that it seems as if the Lebanese people believe the country will be a marionette regardless of who sits in executive or parliamentary power. And who can blame them? In a country where politicians are defined by being either pro or anti-Syrian, pro or anti-Iran, pro or anti-Hizballah, pro or anti-west...you don't even have to ask who everyone thinks pulls the strings...or who they think is trying to pull them.
An article posted today, on Al-Jazeera states that Al-Sanyura (Lebanese PM) "is optimistic about forming the government" and that the Lebanese President Mishal Sulayman said their main option is to have dialogue "however great the problems" and that if forming the government becomes difficult then "we must discuss, in order to find the appropriate solution"
In the comments section one reader states that "the conflict between the groups is ongoing"
Another readers states "We know the meaning of all this talk, it is clear, regarding the Shiites in Lebanon, that coming to an agreement on anything doesn't matter to them, but their one concern is control over the country"
It is clear that the article is generic...the issue in Lebanon has moved from the silver screen to the small screen. It has technically been dealt with, so the news is being gently brushed to the side with a quick article full of optimistic quotes and general information...and a restless readership that is clearly not fooled. There were even some bitter accusations tossed around in the comments section.
That is all I currently have written on Lebanon, but that is not all there is to be said.
June 03, 2008
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)
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)