Somewhere in the mid to late 1990’s, my dad and I had a discussion about his pension. Dad, bless his memory, worked as an engineer in Syria for about 40 years and like many of his colleagues, regularly contributed money towards his retirement pension as administered by his syndicate. I remember him telling me that the managers of the funds had to cap the engineer’s benefits at a certain level since they were high enough as to risk exceeding those of a general in the Syrian Armed Forces; after all, he rhetorically asked, an engineer is not better than a general or is he!? I still remember me answering him with not the least amount of hesitation: “but of course an engineer is better than a general”!
My dad never served in the Syrian Army but I have. I graduated from Damascus University in 1983 and joined the army to “serve the flag” for 2 years like countless other young Syrians. This national duty (or tax if you prefer) was, and still is, universally imposed on Syrian men with few exceptions. Unlike professional military men, those subject to this “national duty” are paid more or less nothing. Sometimes the have to pay in cash or kind, to survive what practically amounts to 2 years (often more) of thinly disguised slavery.
For a professional school graduate like myself, life in the army was still not pretty but it was bearable. I got to meet interesting people from different religious, cultural, educational, and economic backgrounds. We all spoke the same language, of course, but accents varied wildly. The best way to classify those men, however, was simply on the basis of their military career, or the lack of it: were they professional soldiers or, like myself, serving their 2 years and counting the days and hours to put it all behind their back? And secondly, if they were professional soldiers, what was their rank?
Needless to say, rank was of utmost importance. At the very top, we had the colonel commanding the armored brigade. Everyone respected, or at least feared him. He was the ultimate bogey man. No other person in the entire brigade had such an aura surrounding his person. For his subordinates, he was authority incarnate and his word would send just about anyone to jail where torture was not uncommon. Under this colonel came his deputy (also a colonel but whose power was far more limited), another colonel in charge of logistics, and several majors, captains, and Lieutenants in charge of the different battalions and other departments. Quite few of the professional officers, the very same ones brown-nosing to the colonel were arrogant, condescending, and quite brutal dealing with their subordinates but what I found most interesting by far, was that even the lowliest soldier somehow considered himself worthier than civilians. How could that be?
The colonel in charge of logistics was a kindly man in his 50’s and about to retire. He once shared a dinner with few young college graduates serving in the army, myself included. He was in a good mood and dealt with us almost as equals using his nick name Abu Raymond. He told us about the many years he spent in the army and how he studied to upgrade his status from that of an NCO to an officer. He then proceeded, with no solicitation on our part whatsoever, to tell us that “absolutely no one” who could manage a trade or profession, would opt for a military career. Those who join the army, he emphatically stressed, do so as a last resort when all other doors are practically shut.
Abu Raymond’s courageous honesty was admirable, of course, but he did no more than saying loud and clear what everybody knew. The army in Syria facilitates social mobility for poor young men. Some of those young men are very intelligent and genuinely want a military career (I happen to know at least one or two so Abu Raymond’s assurance was not wholly accurate) but those are few and far between. The vast majority were average and below average and could therefore not realistically hope to apply for medical or engineering schools, traditionally the turf of the best and brightest. Add to that that they were economically disadvantaged, so they had no means with which to start a business.
The army offered a way out and forward for formerly disenfranchised young Syrians. Is there anything wrong with this? one might reasonably ask. Who would hesitate to grab an opportunity that offered money, prestige, secure job, and other benefits hitherto way out of reach? The answer is of course not many. Who knows I might have done the same thing if I were in their shoes. What I want to study here is not what made those men join the military. It is rather what makes them feel superior to us, other mortals. Where their mentality of entitlement came from. Do they REALLY believe that a general is better than an engineer? Do they REALYY believe that a military man is better than a civilian?
For, you see, their narrative is quite different than the one I outlined above. After all, how could one look at himself in the mirror knowing that he joined the military out of despair of other and likely brighter alternatives? No. The reason one chooses to soldier on has to do with totally altruistic, lofty, and noble motives. He is making THE ULTIMATE SACRIFICE. He is risking his very life for the sake of his country. It is thanks to him, and only to him, that the rest of us civilians can sleep sound at night. Without him, predators would devour the fatherland, kill its men, rape its women, and terrorize the helpless populace. He dies that we may live and prosper. We owe him our freedom and lives.
This refrain has been repeated so often and so long that it convinced many people and, quite likely, even those who invented this twisted logic. The army has after all dominated Syrian politics since 1949 more directly than indirectly. Armored vehicles roam Syrian cities driven by reckless drivers never held accountable for the accidents they provoke. The army sucks the economy dry and has lost few major battles with tragic consequences (magically peddled as victories) and no one batted an eye. Power resides with the army and its minions. The civilians in Syria would simply have to put up or shut up.
But what does the army really do that is so praiseworthy? I guess one might argue that its sheer existence somewhat dissuades potentially aggressive neighbors though this is highly questionable. Another role would be to keep law an order but shouldn’t that be the job of the police? The truth is perhaps less romantic. The army exists mainly to protect the regime, period. It is another version of Caesar’s Praetorian Guard, Napoleon’s Old Guard, or Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard.
This applies to many armies, perhaps most armies, and not just to those of banana republics. There exist many variations of course depending on when and where but the general rule still applies. In most countries that have large standing armies, the army is to a lesser or greater extent a parasite. The larger the army, the more resources it sucks. Often for meager return. This not the worst part, to be sure. Large and powerful armies have throughout history led their countries to disaster. The major dilemma remains that armies, like many of us, have to show that they’re worth the huge investment in treasure and sweat that they represent. In plain language, they have to show that they work hard for their money, harder than anyone else since they are willing to immolate themselves in an ULTIMATE SACRIFICE. Since the only “work” that they know how to do is warring and killing, one needs not be a diviner to imagine the consequences. Mighty empires were brought to its knees following the reckless adventures of its generals. Modern warfare has, if anything, made the enterprise costlier than ever. Even when the military “wins” the averages man almost always loses. Make no mistake about it: large militaries would fight ferociously to defend their privileges. When they run out of real ennemies and dangers, they invent imaginary ones. When they lose to external foes, they often make-up for this setback by oppressing their own people. Rather than defending the freedom of their countrymen, they become its worst enemy.
The ULTMATE SACRIFICE is an illusion and a fraud. The real heroes are not the ones with military garb. The are the loving mothers, the school teachers, the factory workers, the entertainers, the law makers, the health care providers, the scientists, and many other “unknown soldiers”. The real glory lies not in bombing, invading, and killing. It lies with constructing, inventing, maintaining, and upbringing. Crafty Odysseus was a thug, mighty Achilles and his Myrmidons were cold blooded murderers.
The great Victor Hugo loved France but was no fan of Bonaparte. Here is the introduction of his La retraite de Russie:
Il neigeait. On était vaincu par sa conquête.
Pour la première fois l'aigle baissait la tête.
Sombres jours ! l'empereur revenait lentement,
Laissant derrière lui brûler Moscou fumant.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Sunday, December 5, 2010
La Garde meurt, elle ne se rend pas!
Waterloo June 18, 1815.
The Cause was lost. The Imperial Guard was surrounded, out-manned, and out-gunned. The victorious British magnanimously offered to accept the surrender of the surviving remains of the elite French Troops when General Cambronne famously retorted, “Merde”, “The Guard dies, it does not surrender!” Only then did the British canons deliver the coup de grace.
What made the French sacrifice so many young lives so gratuitously? But a more pertinent question would be what makes many men and women persist in a course of action long after it foolishness has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt.
Countless other examples could be cited but, for the sake of brevity, I will restrict myself to two.
Winston Churchill made a sagacious observation in his WWI memoirs (The World’s Crisis). He marveled at the short-sightedness of the German leaders in the aftermath of their victory in The East. Russia was knocked out of the war and laid prostrate as Germany, early in 1918, forced its politicians to cede vast territories in Eastern Europe as to eclipse any potential gain at the Western Front. Wouldn’t the best course for Germany be to negotiate a peace settlement with the Western Allies, even at the cost of some territorial concessions to Belgium and France? Would the allies, bled white in four long and murderous years of ruthless warfare have rejected such an offer? We all now what happened next. Ludendorff and Company opted instead on a “quitte ou double” and launched their ultimate attack in the West in the Spring of 1918 that ended in disaster and Germany’s unconditional surrender.
The second example is more mundane but not any less relevant. Modern medical technology has made it possible to fight terminal illnesses ever more tenaciously though at a tremendous financial, physical, and psychological cost. Time and again you see or hear about a hopelessly ill patient fighting the complications of metastatic cancer for months in a row shuttling back and forth between a regular hospital ward and the intensive care unit when everyone knows that he or she is going to die. The stated goal is, of course, Prolonging Life. Towards achieving that goal, the medical team tries to keep the Patient’s Oxygen level within range, his heart pumping, his lungs (or a mechanical ventilator) breathing, his kidneys (or a dialysis machine) filtering poisons out of his body, etc. The patient becomes a “heart”, “lung”, Kidney”, Magnesium”, “Potassium”… but the larger picture, The Patient himself is lost to sight. Doctors brief the family about “Winning Battles” against bacterial infections and internal bleedings when everyone knows, deep down, that The War is utterly and irremediably lost. Rather that Prolonging Life, the process becomes in reality Prolonging Death. Its almost as if some people actually believe in the possibility of deflecting Death forever (one is reminded of the anecdote about Joha borrowing a pot from his neighbor and returning it next day with a smaller one adding, to his neighbor’s delight that it “gave birth” but when the next time he told the same person that the pot “died” the neighbor was besides himself with rage as if, all of a sudden, it dawned on him that Joha was lying).
That brings me back to the theme of this essay. What makes individuals, peoples, states, and empires persist in a demonstrably bankrupt course time after time after time? How could Homo Sapiens be so conceited, blind, and down right stupid? Wouldn’t it make much more sense to invest the resources spent on weapons and conflicts in the welfare of our planet? And what about devoting a fraction of the sums spent on Prolonging Death to promote education and child welfare? I think the answer is best sought in the Principle of Inertia. Inertia in physics is defined, according to Dictionary.com, as:
“the property of matter by which it retains its state of rest or its velocity along a straight line so long as it is not acted upon by an external force”.
To return to the examples quoted above, The Imperial Guard (an extreme example to be sure but none the less a valid model for many fanatics) knows how to fight but not much else. It obeys orders even if those don’t make sense. It abdicated logic to “Mob Frenzy” and paid the ultimate price. The rest of the French Troops were perhaps less valiant but more human. Instead of La Garde meurt, elle ne se rend pas! They adopted "La Garde recule. Sauve qui peut!" Cowardly perhaps but made much more sense.
As for the WWI vignette, it certainly was possible, in theory at least, for Germany to return the Alsace, Lorraine, along with the other conquered territory to France in return for an honorable peace and a free hand in the East (an offer almost impossible for the Allies to resist, again at least in theory) especially since we know, with the wisdom of hindsight that, in the end, Germany gave up all this territory and much more after hundreds of thousands more of young men on both sides were wantonly and needlessly immolated to Ares.
But was it psychologically possible for the German Leadership to even privately consider returning lands to France and Belgium, let alone dare submit such a suggestion to their public, for years living on the meager diet of militaristic patriotism, especially in light of their recent brilliant victories in the East? Here the Principle of Inertia could be seen at full force: absent a Force Majeure, that is “an external force”, The Kaiser and his generals were fated to continue “along a straight line” towards their doom. The Allies provided this “external force” and what was unthinkable for Germany became inevitable. End of the story.
The last case study is, as I stated above, more down to earth but far more likely encountered by the average GI Joe. At what point do we simply give up? Where should the line be drawn? Isn’t Death just as Predictable as Birth? Does anyone really presume the ability to interrupt the Life Cycle? In general terms, the “external force” here is more than just a cancer, heart attack, respiratory failure, infection.. It simply is Omnipotent and Ubiquitous Death lurking behind a corner near the end of the human journey.
The take home message is as simple as ABC. When you're in a hole, stop digging.
The Cause was lost. The Imperial Guard was surrounded, out-manned, and out-gunned. The victorious British magnanimously offered to accept the surrender of the surviving remains of the elite French Troops when General Cambronne famously retorted, “Merde”, “The Guard dies, it does not surrender!” Only then did the British canons deliver the coup de grace.
What made the French sacrifice so many young lives so gratuitously? But a more pertinent question would be what makes many men and women persist in a course of action long after it foolishness has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt.
Countless other examples could be cited but, for the sake of brevity, I will restrict myself to two.
Winston Churchill made a sagacious observation in his WWI memoirs (The World’s Crisis). He marveled at the short-sightedness of the German leaders in the aftermath of their victory in The East. Russia was knocked out of the war and laid prostrate as Germany, early in 1918, forced its politicians to cede vast territories in Eastern Europe as to eclipse any potential gain at the Western Front. Wouldn’t the best course for Germany be to negotiate a peace settlement with the Western Allies, even at the cost of some territorial concessions to Belgium and France? Would the allies, bled white in four long and murderous years of ruthless warfare have rejected such an offer? We all now what happened next. Ludendorff and Company opted instead on a “quitte ou double” and launched their ultimate attack in the West in the Spring of 1918 that ended in disaster and Germany’s unconditional surrender.
The second example is more mundane but not any less relevant. Modern medical technology has made it possible to fight terminal illnesses ever more tenaciously though at a tremendous financial, physical, and psychological cost. Time and again you see or hear about a hopelessly ill patient fighting the complications of metastatic cancer for months in a row shuttling back and forth between a regular hospital ward and the intensive care unit when everyone knows that he or she is going to die. The stated goal is, of course, Prolonging Life. Towards achieving that goal, the medical team tries to keep the Patient’s Oxygen level within range, his heart pumping, his lungs (or a mechanical ventilator) breathing, his kidneys (or a dialysis machine) filtering poisons out of his body, etc. The patient becomes a “heart”, “lung”, Kidney”, Magnesium”, “Potassium”… but the larger picture, The Patient himself is lost to sight. Doctors brief the family about “Winning Battles” against bacterial infections and internal bleedings when everyone knows, deep down, that The War is utterly and irremediably lost. Rather that Prolonging Life, the process becomes in reality Prolonging Death. Its almost as if some people actually believe in the possibility of deflecting Death forever (one is reminded of the anecdote about Joha borrowing a pot from his neighbor and returning it next day with a smaller one adding, to his neighbor’s delight that it “gave birth” but when the next time he told the same person that the pot “died” the neighbor was besides himself with rage as if, all of a sudden, it dawned on him that Joha was lying).
That brings me back to the theme of this essay. What makes individuals, peoples, states, and empires persist in a demonstrably bankrupt course time after time after time? How could Homo Sapiens be so conceited, blind, and down right stupid? Wouldn’t it make much more sense to invest the resources spent on weapons and conflicts in the welfare of our planet? And what about devoting a fraction of the sums spent on Prolonging Death to promote education and child welfare? I think the answer is best sought in the Principle of Inertia. Inertia in physics is defined, according to Dictionary.com, as:
“the property of matter by which it retains its state of rest or its velocity along a straight line so long as it is not acted upon by an external force”.
To return to the examples quoted above, The Imperial Guard (an extreme example to be sure but none the less a valid model for many fanatics) knows how to fight but not much else. It obeys orders even if those don’t make sense. It abdicated logic to “Mob Frenzy” and paid the ultimate price. The rest of the French Troops were perhaps less valiant but more human. Instead of La Garde meurt, elle ne se rend pas! They adopted "La Garde recule. Sauve qui peut!" Cowardly perhaps but made much more sense.
As for the WWI vignette, it certainly was possible, in theory at least, for Germany to return the Alsace, Lorraine, along with the other conquered territory to France in return for an honorable peace and a free hand in the East (an offer almost impossible for the Allies to resist, again at least in theory) especially since we know, with the wisdom of hindsight that, in the end, Germany gave up all this territory and much more after hundreds of thousands more of young men on both sides were wantonly and needlessly immolated to Ares.
But was it psychologically possible for the German Leadership to even privately consider returning lands to France and Belgium, let alone dare submit such a suggestion to their public, for years living on the meager diet of militaristic patriotism, especially in light of their recent brilliant victories in the East? Here the Principle of Inertia could be seen at full force: absent a Force Majeure, that is “an external force”, The Kaiser and his generals were fated to continue “along a straight line” towards their doom. The Allies provided this “external force” and what was unthinkable for Germany became inevitable. End of the story.
The last case study is, as I stated above, more down to earth but far more likely encountered by the average GI Joe. At what point do we simply give up? Where should the line be drawn? Isn’t Death just as Predictable as Birth? Does anyone really presume the ability to interrupt the Life Cycle? In general terms, the “external force” here is more than just a cancer, heart attack, respiratory failure, infection.. It simply is Omnipotent and Ubiquitous Death lurking behind a corner near the end of the human journey.
The take home message is as simple as ABC. When you're in a hole, stop digging.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Hath not an Arab Eyes
The time was somewhere in the second half of 1974. The place was the then prestigious school “al-Hourrieh” (otherwise known as “Mission Laique Francaise“, or better still, “The Institute of the Martyred Bassel Assad“), a relic of past French sojourn in Syria and a testimony to an often overlooked benevolent aspect of French Colonialism.
I was 15 years old at the time and just started High School. We were attending an Arabic Language class and that day’s assignment was Shakespeare’s “Merchant of Venice”. The teacher assigned me the role of Shylock and I had to perform in front of an audience almost evenly divided between Christians and Muslims with one notable exception: there was one Jewish student in the mix (yes there were few Jews left in Damascus at the time). Luckily, he was spared the embarrassment of participating in the play.
The inclusion of a translated Shakespearean’s play under the rubric “Arabic Language” was, of course, a pathetic and misguided attempt by the Syrian Government to recruit whatever elements deemed useful to its strategy vis-à-vis the Arab-Israeli Conflict, including religious hatred. Officially, Syria repeatedly stated that its struggle was aimed at Israel and Zionism but practically, its approach was quite schizophrenic as it allowed, if not encouraged, all sorts of anti-Semitic literature to flood the country. Unsurprisingly, the main source of this literature was European and it would be superfluous to name examples.
Here is some of what I had to read aloud, in translation of course, in front of my classmates, including the lonesome and hapless young Jew:
“He hath disgrac'd me and hind'red me half a
million; laugh'd at my losses, mock'd at my gains, scorned my
nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine
enemies.
And what's his reason? I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes?
Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections,
passions, fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons,
subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed
and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is?
If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh?
If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we
not revenge? “
I know not how this play affected the young students’ assembly as a whole but you need not be Nostradamus to predict the effect on the young Jew, whose ancestry has probably resided in Damascus for centuries. I remember that one Muslim student was kind enough to say something nice to him after the class. Something about universal brotherhood and tolerance. I’m not sure his interlocutor believed him but it was a nice gesture nonetheless.
What Shakespeare intended when he wrote this play is, yet again, beyond my grasp. What was clear however, was the intention of Syria’s Ministry of Education: nothing less than indoctrinating the students against Israel in particular and Jews in general. Least anyone has a doubt about it, not long ago Syria’s Minister of Defense authored a ridiculous book about the Affair of Damascus in 1840. Sadly, there is no shortage of gullible consumers of this trash.
As far as I’m concerned, the strongest and best part of the entire play was the piece I just quoted above. Something inside me did not accept Shylock as the Villain Shakespeare possibly intended him to be, the infamous “pound of flesh” not withstanding. I felt his anger against Antonio understandable and justified. I also felt that the punishment he was to endure at the conclusion of the play, tendentious, unwarranted, and vindictive. There clearly were two different standards for justice, one for Christians and another for Jews (likely for all “others”).
But the title I chose to this essay was not about a Jew, it was about an Arab. Actually you can insert whatever denomination you want, and it would still be valid, provided we are talking about either a minority member or an underdog. What applies to a Jew would, mutatis mutandis, apply to an Arab. You can’t legitimately complain about the mistreatment of Arabs and Muslims (terms often confused in the West) in America and Europe when you tolerate the abuse of minorities at your own home court. Stereotyping Jews is the mirror image of stereotyping Arabs, whence came my choice for this title.
I was 15 years old at the time and just started High School. We were attending an Arabic Language class and that day’s assignment was Shakespeare’s “Merchant of Venice”. The teacher assigned me the role of Shylock and I had to perform in front of an audience almost evenly divided between Christians and Muslims with one notable exception: there was one Jewish student in the mix (yes there were few Jews left in Damascus at the time). Luckily, he was spared the embarrassment of participating in the play.
The inclusion of a translated Shakespearean’s play under the rubric “Arabic Language” was, of course, a pathetic and misguided attempt by the Syrian Government to recruit whatever elements deemed useful to its strategy vis-à-vis the Arab-Israeli Conflict, including religious hatred. Officially, Syria repeatedly stated that its struggle was aimed at Israel and Zionism but practically, its approach was quite schizophrenic as it allowed, if not encouraged, all sorts of anti-Semitic literature to flood the country. Unsurprisingly, the main source of this literature was European and it would be superfluous to name examples.
Here is some of what I had to read aloud, in translation of course, in front of my classmates, including the lonesome and hapless young Jew:
“He hath disgrac'd me and hind'red me half a
million; laugh'd at my losses, mock'd at my gains, scorned my
nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine
enemies.
And what's his reason? I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes?
Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections,
passions, fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons,
subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed
and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is?
If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh?
If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we
not revenge? “
I know not how this play affected the young students’ assembly as a whole but you need not be Nostradamus to predict the effect on the young Jew, whose ancestry has probably resided in Damascus for centuries. I remember that one Muslim student was kind enough to say something nice to him after the class. Something about universal brotherhood and tolerance. I’m not sure his interlocutor believed him but it was a nice gesture nonetheless.
What Shakespeare intended when he wrote this play is, yet again, beyond my grasp. What was clear however, was the intention of Syria’s Ministry of Education: nothing less than indoctrinating the students against Israel in particular and Jews in general. Least anyone has a doubt about it, not long ago Syria’s Minister of Defense authored a ridiculous book about the Affair of Damascus in 1840. Sadly, there is no shortage of gullible consumers of this trash.
As far as I’m concerned, the strongest and best part of the entire play was the piece I just quoted above. Something inside me did not accept Shylock as the Villain Shakespeare possibly intended him to be, the infamous “pound of flesh” not withstanding. I felt his anger against Antonio understandable and justified. I also felt that the punishment he was to endure at the conclusion of the play, tendentious, unwarranted, and vindictive. There clearly were two different standards for justice, one for Christians and another for Jews (likely for all “others”).
But the title I chose to this essay was not about a Jew, it was about an Arab. Actually you can insert whatever denomination you want, and it would still be valid, provided we are talking about either a minority member or an underdog. What applies to a Jew would, mutatis mutandis, apply to an Arab. You can’t legitimately complain about the mistreatment of Arabs and Muslims (terms often confused in the West) in America and Europe when you tolerate the abuse of minorities at your own home court. Stereotyping Jews is the mirror image of stereotyping Arabs, whence came my choice for this title.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
An Arab Lobby?
On August 2nd 1990, Saddam Hussein unleashed his disastrous invasion of Kuwait. Bush 41 immediately drew a “Line in the Sand” and Operation Desert Shield followed suit. The reaction on the Arab Street in the Middle East is not the subject of this essay. I will restrict myself to very briefly describe the dilemma that all of a sudden faced Arab Americans, for this is what this article is about.
To be sure Saddam enjoyed some support in certain Arab American circles, disillusioned with American policy in the Middle East and readily willing to applaud any challenger of the status quo. Prominent Arab American leaders, however, quickly and wisely denounced the Iraqi leader’s foolish and reckless adventure, hoping against hope to contain the crisis through diplomacy before it was too late. Their efforts along with those of Liberal Americans however, were promptly frustrated by Bush 41, bent on war as a convenient way out of his domestic difficulties. Desert Shield duly mutated into Desert Storm as Arab Americans, overwhelmingly against striking Iraq no matter how they felt about Saddam, watched from the sidelines with shock and disbelief.
American Middle Eastern policy often clashed with Arab aspirations. One American administration after another supported Israel against its Arab neighbors almost reflexively. What happened in the fateful 1990-1991 Kuwait crisis, however, was QUALITATIVELY different and unprecedented. For the first time the USA directly attacked a major Arab country and on such a massive scale as to render Israel’s raids puny by comparison. It has kept going from bad to worse since. Desert Storm begat the sanctions, the sanctions begat the Iraq Liberation Act, the latter in time culminated in “Operation Iraqi Freedom” in 2003, direct US occupation at a time when men believed that old fashioned colonialism was dead and buried in the dustbin of history. Where have Arab Americans been hiding? How could they allow Arab fortunes to sink that low? Were they really that helpless? I shall try to answer those questions or at least some of them.
According to The Arab American Institute, Arab Americans number about 3.5 million. They are mostly of Levantine ancestry and Christian faith (2/3). The oldest, and most assimilated, communities originally came from Syria (mostly modern Lebanon) about a century ago. The immortal Gibran was one of them. The legendary surgeon Dr. Michael Debakey was another. Some of them chose a political carrier (e.g. James Abourezk, Ralph Nader, John Sununu, Spence Abraham, Darrell Issa, and quite few more). More recently the percentage of Muslims has been rising through immigration as well as higher birthrate. So to summarize, they constitute a little more than 1% of the US population. This may not sound like much until you remember that the far more vibrant and influential American Jewish community is not actually much more numerous, about 5.3 millions (the actual population of Arabs & Jews in the USA varies depends on what reference you use). What is the secret behind the ascendancy of American Jews and can Arab Americans ever hope to catch up with those formidable rivals? Should they even try? And more pertinently, should they even consider American Jews as rivals?
American Jews have impressive achievements to boast. At a governmental level, Jews all allover the Executive, Legislative, an Judiciary. The sheer number of US Jewish congressmen, senators, Supreme Court justices is mind boggling given the size of their community. Jewish scientists, doctors, lawyers, financiers, writers, and philanthropists have written brilliant chapters in the history of mankind. American Jews make their country proud. Their status was well earned and they did not become influential overnight as if by magic.
Like Arab Americans, American Jews mostly started as poor immigrants. Their parents went out of the way to provide for the education of their kids and in time it paid dividends. Like Arab Americans, they were, and still are, a small minority in this great country. What they lacked number wise, however, was amply compensated by dedication and hard work. They supported each other while loyally serving their adopted country. Theirs was a success story, an epic.
American Jews span the political spectrum. They certainly are not a monolith and they disagree on numerous issues. They are, of course, unanimous on fighting anti-Semitism and helping their less fortunate brethrens overseas (such as Russian Jews). Most of them, though by no means all, support Israel. Often with passion.
Arab Americans’ assets, in theory at least, are far from negligible. Many, if not most are fully assimilated and have been present in this country for generations. All are enfranchised. And, as stated above, several are active in politics and should in theory at least be able to influence American political discourse. Certainly some tried but with such modest results as to border on irrelevance. What went wrong?
The major stumbling block, in my opinion, has to do with who are Arab Americans? Do they really have more in common than is the case of the Arab countries from which they originated? If not then calling them a community would be a stretch, even a huge exaggeration. Aside from religious and cultural differences (themselves quite significant) you have different and sometimes contradictory agendas. It is true that the rank and file of Arab Americans more or less agree on the Israel-Palestine issue but this alas is no longer the only issue and, judging by modern trends, may soon be delegated to the background as other tragedies unfold. Besides, it is not enough to agree to oppose something (say Israeli aggression), what is sorely missing is a positive common agenda.
Back to the basics. Should an Arab Lobby be created? Should an Arab-centered political pressure group copy and paste the Israeli Lobby’s tactics, reflect them in a mirror, and project that reflection on Capitol Hill and elsewhere? Yes but..
Arab Americans are, and should emphasize at every turn that they are first and foremost loyal Americans. Responsible citizens who abide by the law, cherish the Constitution, pay their taxes, vote regularly, and see that their kids get the best possible education. First things first. Political influence can wait. Meanwhile here are few measures that could be feasible:
1. This can’t be repeated frequently enough: vote, vote, vote. Voting is a privilege we were denied in our birthplace and could potentially be a powerful tool if used judiciously. Voting “tribal” is wrong and counter productive. Vote not for a congressman just because he happens to be an Arab American. Before you hand him you vote or donate to his campaign, look at his voting record. We live in the age of Information Technology and your representative’s votes are relatively easy to track. You would be surprised to find self-proclaimed Arab American law-makers voting for the Iraq Liberation Act, the Patriot Act, the Syria Accountability Act, not to mention money for Israel’s military machine.
2. There is nothing wrong if you happen to be a Conservative Arab American. Indeed it helps if Arab Americans spread across the political spectrum but a word of caution: we are a minority and, historically speaking, minorities belong on the Left of a political spectrum. What applies to Jews, African Americans, and Muslim Americans to name but a few, also applies to Arab Americans. That leads me to the next point.
3. Jews are also divided between the Right and the Left but the majority of them are quite Leftist and Liberal. Just like Arab Americans, they are only too conscious of their minority status and are therefore mostly sympathetic to other minorities. Let me carry this argument to its logical conclusion: there is far more in common between Arabs and Jews in the USA that there are differences. No, we don’t have to agree on Israeli-Palestinian politics (though quite few Liberal Jews are indifferent, critical, and sometimes even hostile to Israeli policy) but we can agree on much else. Jewish leaders have often championed the cause of Arab and Muslim Americans before and after the tragic events of September 11. How about trying to enlist Jewish support to deal with the Iraq tragedy? To name but one cause.
4. By enlisting Jewish support I of course mean joining cause with the Liberal Jewish establishment. Jewish hawks and warmongers certainly exist and it goes without saying that they are natural enemies to all Liberals and not just Arab Americans. By the same token, you don’t have to join Mrs. Darwish’ “Arabs for Israel” and you definitely don’t have to seek membership in the Reform Party of Syria (it hardly has any members besides Mr. Ghadry himself, a Quisling by any objective measure). One more thing, never fall into the trap of conflating Israeli and Jewish. Confusing the two has been a deliberate policy of the Israeli government and there has been too many suckers amongst the Arabs to oblige.
5. One day there would hopefully be peace in the Near East. One blessed day mankind would hopefully abandon religious fanaticism and national jingoism. One day Arab and Jew would hopefully live in peace in the Near East and everywhere. We can only hope… until then lets join hands with our fellow Americans, all Americans, but mostly the Liberals and Progressives to build a better world for our children and grandchildren.
An Arab Lobby, if and when it sees the light, should concern itself as a matter of priority with the welfare of Arab Americans. A dignified and prosperous Arab American community could then serve as a bridge between the Old World and the New to the mutual benefit of both.
To be sure Saddam enjoyed some support in certain Arab American circles, disillusioned with American policy in the Middle East and readily willing to applaud any challenger of the status quo. Prominent Arab American leaders, however, quickly and wisely denounced the Iraqi leader’s foolish and reckless adventure, hoping against hope to contain the crisis through diplomacy before it was too late. Their efforts along with those of Liberal Americans however, were promptly frustrated by Bush 41, bent on war as a convenient way out of his domestic difficulties. Desert Shield duly mutated into Desert Storm as Arab Americans, overwhelmingly against striking Iraq no matter how they felt about Saddam, watched from the sidelines with shock and disbelief.
American Middle Eastern policy often clashed with Arab aspirations. One American administration after another supported Israel against its Arab neighbors almost reflexively. What happened in the fateful 1990-1991 Kuwait crisis, however, was QUALITATIVELY different and unprecedented. For the first time the USA directly attacked a major Arab country and on such a massive scale as to render Israel’s raids puny by comparison. It has kept going from bad to worse since. Desert Storm begat the sanctions, the sanctions begat the Iraq Liberation Act, the latter in time culminated in “Operation Iraqi Freedom” in 2003, direct US occupation at a time when men believed that old fashioned colonialism was dead and buried in the dustbin of history. Where have Arab Americans been hiding? How could they allow Arab fortunes to sink that low? Were they really that helpless? I shall try to answer those questions or at least some of them.
According to The Arab American Institute, Arab Americans number about 3.5 million. They are mostly of Levantine ancestry and Christian faith (2/3). The oldest, and most assimilated, communities originally came from Syria (mostly modern Lebanon) about a century ago. The immortal Gibran was one of them. The legendary surgeon Dr. Michael Debakey was another. Some of them chose a political carrier (e.g. James Abourezk, Ralph Nader, John Sununu, Spence Abraham, Darrell Issa, and quite few more). More recently the percentage of Muslims has been rising through immigration as well as higher birthrate. So to summarize, they constitute a little more than 1% of the US population. This may not sound like much until you remember that the far more vibrant and influential American Jewish community is not actually much more numerous, about 5.3 millions (the actual population of Arabs & Jews in the USA varies depends on what reference you use). What is the secret behind the ascendancy of American Jews and can Arab Americans ever hope to catch up with those formidable rivals? Should they even try? And more pertinently, should they even consider American Jews as rivals?
American Jews have impressive achievements to boast. At a governmental level, Jews all allover the Executive, Legislative, an Judiciary. The sheer number of US Jewish congressmen, senators, Supreme Court justices is mind boggling given the size of their community. Jewish scientists, doctors, lawyers, financiers, writers, and philanthropists have written brilliant chapters in the history of mankind. American Jews make their country proud. Their status was well earned and they did not become influential overnight as if by magic.
Like Arab Americans, American Jews mostly started as poor immigrants. Their parents went out of the way to provide for the education of their kids and in time it paid dividends. Like Arab Americans, they were, and still are, a small minority in this great country. What they lacked number wise, however, was amply compensated by dedication and hard work. They supported each other while loyally serving their adopted country. Theirs was a success story, an epic.
American Jews span the political spectrum. They certainly are not a monolith and they disagree on numerous issues. They are, of course, unanimous on fighting anti-Semitism and helping their less fortunate brethrens overseas (such as Russian Jews). Most of them, though by no means all, support Israel. Often with passion.
Arab Americans’ assets, in theory at least, are far from negligible. Many, if not most are fully assimilated and have been present in this country for generations. All are enfranchised. And, as stated above, several are active in politics and should in theory at least be able to influence American political discourse. Certainly some tried but with such modest results as to border on irrelevance. What went wrong?
The major stumbling block, in my opinion, has to do with who are Arab Americans? Do they really have more in common than is the case of the Arab countries from which they originated? If not then calling them a community would be a stretch, even a huge exaggeration. Aside from religious and cultural differences (themselves quite significant) you have different and sometimes contradictory agendas. It is true that the rank and file of Arab Americans more or less agree on the Israel-Palestine issue but this alas is no longer the only issue and, judging by modern trends, may soon be delegated to the background as other tragedies unfold. Besides, it is not enough to agree to oppose something (say Israeli aggression), what is sorely missing is a positive common agenda.
Back to the basics. Should an Arab Lobby be created? Should an Arab-centered political pressure group copy and paste the Israeli Lobby’s tactics, reflect them in a mirror, and project that reflection on Capitol Hill and elsewhere? Yes but..
Arab Americans are, and should emphasize at every turn that they are first and foremost loyal Americans. Responsible citizens who abide by the law, cherish the Constitution, pay their taxes, vote regularly, and see that their kids get the best possible education. First things first. Political influence can wait. Meanwhile here are few measures that could be feasible:
1. This can’t be repeated frequently enough: vote, vote, vote. Voting is a privilege we were denied in our birthplace and could potentially be a powerful tool if used judiciously. Voting “tribal” is wrong and counter productive. Vote not for a congressman just because he happens to be an Arab American. Before you hand him you vote or donate to his campaign, look at his voting record. We live in the age of Information Technology and your representative’s votes are relatively easy to track. You would be surprised to find self-proclaimed Arab American law-makers voting for the Iraq Liberation Act, the Patriot Act, the Syria Accountability Act, not to mention money for Israel’s military machine.
2. There is nothing wrong if you happen to be a Conservative Arab American. Indeed it helps if Arab Americans spread across the political spectrum but a word of caution: we are a minority and, historically speaking, minorities belong on the Left of a political spectrum. What applies to Jews, African Americans, and Muslim Americans to name but a few, also applies to Arab Americans. That leads me to the next point.
3. Jews are also divided between the Right and the Left but the majority of them are quite Leftist and Liberal. Just like Arab Americans, they are only too conscious of their minority status and are therefore mostly sympathetic to other minorities. Let me carry this argument to its logical conclusion: there is far more in common between Arabs and Jews in the USA that there are differences. No, we don’t have to agree on Israeli-Palestinian politics (though quite few Liberal Jews are indifferent, critical, and sometimes even hostile to Israeli policy) but we can agree on much else. Jewish leaders have often championed the cause of Arab and Muslim Americans before and after the tragic events of September 11. How about trying to enlist Jewish support to deal with the Iraq tragedy? To name but one cause.
4. By enlisting Jewish support I of course mean joining cause with the Liberal Jewish establishment. Jewish hawks and warmongers certainly exist and it goes without saying that they are natural enemies to all Liberals and not just Arab Americans. By the same token, you don’t have to join Mrs. Darwish’ “Arabs for Israel” and you definitely don’t have to seek membership in the Reform Party of Syria (it hardly has any members besides Mr. Ghadry himself, a Quisling by any objective measure). One more thing, never fall into the trap of conflating Israeli and Jewish. Confusing the two has been a deliberate policy of the Israeli government and there has been too many suckers amongst the Arabs to oblige.
5. One day there would hopefully be peace in the Near East. One blessed day mankind would hopefully abandon religious fanaticism and national jingoism. One day Arab and Jew would hopefully live in peace in the Near East and everywhere. We can only hope… until then lets join hands with our fellow Americans, all Americans, but mostly the Liberals and Progressives to build a better world for our children and grandchildren.
An Arab Lobby, if and when it sees the light, should concern itself as a matter of priority with the welfare of Arab Americans. A dignified and prosperous Arab American community could then serve as a bridge between the Old World and the New to the mutual benefit of both.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
“C’est pas moi, c’est lui” Syria’s Quest continued
I recall a 30 year old French movie starring Pierre Richard and Aldo Macione with the above title “it’s not me, it’s him“. It was a hilarious comedy that I would recommend to just about any audience but the movie itself is not the topic of today’s essay. The title is.
Caught doing something that he shouldn’t, any child (heck, most adults) would react by either innocently denying that he did what he did (that is you are supposed to trust his word and disbelieve your own eyes), or immediately shifting the blame to someone else (typically another child). Two classic Defense Mechanisms as delineated by Anna Freud, Denial and Projection. In Arabic there is a saying roughly translated like this “he hit me and cried, he preempted me and complained”. To watch a kid doing it is funny. To watch your own kid doing it, you would probably find it cute, even adorable. The sight of an adult behaving in such an immature manner could be appalling and contemptuous. How about the spectacle of legions of intellectuals, historians, and literati doing precisely that year after year after year?
Syria’s history has unfortunately been written with this mentality. Did I say SYRIA’S HISTORY? Pardon me. What I meant, of course, is the HISTORY OF THE ARAB HOMELAND (al Watan Al Arabi). For you see, the Social Studies I had to work on two generations ago at my school in Damascus acknowledged no Syrian identity. Syria was but a Region (Qutr) of the vast Arab Homeland and its Geography and History were not really much more important to Syrian students than, say, the Geography and History of Egypt, Iraq, Palestine, etc. There was no Syrian nation, be that actual Syria (made in France) or the Greater Syria peddled by the SSNP. What existed was an ARAB NATION (al Umma al Arabia) and an Arab Homeland. Modern Syria was a product of European colonialism. The Arab Homeland, on the other hand, was the genuine item. At least that was the official narrative back in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Though largely discredited in the eyes of many since, it has not quite died out as of yet.
Let’s trace the myth back to its very beginning. Who are those Arabs collectively grouped in one Nation? Where did they come from? How did they conquer a vast empire to edify their prodigious civilization? And how did this brilliant Arab Nation and Arab Homeland disintegrate?
One might be tempted to link Arabism and Islam together and therefore designate the career of Muhammad and the Arab Conquests in the 7th Century CE as the point of departure for Arab’s Eternal Mission (the Baath‘s slogan). That’s wrong of course. The Arab Nation is much older than that. The Semites, after all were Arabs, all of them: Amorites, Canaanites, Assyrians, Phoenicians, Egyptians (sic), etc.. Those were the good guys. The bad guys, that is the guys who fought the “Semite Arabs” and invaded the “Arab Homeland” were the Hebrews (the Hebrews were of course Semites since the term “Semitic” refers to a language family that includes also Arabic and Aramaic but who am I to say), Persians, Romans, etc. The “Semite Arabs” built brilliant civilizations: they spearheaded the Agrarian Revolution, created the world’s first alphabet, pioneered the pottery wheel, etc. ad infinitum. The invaders, on the other hand, left chaos and mayhem. Sargon of Akkad, Ashurbanipal of Nineveh, Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon were great conquerors. Not so with Cambyses of Persia or Pompey of Rome, cruel invaders and usurpers.
So the tale is roughly that in the beginning, the Semite Arabs lead the Ancient World with their prowess and innovation until others, the outsiders, overwhelmed the Arab Homeland and subjected the Arab Nation. The Greeks were succeeded by the Romans then the Byzantines in the West, whereas Persia loomed large in the East starting with the Achaemenid Cyrus all the way to the Sassanid Khosrau.
But the Arab Nation staged a brilliant come back in the 7th Century CE when benevolent warriors thundered out of Arabia all over the Near East to deliver their Semitic brethrens from the Byzantine and Persian yoke and reestablish justice and prosperity wherever they went. In no time a vast empire was created stretching from the Atlantic Ocean in the West to Turkestan in the East and from Asia Minor in the North to the Indian Ocean and the African Sahara in the South. Mankind could not be happier under Arab’s enlightened rule as the Caliphs judiciously promoted science, commerce, agriculture, justice, order, you name it.
This imaginary utopia lasted about 200 years, from the mid 7th Century to the mid 9th Century CE when the Abbasids Empire fell a victim to conspiracies orchestrated first by a cabal of back-stabbing Persians and secondly by ingrate barbarous Turkish soldiers. Naturally the Arabs tried to fight back as, for example, when Harun al Rashid massacred the fire-worshipping Barmakids but the conspiratorial Hydra grew many more heads in no time and Arab dominance virtually ended when Tahir brought Amin’s head to his caliph and master, Ma’mun. Mu’tasim tried to counterbalance the Persians’ menace using Turkish soldiery. It worked for him but a generation later, Mutawakkil was killed by his Turkish Praetorians. The death of Mutawakkil sealed the fate of Arabs’ glorious history for hundreds of years to come. Myriads of foes unleashed their murderous hosts on the Arab Homeland. To the Turks were added the Mongols, the Crusaders, the Mamelukes, and many more. The Middle Ages ended with the Arab Nation under siege.
The European Renaissance followed by the great geographic discoveries and the Rise of the West (a classic book by William McNeill) announced the beginning of the end for the Islamic Civilization, of which the Arabs were no longer the leaders. Of course Arabs were not to blame. Centuries of “occupation” by Crusaders, Mongols, Mamelukes, and Ottomans suffocated the Arab Genius and impoverished the Arab Homelands. Arabs were ruled by greedy, reactionary, and unscrupulous despots. They were overtaxed and oppressed. Towards the end of Ottoman’s rule, there were even malevolent attempts to stamp out Arab identity and “turkify” the Arab Nation.
Arabs sought Europe’s help against the Ottomans. The British promised Arab independence in exchange for Arab collaboration in The Great War against Turkey. Arabs fulfilled their part of the bargain only to be betrayed to the British. The Ottoman occupation gave way to European colonization. The British and the French divided the Arab Homelands amongst themselves and looted Arabs’ natural resources. Next came the Zionism and the Neo Colonialism A. K. A. Imperialism. Arab’s age-old struggle against occupation and injustice goes on. It is an almost four thousand year story.
Pseudo history, romantic naivete, and outright deception aside, this is not an effort on my part to exonerate “them”. Syria, the “Arab Homeland” or whatever else you want to call it, was indeed invaded by countless adventurers and the affair was more often than not quite bloody. I just have few points to make:
1. There are no heroes or villains in the saga. Arabs also invaded other lands as well as each other. Their wars, contrary to the official narrative, were often just as murderous as that of their rivals. Al Saffah’ epithet was coined for a reason, to give but one example.
2. To engage in a blame game is an exercise in futility. Of course others have their interests and they likely would attempt to achieve them at your expense. You have to assume that they are rivals and plan accordingly. Their intentions are not important good or bad. The important part is their capacitty (to harm you that is) and their deeds; Henceforth your own capacity to dissuade would be agressors. Let them concoct all the conspiracies they want, if your strong it wouldn’t matter.
3. “It’s not me, it’s him” is the bane of modern Arab thinking and politics. It is a perfect, but an ugly excuse to sit on your duff and blame everyone else for your shortcomings. It is a recipe for inaction. It is time to bury conspiracy theories and adopt a new slogan. How about “it’s me, let me see what I can do about it”.
I would like to conclude with this anecdote. Not too long ago I watched an altercation on Aljazeera TV between A Syrian “progressive” and another guest. The exchange was moderated by Faysal al Qasim. What was interesting about it was that, according to the Syrian guest, “our” backwardness was mostly due to the nefarious effects of the barbarous Arab invasions! Great! Not only we have the Persians, the Romans, the Ottomans, The Europeans, the Zionists, the Imperialism to blame but we also now have the Arabs, the new Villain of the Day. Everyone is after us. The thing is: who is “us”? and Syria’s Search for an Identity goes on.
Caught doing something that he shouldn’t, any child (heck, most adults) would react by either innocently denying that he did what he did (that is you are supposed to trust his word and disbelieve your own eyes), or immediately shifting the blame to someone else (typically another child). Two classic Defense Mechanisms as delineated by Anna Freud, Denial and Projection. In Arabic there is a saying roughly translated like this “he hit me and cried, he preempted me and complained”. To watch a kid doing it is funny. To watch your own kid doing it, you would probably find it cute, even adorable. The sight of an adult behaving in such an immature manner could be appalling and contemptuous. How about the spectacle of legions of intellectuals, historians, and literati doing precisely that year after year after year?
Syria’s history has unfortunately been written with this mentality. Did I say SYRIA’S HISTORY? Pardon me. What I meant, of course, is the HISTORY OF THE ARAB HOMELAND (al Watan Al Arabi). For you see, the Social Studies I had to work on two generations ago at my school in Damascus acknowledged no Syrian identity. Syria was but a Region (Qutr) of the vast Arab Homeland and its Geography and History were not really much more important to Syrian students than, say, the Geography and History of Egypt, Iraq, Palestine, etc. There was no Syrian nation, be that actual Syria (made in France) or the Greater Syria peddled by the SSNP. What existed was an ARAB NATION (al Umma al Arabia) and an Arab Homeland. Modern Syria was a product of European colonialism. The Arab Homeland, on the other hand, was the genuine item. At least that was the official narrative back in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Though largely discredited in the eyes of many since, it has not quite died out as of yet.
Let’s trace the myth back to its very beginning. Who are those Arabs collectively grouped in one Nation? Where did they come from? How did they conquer a vast empire to edify their prodigious civilization? And how did this brilliant Arab Nation and Arab Homeland disintegrate?
One might be tempted to link Arabism and Islam together and therefore designate the career of Muhammad and the Arab Conquests in the 7th Century CE as the point of departure for Arab’s Eternal Mission (the Baath‘s slogan). That’s wrong of course. The Arab Nation is much older than that. The Semites, after all were Arabs, all of them: Amorites, Canaanites, Assyrians, Phoenicians, Egyptians (sic), etc.. Those were the good guys. The bad guys, that is the guys who fought the “Semite Arabs” and invaded the “Arab Homeland” were the Hebrews (the Hebrews were of course Semites since the term “Semitic” refers to a language family that includes also Arabic and Aramaic but who am I to say), Persians, Romans, etc. The “Semite Arabs” built brilliant civilizations: they spearheaded the Agrarian Revolution, created the world’s first alphabet, pioneered the pottery wheel, etc. ad infinitum. The invaders, on the other hand, left chaos and mayhem. Sargon of Akkad, Ashurbanipal of Nineveh, Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon were great conquerors. Not so with Cambyses of Persia or Pompey of Rome, cruel invaders and usurpers.
So the tale is roughly that in the beginning, the Semite Arabs lead the Ancient World with their prowess and innovation until others, the outsiders, overwhelmed the Arab Homeland and subjected the Arab Nation. The Greeks were succeeded by the Romans then the Byzantines in the West, whereas Persia loomed large in the East starting with the Achaemenid Cyrus all the way to the Sassanid Khosrau.
But the Arab Nation staged a brilliant come back in the 7th Century CE when benevolent warriors thundered out of Arabia all over the Near East to deliver their Semitic brethrens from the Byzantine and Persian yoke and reestablish justice and prosperity wherever they went. In no time a vast empire was created stretching from the Atlantic Ocean in the West to Turkestan in the East and from Asia Minor in the North to the Indian Ocean and the African Sahara in the South. Mankind could not be happier under Arab’s enlightened rule as the Caliphs judiciously promoted science, commerce, agriculture, justice, order, you name it.
This imaginary utopia lasted about 200 years, from the mid 7th Century to the mid 9th Century CE when the Abbasids Empire fell a victim to conspiracies orchestrated first by a cabal of back-stabbing Persians and secondly by ingrate barbarous Turkish soldiers. Naturally the Arabs tried to fight back as, for example, when Harun al Rashid massacred the fire-worshipping Barmakids but the conspiratorial Hydra grew many more heads in no time and Arab dominance virtually ended when Tahir brought Amin’s head to his caliph and master, Ma’mun. Mu’tasim tried to counterbalance the Persians’ menace using Turkish soldiery. It worked for him but a generation later, Mutawakkil was killed by his Turkish Praetorians. The death of Mutawakkil sealed the fate of Arabs’ glorious history for hundreds of years to come. Myriads of foes unleashed their murderous hosts on the Arab Homeland. To the Turks were added the Mongols, the Crusaders, the Mamelukes, and many more. The Middle Ages ended with the Arab Nation under siege.
The European Renaissance followed by the great geographic discoveries and the Rise of the West (a classic book by William McNeill) announced the beginning of the end for the Islamic Civilization, of which the Arabs were no longer the leaders. Of course Arabs were not to blame. Centuries of “occupation” by Crusaders, Mongols, Mamelukes, and Ottomans suffocated the Arab Genius and impoverished the Arab Homelands. Arabs were ruled by greedy, reactionary, and unscrupulous despots. They were overtaxed and oppressed. Towards the end of Ottoman’s rule, there were even malevolent attempts to stamp out Arab identity and “turkify” the Arab Nation.
Arabs sought Europe’s help against the Ottomans. The British promised Arab independence in exchange for Arab collaboration in The Great War against Turkey. Arabs fulfilled their part of the bargain only to be betrayed to the British. The Ottoman occupation gave way to European colonization. The British and the French divided the Arab Homelands amongst themselves and looted Arabs’ natural resources. Next came the Zionism and the Neo Colonialism A. K. A. Imperialism. Arab’s age-old struggle against occupation and injustice goes on. It is an almost four thousand year story.
Pseudo history, romantic naivete, and outright deception aside, this is not an effort on my part to exonerate “them”. Syria, the “Arab Homeland” or whatever else you want to call it, was indeed invaded by countless adventurers and the affair was more often than not quite bloody. I just have few points to make:
1. There are no heroes or villains in the saga. Arabs also invaded other lands as well as each other. Their wars, contrary to the official narrative, were often just as murderous as that of their rivals. Al Saffah’ epithet was coined for a reason, to give but one example.
2. To engage in a blame game is an exercise in futility. Of course others have their interests and they likely would attempt to achieve them at your expense. You have to assume that they are rivals and plan accordingly. Their intentions are not important good or bad. The important part is their capacitty (to harm you that is) and their deeds; Henceforth your own capacity to dissuade would be agressors. Let them concoct all the conspiracies they want, if your strong it wouldn’t matter.
3. “It’s not me, it’s him” is the bane of modern Arab thinking and politics. It is a perfect, but an ugly excuse to sit on your duff and blame everyone else for your shortcomings. It is a recipe for inaction. It is time to bury conspiracy theories and adopt a new slogan. How about “it’s me, let me see what I can do about it”.
I would like to conclude with this anecdote. Not too long ago I watched an altercation on Aljazeera TV between A Syrian “progressive” and another guest. The exchange was moderated by Faysal al Qasim. What was interesting about it was that, according to the Syrian guest, “our” backwardness was mostly due to the nefarious effects of the barbarous Arab invasions! Great! Not only we have the Persians, the Romans, the Ottomans, The Europeans, the Zionists, the Imperialism to blame but we also now have the Arabs, the new Villain of the Day. Everyone is after us. The thing is: who is “us”? and Syria’s Search for an Identity goes on.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Are Alawis Muslims?
You’ve got to love the Internet. At last modern technology allows one to bare all body and soul (provided of course you hide your face and real name) and suffer virtually no consequences. This is, by the way, sort of what I set about to do today. Please bear with me and my intentions would soon reveal themselves as I strip naked, metaphorically of course, piece by piece.
Once upon a time, I was surfing the net. I felt bored and drifted to Youtube to run into what was at the time a new clip of Dominique Hourani with the cute name of “Khashooka” or something similar. Dominique is certainly no Fairuz, not by a long shot. She nevertheless has what it takes to attract a fairly wide audience in the Arab World thanks to her pleasing voice, playful antics, and youthful beauty. Like many of her peers, she can fluently sing in different accents: Lebanese, Egyptian, Khalijee, and perhaps more. Her clips are fun to watch, particularly after a long and tiresome day.
Watching the girly dances of Dominique and listening to her singing, the last thing to come to mind, at least as far as I’m concerned, would be Religion and Politics. Yet, this is exactly what I got into that day as an added bonus to watching the clip. Let me elaborate.
I don’t know about you, but I often look at the number of viewers of a particular clip and, very briefly, browse through the comments. With a young woman Dominique’s type, most of the comments are positively enthusiastic with some, inevitably, not that thrilled. By the way, I do not as of yet, have a Youtube account, and therefore do not post comments on that site. My comment on that particular clip, or rather my comment on some of its comments, I hereby confine to this blog. Sorry for the lengthy introduction. Lets proceed into the theme of this essay without further ado.
For that particular clip, Khashooka, Dominique chose an accent that I was not able to identify. Irony of ironies! One Commentator, evidently smarter than I am, opined that she was singing with a Syrian accent (mind you Syria has a multitude of accents). A Second one, not to be outdone, objected that she was using not the Syrian, but the Nusayri accent! A Third one furiously retorted something very close to “So Alawis are not Syrians then? We will continue to rule over you for the rest of your lives, you -expletive-”.
Now I found, and still do, this brief exchange fascinating. The Second Commentator, echoing not doubt quite few Sunnis (perhaps ultra- Sunnis Salafis and/or Wahhabis), NOT ONLY DID NOT CONSIDER ALAWIS MUSLIMS, HE EVEN RULED THEM OUT AS SYRIANS. Well, at least it sounded this way, to the Third Commentator as well as myself! Viewed through this prism, the outrage of the Third Commentator was fully justified. I might add that it should not take an Alawi to resent and abhor such a racist and bigoted attitude. It is sad but unfortunately that is the way it is.
Let’s put this little story in its proper context. Back in 1973, a Syrian Constitution was proposed that failed to specify that the president should belong to the Muslim faith. There was enough restlessness in the Country that President Assad felt obliged to take two landmark steps: the first was to amend the constitution as to calm the Sunni opposition, and the second to get the late Imam Moussa Sadr of Lebanon to issue a Fatwa acknowledging the Alawis as Shia Muslims. Syria has been living with the consequences of those events ever since with no sign that the issue would be buried any time soon.
So let’s resume from the very beginning. The Alawis are certainly Syrians in the full meaning of the word and, with all due respect to Commentator Number Two, to claim or even imply otherwise would be preposterous to put it very politely. But what about their Islamic identity?
This may sound like a more relevant question and, excuse me gentle reader if I disappoint you, I will not provide an answer and here are my reasons as to why:
1. It is up to the Alawis, and only to the Alawis to define their own identity. If they choose to wave the flag of Islam, any sect of Islam, that would be enough for me to consider them Muslims. Should they state that they are Alawis and not Muslims, I would have no objection to that whatsoever. Were they to hide their faith altogether or to have no faith at all, I would not find it problematic in the least. I am a firm believer in liberal values and to me every one should be able to define who he or she is. I will go further and say that an Alawi should also be able to choose the way to be called. If he finds the label Nusayri offensive, for instance then it behooves me to abstain from using it.
2. It is a disgrace that the Syrian Constitution should address the President’s faith at all. OK so Alawis are Muslims, what about Christians, Yazidis, Druze, Ismailis, Atheists, Agnostics, Jews (hardly anyone of the latter group is left but that’s another story)? Are they second class citizens? Since Syria is mostly Muslim, it is unlikely that a non-Muslim would assume the presidency anytime soon but why does the Constitution have to specify it?
3. Syria is supposedly a modern secular state and is admittedly more tolerant of its minorities than most countries in the Near East. Wouldn’t the logical next step be to separate Church from State?
4. The Muslim Brotherhood and its likes resent being ruled by what they consider a heretical minority. This is the wrong way to oppose the Syrian Regime. There exists no shortage of legitimate objections to the way Syria is governed but its President’s faith (or the lack of it) is not one of them. The President owes Syria’s Sunni community respect, not more or less than he what would any other Syrian community. He should not have to bow and prostrate in the mosque if he does not want to. Many, if not most West European leaders are declared atheists and their peoples don’t seem to mind (to be sure this is not so in the USA, all US Presidents are at least officially devout Christians some, from all available evidence genuinely and deeply so but I digress)*.
To conclude I would add that the Near East has not moved beyond the Religious State yet. We have a Jewish State (Israel), a Wahhabi State (Saudi Arabia), and a Shia State (Iran) to name but a few. Religion as a remedy is however bound to kill the patient in Syria, the mosaic of which is such that imposing conformity is bound to shatter the already fragile sectarian balance and quite likely lead to an Iraq or Lebanon-like scenario. A nightmare to contemplate let alone live through. I very much doubt that my arguments would impress Commentator Number Two or his ilk but I felt I had to add my two cents.
*It is told that Presidents George W. Bush of the USA and Jacques Chirac of France once had a discussion about Iraq when Mr. Bush told his French counterpart that a dream-like vision of Gog and Magog was one factor in his decision to invade/liberate Iraq. Monsieur Chirac had to confer with some theologians to understand what the American President was talking about.
Once upon a time, I was surfing the net. I felt bored and drifted to Youtube to run into what was at the time a new clip of Dominique Hourani with the cute name of “Khashooka” or something similar. Dominique is certainly no Fairuz, not by a long shot. She nevertheless has what it takes to attract a fairly wide audience in the Arab World thanks to her pleasing voice, playful antics, and youthful beauty. Like many of her peers, she can fluently sing in different accents: Lebanese, Egyptian, Khalijee, and perhaps more. Her clips are fun to watch, particularly after a long and tiresome day.
Watching the girly dances of Dominique and listening to her singing, the last thing to come to mind, at least as far as I’m concerned, would be Religion and Politics. Yet, this is exactly what I got into that day as an added bonus to watching the clip. Let me elaborate.
I don’t know about you, but I often look at the number of viewers of a particular clip and, very briefly, browse through the comments. With a young woman Dominique’s type, most of the comments are positively enthusiastic with some, inevitably, not that thrilled. By the way, I do not as of yet, have a Youtube account, and therefore do not post comments on that site. My comment on that particular clip, or rather my comment on some of its comments, I hereby confine to this blog. Sorry for the lengthy introduction. Lets proceed into the theme of this essay without further ado.
For that particular clip, Khashooka, Dominique chose an accent that I was not able to identify. Irony of ironies! One Commentator, evidently smarter than I am, opined that she was singing with a Syrian accent (mind you Syria has a multitude of accents). A Second one, not to be outdone, objected that she was using not the Syrian, but the Nusayri accent! A Third one furiously retorted something very close to “So Alawis are not Syrians then? We will continue to rule over you for the rest of your lives, you -expletive-”.
Now I found, and still do, this brief exchange fascinating. The Second Commentator, echoing not doubt quite few Sunnis (perhaps ultra- Sunnis Salafis and/or Wahhabis), NOT ONLY DID NOT CONSIDER ALAWIS MUSLIMS, HE EVEN RULED THEM OUT AS SYRIANS. Well, at least it sounded this way, to the Third Commentator as well as myself! Viewed through this prism, the outrage of the Third Commentator was fully justified. I might add that it should not take an Alawi to resent and abhor such a racist and bigoted attitude. It is sad but unfortunately that is the way it is.
Let’s put this little story in its proper context. Back in 1973, a Syrian Constitution was proposed that failed to specify that the president should belong to the Muslim faith. There was enough restlessness in the Country that President Assad felt obliged to take two landmark steps: the first was to amend the constitution as to calm the Sunni opposition, and the second to get the late Imam Moussa Sadr of Lebanon to issue a Fatwa acknowledging the Alawis as Shia Muslims. Syria has been living with the consequences of those events ever since with no sign that the issue would be buried any time soon.
So let’s resume from the very beginning. The Alawis are certainly Syrians in the full meaning of the word and, with all due respect to Commentator Number Two, to claim or even imply otherwise would be preposterous to put it very politely. But what about their Islamic identity?
This may sound like a more relevant question and, excuse me gentle reader if I disappoint you, I will not provide an answer and here are my reasons as to why:
1. It is up to the Alawis, and only to the Alawis to define their own identity. If they choose to wave the flag of Islam, any sect of Islam, that would be enough for me to consider them Muslims. Should they state that they are Alawis and not Muslims, I would have no objection to that whatsoever. Were they to hide their faith altogether or to have no faith at all, I would not find it problematic in the least. I am a firm believer in liberal values and to me every one should be able to define who he or she is. I will go further and say that an Alawi should also be able to choose the way to be called. If he finds the label Nusayri offensive, for instance then it behooves me to abstain from using it.
2. It is a disgrace that the Syrian Constitution should address the President’s faith at all. OK so Alawis are Muslims, what about Christians, Yazidis, Druze, Ismailis, Atheists, Agnostics, Jews (hardly anyone of the latter group is left but that’s another story)? Are they second class citizens? Since Syria is mostly Muslim, it is unlikely that a non-Muslim would assume the presidency anytime soon but why does the Constitution have to specify it?
3. Syria is supposedly a modern secular state and is admittedly more tolerant of its minorities than most countries in the Near East. Wouldn’t the logical next step be to separate Church from State?
4. The Muslim Brotherhood and its likes resent being ruled by what they consider a heretical minority. This is the wrong way to oppose the Syrian Regime. There exists no shortage of legitimate objections to the way Syria is governed but its President’s faith (or the lack of it) is not one of them. The President owes Syria’s Sunni community respect, not more or less than he what would any other Syrian community. He should not have to bow and prostrate in the mosque if he does not want to. Many, if not most West European leaders are declared atheists and their peoples don’t seem to mind (to be sure this is not so in the USA, all US Presidents are at least officially devout Christians some, from all available evidence genuinely and deeply so but I digress)*.
To conclude I would add that the Near East has not moved beyond the Religious State yet. We have a Jewish State (Israel), a Wahhabi State (Saudi Arabia), and a Shia State (Iran) to name but a few. Religion as a remedy is however bound to kill the patient in Syria, the mosaic of which is such that imposing conformity is bound to shatter the already fragile sectarian balance and quite likely lead to an Iraq or Lebanon-like scenario. A nightmare to contemplate let alone live through. I very much doubt that my arguments would impress Commentator Number Two or his ilk but I felt I had to add my two cents.
*It is told that Presidents George W. Bush of the USA and Jacques Chirac of France once had a discussion about Iraq when Mr. Bush told his French counterpart that a dream-like vision of Gog and Magog was one factor in his decision to invade/liberate Iraq. Monsieur Chirac had to confer with some theologians to understand what the American President was talking about.
Syria's Quest
This essay might as well be entitled a “Tale of Two Countries”, the two countries in question being Egypt and Syria. Let me clarify.
Egypt’s former president, Anwar Sadat, published his autobiography in 1978 under the title “In Search for an Identity”. Perhaps he intended his book as an answer for that of his predecessor “The Philosophy of the Revolution” published in 1955. Most likely Nasser was searching for his own identity back then, 23 years before Sadat embarked (or accomplished) his mission. By “his identity” I mean that of Egypt, of course. To Nasser, Egypt was to be the center of 3 circles, an Arab, an African, and an Islamist. That, plus his “Non-Alignment” policy, was the mission he intended for Egypt as to better fulfill its historical role. Nasser’s prestige hit the stratosphere by the late 1950’s only to reach a nadir in 1967. The rest of his presidency and the entire duration of Sadat’s administration were therefore consecrated to recover the lost ground and ultimately put the Nasser Phenomenon in its proper perspective.
Sadat was a reaction to Nasser. He was trying to re-define Egypt’s mission in less grandiose terms. He re-oriented his foreign policy towards the West in general and the USA in particular while regionally he put more emphasis on Egypt proper and less on its Arab identity. For better or for worse, Sadat managed during his 11 years in power to undo much of Nasser’s legacy. By 1981, the year of his assassination, the Nasser Era was all but a memory.
A deeper probe, however, makes one wonder if Nasser and Sadat really needed to worry much about Egypt’s Identity. A unique set of strategic, mostly geographical factors, combined from time immemorial to forge this particular identity. Situated at the junction of two continents favored by a moderate climate, shielded by deserts and the Mediterranean Sea, and endowed by the Nile’s yearly renewable bounty, Upper & Lower Egypt were united by the semi-legendary Menes 5,000 years ago and have remained politically and economically an integrated unit ever since. That the Old Kingdom alone lasted 900 years would suffice to seal the argument. Periodical declines, invasions, and chaos notwithstanding, Egypt’s unique identity has always re-emerged from the ashes as befits her enigmatic Sphinx.
Which leads me to the tale of the Second Country, Syria, and its own long and belabored Search for an Identity.
The term “Syria”, was created by the ancient Greeks (so was “Egypt”) to designate a certain geographical area. The extent of that area varied greatly with time according to which reference you consult and which ideology you believe in. An alternative name would be “Bilad Al Sham”, Sham meaning “North” (as opposed to Yemen, indicating “South”, both relative to Arabia & Hejaz).
Syria’s history is almost as old as that of Egypt. While its civilization was perhaps less imposing in terms of monuments and architecture, it was nevertheless very rich with ample achievements to boast. Damascus claims being the oldest continuously inhabited city on Earth (so does its rival Aleppo), Syria’s alphabet was amongst the oldest, if not the oldest, Phoenician vessels pioneered maritime trade carrying it throughout the Mediterranean penetrating Gibraltar to round the West African Coast. A brilliant and very old civilization by any reckoning and one that, at least at first sight, would more than justify modern romantic dreams of “Greater Syria” or “Syrian Nation”.
But that was not to be. Throughout history, more often than not, Syria served as a corridor for invaders. They came from all directions: from the East came The Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians; from the North came the Hittites, the Byzantines, and the Ottomans; From the South came the Arabs: from the Southwest came the Egyptians; and from the West came the Crusaders as harbingers to modern Europeans. To be sure, there were periods when the Center of Gravity “gravitated” to Syria itself, most convincingly so in the time of the great Omayyad’s. Those instances, however, were the exception not the rule. Almost exactly the mirror image of the Egyptian Case.
This probably has to do with its geography and climate. Syria’s location made it vulnerable to invasions with few natural barriers to oppose covetous neighbors. Its water supply, except at the coast and some small river valleys, was reliable enough as to foster agriculture and settlement but not at a large enough scale as to create permanent central administration and a strong bureaucracy, let alone a standing unified army as to keep the invaders at bay. There were too many mountains cutting off the Coast from the Interior making for different cultures and serving as a refuge for centrifugal and dissident minorities.
What is clear, moreover, is that “Syrians” throughout history and until very recently, have not thought of themselves as a distinct entity. The proffered their loyalty to whoever happened to be the suzerain of the day and rebelled whenever an opportunity arose or a new master loomed. To put it bluntly, their attitude was something like “whosoever marries my mother shall be by step-father”. Syrians were Aramaic, Phoenician, Canaanites, Hebrew, Amorites; They were Aleppine, Damascene, Tyrene, Palmyrene; They were Muslims, Christians, Jews. They were anything but Syrians.
At some point in the late part of the 19th Century CE, a different concept was born. Geographical Syria was in the process of metamorphosis to Political Syria. It started as a movement of Arabic-Syrian cultural revival by few intellectuals in what nowadays is called Lebanon. Within few decades it matured into a call for autonomy then independence (from the Ottoman Empire) under Hashemite leadership with British money, arms, and guidance.
Sheriff Hussein of Mecca spearheaded the call for Syria’s Independence though what he most probably had in mind was a kingdom for himself and his descendants. His Greater Syria, like that of his Son Abdullah, or the “Fertile Crescent” project of Prince Abdul Ilah of Iraq, was to be a reward for his contribution to the Allied cause. He was ambitious and opportunist but a philosopher he was not. That role was left to Syrian Intellectuals who formulated their ideologies copying Western prototypes. Antun Saadah championed the cause of Greater Syria (including parts of modern day Turkey, the Island of Cyprus, the Sinai Desert, etc); Michel Aflak raised the banner of Arab Nationalism from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean (presumably under Syrian leadership). There were other Ideologies Competing on the “Market of Nationhood” hat had nothing to do with “Syria” proper, most notably that of the “Muslim Nation” of the Brotherhood, or Communism that attracted quite few followers with leftist orientation.
The common factor between all those ideologies, Syrian, Arab, Islamist, Communist (here comes to mind Nasser’s three circles except that his were of course not exclusive) is that they all envisaged an entity much different and significantly larger than the one that constitutes modern Syria, itself (let’s face it) a French creation with an important British collaboration.
It is to be concluded that Syrians have thus far not accepted their lot and therefore have not found their identity. They continue to resent the artificial borders imposed by Mister Sykes and Monsieur Picot but have not as of yet agreed on an alternative let alone the means to reach that alternative. Syria’s Identity remains in flux, perhaps awaiting a Syrian Nasser or a Syrian Sadat to further define it, though a more pertinent question would be if such a visionary would inspire the masses or win converts. It is easier to define Syria by what it is not (it is not eclusively Arab or Islamist) than what it is. I pretend not to have found the answer. History is my passion but I lay no claim to predicting the future.
Egypt’s former president, Anwar Sadat, published his autobiography in 1978 under the title “In Search for an Identity”. Perhaps he intended his book as an answer for that of his predecessor “The Philosophy of the Revolution” published in 1955. Most likely Nasser was searching for his own identity back then, 23 years before Sadat embarked (or accomplished) his mission. By “his identity” I mean that of Egypt, of course. To Nasser, Egypt was to be the center of 3 circles, an Arab, an African, and an Islamist. That, plus his “Non-Alignment” policy, was the mission he intended for Egypt as to better fulfill its historical role. Nasser’s prestige hit the stratosphere by the late 1950’s only to reach a nadir in 1967. The rest of his presidency and the entire duration of Sadat’s administration were therefore consecrated to recover the lost ground and ultimately put the Nasser Phenomenon in its proper perspective.
Sadat was a reaction to Nasser. He was trying to re-define Egypt’s mission in less grandiose terms. He re-oriented his foreign policy towards the West in general and the USA in particular while regionally he put more emphasis on Egypt proper and less on its Arab identity. For better or for worse, Sadat managed during his 11 years in power to undo much of Nasser’s legacy. By 1981, the year of his assassination, the Nasser Era was all but a memory.
A deeper probe, however, makes one wonder if Nasser and Sadat really needed to worry much about Egypt’s Identity. A unique set of strategic, mostly geographical factors, combined from time immemorial to forge this particular identity. Situated at the junction of two continents favored by a moderate climate, shielded by deserts and the Mediterranean Sea, and endowed by the Nile’s yearly renewable bounty, Upper & Lower Egypt were united by the semi-legendary Menes 5,000 years ago and have remained politically and economically an integrated unit ever since. That the Old Kingdom alone lasted 900 years would suffice to seal the argument. Periodical declines, invasions, and chaos notwithstanding, Egypt’s unique identity has always re-emerged from the ashes as befits her enigmatic Sphinx.
Which leads me to the tale of the Second Country, Syria, and its own long and belabored Search for an Identity.
The term “Syria”, was created by the ancient Greeks (so was “Egypt”) to designate a certain geographical area. The extent of that area varied greatly with time according to which reference you consult and which ideology you believe in. An alternative name would be “Bilad Al Sham”, Sham meaning “North” (as opposed to Yemen, indicating “South”, both relative to Arabia & Hejaz).
Syria’s history is almost as old as that of Egypt. While its civilization was perhaps less imposing in terms of monuments and architecture, it was nevertheless very rich with ample achievements to boast. Damascus claims being the oldest continuously inhabited city on Earth (so does its rival Aleppo), Syria’s alphabet was amongst the oldest, if not the oldest, Phoenician vessels pioneered maritime trade carrying it throughout the Mediterranean penetrating Gibraltar to round the West African Coast. A brilliant and very old civilization by any reckoning and one that, at least at first sight, would more than justify modern romantic dreams of “Greater Syria” or “Syrian Nation”.
But that was not to be. Throughout history, more often than not, Syria served as a corridor for invaders. They came from all directions: from the East came The Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians; from the North came the Hittites, the Byzantines, and the Ottomans; From the South came the Arabs: from the Southwest came the Egyptians; and from the West came the Crusaders as harbingers to modern Europeans. To be sure, there were periods when the Center of Gravity “gravitated” to Syria itself, most convincingly so in the time of the great Omayyad’s. Those instances, however, were the exception not the rule. Almost exactly the mirror image of the Egyptian Case.
This probably has to do with its geography and climate. Syria’s location made it vulnerable to invasions with few natural barriers to oppose covetous neighbors. Its water supply, except at the coast and some small river valleys, was reliable enough as to foster agriculture and settlement but not at a large enough scale as to create permanent central administration and a strong bureaucracy, let alone a standing unified army as to keep the invaders at bay. There were too many mountains cutting off the Coast from the Interior making for different cultures and serving as a refuge for centrifugal and dissident minorities.
What is clear, moreover, is that “Syrians” throughout history and until very recently, have not thought of themselves as a distinct entity. The proffered their loyalty to whoever happened to be the suzerain of the day and rebelled whenever an opportunity arose or a new master loomed. To put it bluntly, their attitude was something like “whosoever marries my mother shall be by step-father”. Syrians were Aramaic, Phoenician, Canaanites, Hebrew, Amorites; They were Aleppine, Damascene, Tyrene, Palmyrene; They were Muslims, Christians, Jews. They were anything but Syrians.
At some point in the late part of the 19th Century CE, a different concept was born. Geographical Syria was in the process of metamorphosis to Political Syria. It started as a movement of Arabic-Syrian cultural revival by few intellectuals in what nowadays is called Lebanon. Within few decades it matured into a call for autonomy then independence (from the Ottoman Empire) under Hashemite leadership with British money, arms, and guidance.
Sheriff Hussein of Mecca spearheaded the call for Syria’s Independence though what he most probably had in mind was a kingdom for himself and his descendants. His Greater Syria, like that of his Son Abdullah, or the “Fertile Crescent” project of Prince Abdul Ilah of Iraq, was to be a reward for his contribution to the Allied cause. He was ambitious and opportunist but a philosopher he was not. That role was left to Syrian Intellectuals who formulated their ideologies copying Western prototypes. Antun Saadah championed the cause of Greater Syria (including parts of modern day Turkey, the Island of Cyprus, the Sinai Desert, etc); Michel Aflak raised the banner of Arab Nationalism from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean (presumably under Syrian leadership). There were other Ideologies Competing on the “Market of Nationhood” hat had nothing to do with “Syria” proper, most notably that of the “Muslim Nation” of the Brotherhood, or Communism that attracted quite few followers with leftist orientation.
The common factor between all those ideologies, Syrian, Arab, Islamist, Communist (here comes to mind Nasser’s three circles except that his were of course not exclusive) is that they all envisaged an entity much different and significantly larger than the one that constitutes modern Syria, itself (let’s face it) a French creation with an important British collaboration.
It is to be concluded that Syrians have thus far not accepted their lot and therefore have not found their identity. They continue to resent the artificial borders imposed by Mister Sykes and Monsieur Picot but have not as of yet agreed on an alternative let alone the means to reach that alternative. Syria’s Identity remains in flux, perhaps awaiting a Syrian Nasser or a Syrian Sadat to further define it, though a more pertinent question would be if such a visionary would inspire the masses or win converts. It is easier to define Syria by what it is not (it is not eclusively Arab or Islamist) than what it is. I pretend not to have found the answer. History is my passion but I lay no claim to predicting the future.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
To The Victor Belongs the Narrative
I, of course, simply am paraphrasing the adage "to the victor belong the spoils". What I would like to demonstrate is that, quite often, the narrative is the spoil par excellence. It is the narrative that creates the myth and it is myth, not history, that usually fires imagination and inspires followers. Reality is seldom as pretty as myth. Who really wants to face the full reality? If we indeed value authenticity above all else why do we shave, apply perfumes, add make-up, don fancy clothes, spray deodorant? Why do we hide our basic physiologic functions ? (burping, passing gas, you get the idea). If embellishing the truth and, not uncommonly, supplanting it with a prettier version (implant, liposuction, nose job, I can go on ad nauseam) plays such an important part in the lives of puny individuals; the logical next step is bound to expand the notion to whole groups of people in any place at any time. But if the individual man or woman relies on clothing, accessories, and refined manners to attract his choice of the opposite sex, what tools are available to nations and empires? How do they deploy those tools and towards what goal? Most would concede that those tools are bound to be infinitely more effective simply because the resources are infinitely larger. The larger the nation, the richer it is, the more sophisticated; the more effective its tools and the farther their reach.
When it comes to a national or religious narrative, it is more often than not built retrospectively. This task is often lengthy and laborious usually requiring the collaborative effort of a multitude of myth-makers, some call themselves "historians" (Herodotus comes readily to mind) and others are simply scribes, poets, clergy, and troubadours. Most importantly, however, once a myth is established, that is, taken for granted by a large enough people or peoples, it acquires a life its own and becomes sacrosanct, therefore unassailable. As soon as this critical threshold passed and the legend firmly consecrated, elevated, and disseminated, you can virtually pour into it all kinds of absurdities, abominations, barbarities, debaucheries and the credulous adulators would somehow find the ensemble holy and virtuous!
An illustration of the above argument is needed. Though there certainly is no shortage of examples throughout recorded history, I chose to go back to ancient Rome, not that it was a unique or an extreme example; simply because the lapse of time makes it less likely to stir emotion and cause controversy. So let's look at Rome at the height of its glory, power, and prosperity during what Gibbons eloquently called "the Age of the Antonines". A vast empire guarded by the might of the Roman Legions roaming along an extensive network of Roman Highways and benevolently bestowing Pax Romana upon a grateful mankind. So great was the legend of Rome and the Roman Empire that its fall signalized to historians the end of the noble antiquity and ushered in what was contemptuously called the Middle Ages, benighted and miserable times ending at last with the Renaissance a millennium later. What would an Antonius Pius or a Marcus Aurelius want beyond what he already has? Only a narrative to put things into perspective. A narrative as to befit the achievement. A narrative that is beautiful, sublime, worthy of Cesar & the Eternal City. True, for the Roman Republic might was right and, as Niccolo Machiavelli pertinently stated, to a Roman Virtue and Might were synonymous. Numerous other lofty attributes were later on added by historians and eulogists: civility, intelligence, fairness, wisdom, honesty, etc. Naturally with the long history of the Roman Empire there was no shortage of real examples to illustrate those traits though a closer look would have revealed a less attractive picture; that picture was actually the rule rather than the exception. Mankind is by nature individualistic, opinionated, rebellious, quarrelsome, and suspicious of authority. This was even more so in the case of some older civilizations conquered by Rome and who probably could be forgiven the temptation to consider the Romans as presumptuous barbarians. For a hungry, young and rising superpower, be it religious or secular, to impose its hegemony wars must be waged and blood must be shed. No ifs ands or buts.
Let's look at a specific example that basically epitomizes the above arguments. According to Greek & Roman historians (Polybius, Titus Livy, and others), Rome & Carthage fought 3 major conflicts dubbed "The Punic Wars" (Punic being the Latin version of Phoenician) that ended with the destruction of Carthage in 146 BCE (same year the Romans sacked Corinth in Greece). Least anyone accuses a narrator of anti-Roman bias, the only history available was that provided by Romans or those employed by Romans (Polybius was Greek). Carthage and the Carthaginians left no narrative of their own. The Fall of Carthage was a blockbuster made in Rome from A to Z. The Romans were the soldiers that destroyed the old & proud city as well as the movie producers who marketed their exploit to an awed & admiring posterity. Volumes have been written about the Carthage-Rome conflict and it is not my intention to repeat or summarize it here but just to provide a backdrop to my arguments, a quick overview is in order.
Carthage lost the Second Punic War at the Battle of Zama in 202 BCE that pitted Hannibal of Carthage against Scipio Africanus of Rome. The Victor of Cannae failed to live up to his reputation and Rome imposed a "Carthaginian Peace" on the vanquished. From 202 BCE on, Carthage was but a vassal of Rome. It lost its empire, agreed to pay a huge war indemnity, and pledged to seek Rome's permission before embarking on further diplomatic or military adventures. The Mediterranean was henceforth a Roman Lake and the Punic Wars effectively ended in 202 BCE.
What about the 3rd Punic War? you might ask. Well, that "conflict" lasted 3 years: 149-146 BCE, the time it took Rome to assemble its legions, ship them to North Africa, besiege, and finally raze Carthage to the ground. All done with the flimsiest pretexts. Rome coveted the fertile fields of North Africa and resented Carthage's economic prosperity. It would seize on anything that could amount to a Casus Belli. An opportunity presented itself when another Roman vassal, the king of Numidia (modern day Algeria) attacked some of Carthage's possessions. The Carthaginians dared defend themselves (and lost) and that was all the excuse Rome needed to proceed with its glorious enterprise lead, this time, by yet another Scipio, a nephew of the great Africanus.
The sight of the Roman lesions besieging their beloved city threw panic amidst the hapless Carthaginians. They promptly sent a delegation to negotiate a settlement with the Roman consul. Queried about the Roman intentions, Scipio vaguely invoked Carthage's need to "satisfy the Roman People". Pressed for a clearer statement, he suggested that the Carthaginians offer a token of their good will by surrendering their weapons, ships, and elephants. The Carthaginians promptly complied. Scipio praised their "wisdom" and cooperative spirit but then proceeded to demand 300 hostages of the sons of Carthage's nobility. The frantic Carthaginians obediently delivered. Scipio subsequently unveiled his real design informing the Carthaginians that the Roman Senate had decided to destroy Carthage but would generously allow the inhabitants to move several miles inland with their belongings under safe conduct to re-build their city elsewhere. The rest is well-known. The Carthaginians fought with the courage of despair but the outcome was never in doubt. The city, after a long siege and bloody assault fell. Those of its inhabitants who survived the battle were sold as slaves and the city was leveled.
The sorry tale is not particularly unique. Carthage was neither the first nor the last city to be annihilated by the Romans and the Romans were neither the only nor the first to destroy cities and ravage countryside. One can cite the Assyrians in Egypt, The Hebrews in Jericho, the Babylonians in Jerusalem, Alexander the Great in Persepolis.. Examples abound. My reason of choosing this particular incident has to do with the reaction of Roman as well as modern historians. Were I to substitute the names Carthage & Rome, say with "City C" and "City R", an observer might deplore R's acts of unprovoked, perfidious, and gratuitous barbarity. Assuredly this was not, and is still not, the case. R is, after all Rome, and Rome is uber ales. Rome could do no wrong. The Romans and their apologists, past and contemporary, would not hide their pride of this exploit. They wrote the history, told the tale of their cruelty and treachery without batting an eye. If however, some weak souls felt that a justification was needed, how about several? There is no lack of references elaborating on the Carthaginians' greed, their pusillanimous natures, and their cruelty. How could one forget Flaubert's description of Moloch devouring little kids immolated by their heartless parents at his altar? Did they not routinely crucify their generals whose misfortune caused them to lose battles? Didn't their merchant cheat their naïve customers and monopolize the Mediterranean trade? And how about Hannibal's setting the Italian countryside on fire? Those barbarous, money-grubbing cowards amply deserved their fate. But again, how do we know that they were cowardly, greedy, or cruel? After all they did not survive to tell their tale. Their tale was told by the victorious Romans to whom belonged this particular narrative.
When it comes to a national or religious narrative, it is more often than not built retrospectively. This task is often lengthy and laborious usually requiring the collaborative effort of a multitude of myth-makers, some call themselves "historians" (Herodotus comes readily to mind) and others are simply scribes, poets, clergy, and troubadours. Most importantly, however, once a myth is established, that is, taken for granted by a large enough people or peoples, it acquires a life its own and becomes sacrosanct, therefore unassailable. As soon as this critical threshold passed and the legend firmly consecrated, elevated, and disseminated, you can virtually pour into it all kinds of absurdities, abominations, barbarities, debaucheries and the credulous adulators would somehow find the ensemble holy and virtuous!
An illustration of the above argument is needed. Though there certainly is no shortage of examples throughout recorded history, I chose to go back to ancient Rome, not that it was a unique or an extreme example; simply because the lapse of time makes it less likely to stir emotion and cause controversy. So let's look at Rome at the height of its glory, power, and prosperity during what Gibbons eloquently called "the Age of the Antonines". A vast empire guarded by the might of the Roman Legions roaming along an extensive network of Roman Highways and benevolently bestowing Pax Romana upon a grateful mankind. So great was the legend of Rome and the Roman Empire that its fall signalized to historians the end of the noble antiquity and ushered in what was contemptuously called the Middle Ages, benighted and miserable times ending at last with the Renaissance a millennium later. What would an Antonius Pius or a Marcus Aurelius want beyond what he already has? Only a narrative to put things into perspective. A narrative as to befit the achievement. A narrative that is beautiful, sublime, worthy of Cesar & the Eternal City. True, for the Roman Republic might was right and, as Niccolo Machiavelli pertinently stated, to a Roman Virtue and Might were synonymous. Numerous other lofty attributes were later on added by historians and eulogists: civility, intelligence, fairness, wisdom, honesty, etc. Naturally with the long history of the Roman Empire there was no shortage of real examples to illustrate those traits though a closer look would have revealed a less attractive picture; that picture was actually the rule rather than the exception. Mankind is by nature individualistic, opinionated, rebellious, quarrelsome, and suspicious of authority. This was even more so in the case of some older civilizations conquered by Rome and who probably could be forgiven the temptation to consider the Romans as presumptuous barbarians. For a hungry, young and rising superpower, be it religious or secular, to impose its hegemony wars must be waged and blood must be shed. No ifs ands or buts.
Let's look at a specific example that basically epitomizes the above arguments. According to Greek & Roman historians (Polybius, Titus Livy, and others), Rome & Carthage fought 3 major conflicts dubbed "The Punic Wars" (Punic being the Latin version of Phoenician) that ended with the destruction of Carthage in 146 BCE (same year the Romans sacked Corinth in Greece). Least anyone accuses a narrator of anti-Roman bias, the only history available was that provided by Romans or those employed by Romans (Polybius was Greek). Carthage and the Carthaginians left no narrative of their own. The Fall of Carthage was a blockbuster made in Rome from A to Z. The Romans were the soldiers that destroyed the old & proud city as well as the movie producers who marketed their exploit to an awed & admiring posterity. Volumes have been written about the Carthage-Rome conflict and it is not my intention to repeat or summarize it here but just to provide a backdrop to my arguments, a quick overview is in order.
Carthage lost the Second Punic War at the Battle of Zama in 202 BCE that pitted Hannibal of Carthage against Scipio Africanus of Rome. The Victor of Cannae failed to live up to his reputation and Rome imposed a "Carthaginian Peace" on the vanquished. From 202 BCE on, Carthage was but a vassal of Rome. It lost its empire, agreed to pay a huge war indemnity, and pledged to seek Rome's permission before embarking on further diplomatic or military adventures. The Mediterranean was henceforth a Roman Lake and the Punic Wars effectively ended in 202 BCE.
What about the 3rd Punic War? you might ask. Well, that "conflict" lasted 3 years: 149-146 BCE, the time it took Rome to assemble its legions, ship them to North Africa, besiege, and finally raze Carthage to the ground. All done with the flimsiest pretexts. Rome coveted the fertile fields of North Africa and resented Carthage's economic prosperity. It would seize on anything that could amount to a Casus Belli. An opportunity presented itself when another Roman vassal, the king of Numidia (modern day Algeria) attacked some of Carthage's possessions. The Carthaginians dared defend themselves (and lost) and that was all the excuse Rome needed to proceed with its glorious enterprise lead, this time, by yet another Scipio, a nephew of the great Africanus.
The sight of the Roman lesions besieging their beloved city threw panic amidst the hapless Carthaginians. They promptly sent a delegation to negotiate a settlement with the Roman consul. Queried about the Roman intentions, Scipio vaguely invoked Carthage's need to "satisfy the Roman People". Pressed for a clearer statement, he suggested that the Carthaginians offer a token of their good will by surrendering their weapons, ships, and elephants. The Carthaginians promptly complied. Scipio praised their "wisdom" and cooperative spirit but then proceeded to demand 300 hostages of the sons of Carthage's nobility. The frantic Carthaginians obediently delivered. Scipio subsequently unveiled his real design informing the Carthaginians that the Roman Senate had decided to destroy Carthage but would generously allow the inhabitants to move several miles inland with their belongings under safe conduct to re-build their city elsewhere. The rest is well-known. The Carthaginians fought with the courage of despair but the outcome was never in doubt. The city, after a long siege and bloody assault fell. Those of its inhabitants who survived the battle were sold as slaves and the city was leveled.
The sorry tale is not particularly unique. Carthage was neither the first nor the last city to be annihilated by the Romans and the Romans were neither the only nor the first to destroy cities and ravage countryside. One can cite the Assyrians in Egypt, The Hebrews in Jericho, the Babylonians in Jerusalem, Alexander the Great in Persepolis.. Examples abound. My reason of choosing this particular incident has to do with the reaction of Roman as well as modern historians. Were I to substitute the names Carthage & Rome, say with "City C" and "City R", an observer might deplore R's acts of unprovoked, perfidious, and gratuitous barbarity. Assuredly this was not, and is still not, the case. R is, after all Rome, and Rome is uber ales. Rome could do no wrong. The Romans and their apologists, past and contemporary, would not hide their pride of this exploit. They wrote the history, told the tale of their cruelty and treachery without batting an eye. If however, some weak souls felt that a justification was needed, how about several? There is no lack of references elaborating on the Carthaginians' greed, their pusillanimous natures, and their cruelty. How could one forget Flaubert's description of Moloch devouring little kids immolated by their heartless parents at his altar? Did they not routinely crucify their generals whose misfortune caused them to lose battles? Didn't their merchant cheat their naïve customers and monopolize the Mediterranean trade? And how about Hannibal's setting the Italian countryside on fire? Those barbarous, money-grubbing cowards amply deserved their fate. But again, how do we know that they were cowardly, greedy, or cruel? After all they did not survive to tell their tale. Their tale was told by the victorious Romans to whom belonged this particular narrative.
Thank you Helen
Helen Thomas upheld the highest standards for american journalism for 50 years. She was not one to shy from confronting power and never hesitated to call a spade a spade. She stood tall in the White House briefing room confronting mighty chief executives and their underlings. In the process it was inevitable that she would make powerful ennemies.
On May 27 2010 she was tricked by a "friendly" youth into making comments bound to outrage the self-righteous hypocrites who pass for pundits on the Middle East. Few days later the Gaza-bound flotilla was attacked for the whole world to see. The perpetrators were caught off guard by repercussions & condemnation their colossal PR machine notwithstanding. But not to worry! Lo and Behold! the notorious video of Helen Thomas suddenly comes to light and all of a sudden the attention shifts from the blockade and the murderous rampage in the Near East to the "outrageous" "racist" "heinous" sentences uttered by a courageous 89 year old woman who would not stoop to hide hehind platitudes and political correctness.
Helen we love you. You are and will always be an inspiration to us. Your ennemies with their petty vindictiveness never looked snaller and you, in your noble stance, will continue to guide the forthcoming generations.
May the peace you long for come soon.
On May 27 2010 she was tricked by a "friendly" youth into making comments bound to outrage the self-righteous hypocrites who pass for pundits on the Middle East. Few days later the Gaza-bound flotilla was attacked for the whole world to see. The perpetrators were caught off guard by repercussions & condemnation their colossal PR machine notwithstanding. But not to worry! Lo and Behold! the notorious video of Helen Thomas suddenly comes to light and all of a sudden the attention shifts from the blockade and the murderous rampage in the Near East to the "outrageous" "racist" "heinous" sentences uttered by a courageous 89 year old woman who would not stoop to hide hehind platitudes and political correctness.
Helen we love you. You are and will always be an inspiration to us. Your ennemies with their petty vindictiveness never looked snaller and you, in your noble stance, will continue to guide the forthcoming generations.
May the peace you long for come soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)