middle east

Language: the food of understanding

VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 9.0/10 (2 votes cast)

By Andrew Eatwell

Learning Arabic is tough but it can open you up to a whole new world of cultural experiences and opportunities, not to mention build understanding.

Arabic opens up a varied and diverse culture to the learner. ©Image copyright: Khaled Diab

Arabic opens up a varied and diverse culture to the learner. ©Image copyright: Khaled Diab

“Why are you interested in learning Arabic?” the teacher probed. It was a question intended to get us talking, to introduce ourselves and explain why we had chosen to give up two hours of our lives twice a week to sit in a drab high school classroom in Palma de Mallorca.

For travel, said some of my classmates; an interest in Arabic culture and music, answered others. A few wanted to learn the mother tongue of a husband or wife. The first two of those reasons were also in part my own. But I also had other motives: “Because of the world we live in,” I said.

As a journalist writing about Spanish and European politics and social issues for the last decade, I have borne witness to the growing importance of what goes on along the Mediterranean’s southern and eastern shores to the politics, economics and social attitudes in the countries north of that sea.

The lands of North Africa and the Middle East have sent millions of immigrants to work in Europe’s cities, factories and fields – breadbasket nations such as Morocco keep European supermarket shelves stocked with peppers, tomatoes and chickens, while Algerian and Libyan gas and oil keep the heat on in European homes and cars on the streets.

And European companies have invested heavily in North Africa, attracted by cheap labour, geographic proximity and an increasingly educated workforce with a seemingly innate aptitude for foreign languages. French IT firms now operate call centres out of Tunisia and Morocco, British ones favour Egypt, while European manufacturers have shifted large swathes of production to the region.

Meanwhile, millions of European tourists visit North African and Middle Eastern beaches, cities and souqs each year. Back in Europe, interest in Arabic culture, music, literature and art has spawned multicultural festivals from Barcelona to Berlin.

Trade, investment, tourism, cultural curiosity and political co-operation in the myriad summits, conferences and forums that have sprung up in recent years are one thing. But, as anyone who has not been living under a rock will recognise, on the ground – both in Europe and in the Middle East and North Africa region – this blending of civilisations has often been far less sanguine.

Islamist terrorism has spilled blood and spawned anger from Casablanca to Baghdad and from Madrid to London. The spread of militant Islam among increasingly politically assertive Muslim communities in European cities has led to scare-mongering about “Eurabia” and the “Islamisation” of Western culture. And economic immigration has sparked its own backlash, particularly among lower income sectors of society where competition between European natives and foreign workers for jobs and social services is fiercest.

It takes two to integrate

With uninspired monotony, many European politicians talk of integration as the key to solving the social tensions that have arisen in European cities. In their view, the friction caused by immigration can be reduced or eliminated by providing (or imposing) language classes for immigrants, telling them to study and abide by local cultural customs and ensuring a carefully managed ethnic blend in public schools. However, such a top-down approach, with the onus on the immigrant to do all the work can only go so far.

An immigrant made to feel unwelcome by the native population is hardly likely to have the desire – or even the chance – to cross cultural barriers, build relationships and integrate into that society. Discrimination in the labour market compounds the problem. Regardless of what EU and national anti-discrimination laws dictate, it is undeniable that in much, if not all of Europe, someone called Mohammed or Hassan usually has a harder time getting a job in the same conditions as someone named John, Manuel or Hans.

It is, therefore, understandable that the North African and Middle Eastern immigrants who come to Europe tend to cluster among themselves.  Many never move out of usually low-income neighbourhoods where they feel comfortable surrounded by their compatriots and co-religionists. Hence the Kreuzberg district of Berlin is known as ‘Little Turkey’, Brussels’ Molenbeek area boasts 21 mosques for a population of less than 80,000 and Lavapiés in Madrid has become synonymous with kebabs, Arab cafes and Halal butchers.

Even smaller cities have given rise to Muslim neighbourhoods. In Palma, about a half hour walk from the language school and far from the brash seaside resorts for which much of the Spanish Mediterranean is known, are a cluster of streets where the atmosphere is more Marrakesh than Magalluf, more Tripoli than Torremolinos, more Beirut than Benidorm.

Few native Mallorcans do more than pass through here. Few linger to hear the call to prayer from the small local mosque, smell the fresh mint and spices in the stores or peruse the meat at a Halal butchers. And while some of them may visit Morocco, Jordan, Tunisia or Egypt on holiday next year, few will take the time to observe, let alone absorb, the enriching cultural diversity that now lies on their doorstep.

As a classmate of mine noted on a recent Friday evening spent strolling around the area: “People are afraid of what they don’t understand.”

As we move inevitably towards a more multicultural society, just a little bit of understanding on the part of native populations, be it a shopping excursion to a North African immigrant neighbourhood for spices, an afternoon in a Moroccan-owned tea room or picking up a few words of the Arabic language, can go a long way toward avoiding misconceptions and bridging cultural divides.

This article is published with the author’s permission. ©Andrew Eatwell. All rights reserved.

VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 9.0/10 (2 votes cast)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Post to Twitter Tweet This

Tags: , , , , ,

Related posts

Forecast: dry, becoming drier

VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

By Khaled Diab

There’s more than enough fresh water in the world to sate our thirst. The problem is getting it to where it is desperately needed.

September 2008

With the depressing torrential rain and flooding at the weekend, water shortages are the last thing on our minds here in these wet, northern climes. In fact, perhaps we need a collective ‘sun dance’ to implore the powers that be to deliver us an ‘Indian summer’.

Despite the misery, we are fortunate, as more and more areas in the world are beset by water shortages. Over the past week alone, the water table in the Pakistani capital Islamabad has fallen to dangerous levels (a common problem across the subcontinent), Kyrgyzstan has cut electricity production to save water, and Californian farmers have complained of lower yields due to water rationing.

The Middle East and North Africa, the driest population centre on the planet, is particularly vulnerable to water shortages. According to the International Water Management Institute, every country in the MENA region suffers from physical water scarcity or is approaching it.

Yemen – fabled for the fertile ancient kingdoms of Arabia Felix – is expected to be the first country in the region to deplete its ground water.

The Sea of Galilee in Israel has reached the lowest levels ever recorded, with fears that, if the government continues to pump it at current rates, the country’s main fresh water reservoir could reach the point of no return.

And the situation is likely to deteriorate, if climate change models prove to be accurate. Earlier this year, the UN released a report estimating that a 3-4°C rise in temperatures could lead to a drop of up to 35% in agricultural output. However, more localised analysis by an Australian scientists suggests that some parts of the region, such as Iraq, may see more rainfall.

Nevertheless, the forecast looks dry for the Middle East. In addition, with around 730 million people, including in the EU, expected to rise to 1.8 billion by 2050, in the world living with water shortages, the future looks bleak.

Not, necessarily, says Jonathan Chenoweth of the Centre for Environmental Strategy. “I believe the looming water crisis is primarily a problem of distribution and management rather than supply,” he wrote in a recent New Scientist article.

In addition to water efficiency and desalination technologies, the major pillar of his strategy would be for arid and semi-arid countries to import “virtual water” in the form of food because agriculture consumes some 90% of water supplies. These countries would shift to less water-intensive sectors, such as trade and services.

Although largely unspoken, this is the direction in which the Middle East has been heading for decades. In fact, the term virtual water was probably coined by Tony Allan of SOAS in reference to the region. Without it, the region may have suffered severe famines by now. For instance, Egypt, with some of the most productive land in the world, imports more than half of its food owing to water shortages and population growth.

Soon-to-be-published research carried out by Chenoweth suggests that “by importing virtual water, a country could offer a high quality of life with as little as 135 litres of water per person per day”.

While this theory is promising at certain levels, it seems to overlook some crucial issues. While the more developed Middle Eastern countries with a smaller population, such as Israel, Lebanon and Dubai are successfully shifting their economies towards trade and service, it is difficult to see how many others will be able to reduce their economic dependence on agriculture and manufacturing.

Egypt, for instance, has a large educated population and its economy has a robust and rapidly growing service sector, including IT. Nevertheless, agriculture accounts for 14% of the country’s GDP and employs a quarter of the labour force. In addition, cash crops and cotton textiles and clothes are among Egypt’s main exports. Moreover, other large sectors of the economy, such as steel, manufacturing and chemicals are heavy water users.

If Egypt, a middle income, relatively developed country has such difficulty shifting its economy towards water-light sectors, what of less-developed countries? Sudan, for instance, overall has abundant water supplies, yet it is unable even to meet food shortages within its own border. The situation is even worse in Ethiopia where I personally witnessed UN food aid being distributed only miles away from the source of the Blue Nile, Lake Tana.

What Chenoweth’s analysis also seems to overlook or understate is that water-rich regions may have an abundance of water but they are already sailing pretty close to the wind in terms of food output. While growth in Middle Eastern agriculture is crippled by the absence of water, it is highly unlikely that largely temperate regions, such as the EU, will be able to translate their water abundance into significantly higher agricultural production, since most of their arable land is already in use.

The current food crisis may be an early indication that we are slowly approaching an agricultural ceiling. In addition, the energy crunch suggests that the kind of globalisation of trade required to shift virtual water effectively may be unsustainable.

Then, there’s the issue of food security. How can countries dependent on virtual water ensure a sufficient flow of food to sustain their populations? What if a more severe crisis in the future forces major food exporters to cut off exports? Alternatively, if wealthy and arid countries, such as the Gulf States, buy up large tracts of farm land in poor countries to ensure their food security, this will help these countries to boost their agricultural output and develop their economies. But we could also be looking at future artificial famines rather like the Irish potato famine which, interestingly, prompted the Ottoman sultan and native Americans to send humanitarian aid to Ireland.

If virtual water is to be successful in feeding the world, we need robust and effective international mechanisms to ensure that this redistribution is implemented equitably and that neither suppliers nor recipients go hungry in lean years. In addition, development programmes in poorer arid countries will need to find ways of reducing dependency on sparse local water resources and controlling population growth.

 

This column appeared in The Guardian Unlimited’s Comment is Free section on 9 September 2008. Read the related discussion.

This is an archive piece that was migrated to this website from Diabolic Digest

VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Post to Twitter Tweet This

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

The truth about Arab science

VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

By Khaled Diab

Can we look forward to a boom in Arab science or will poverty, bureaucracy and religion be insurmountable obstacles?

26 July 2009

Hannah Clark has certainly earned, both literally and figuratively, the title of the "girl with two hearts" bestowed upon her by the media. When she was just two years old, she had the dubious distinction of becoming the first person in Britain to possess a 'piggyback' heart.

For more than a decade, Hannah lived on a potent cocktail of medication designed to stop her body rejecting her second heart. But suppressing her immune system in this way made her susceptible to infections and, by the age of 12, she had developed cancer. During chemotherapy, her body began to reject the donor organ which led doctors to take the dramatic decision to remove it. Through all this, although she lost her second heart, Hannah didn't lose heart. Now, aged 16, she has fully recovered, her doctors said in a recent article in The Lancet.

This is a truly heart-warming testament to the power of modern medicine to turn tragedy into triumph. And I could not help feeling a little rush of pride that the doctor who made all this possible was an Egyptian: Magdi Yacoub, who is actually also a neighbour of sorts, as his Cairo home overlooks my family's.

Dishearteningly, and almost inevitably, Yacoub, the son of a surgeon, did not find his success in Egypt but in Britain, where he built up a career as one of the world's most pioneering heart surgeons and researchers. Dubbed the "King of Hearts" by the Royal Society, this naturalised Brit did not usurp the throne but he did receive a knighthood.

And numerous other examples abound of Arab minds – such as the Nobel prize-winner Ahmed Zewail – deserting the Arab science desert and thriving elsewhere. Why is it that a region that was once the world's scientific powerhouse has now become its outhouse? In an article last year, I explored some of the reasons which included: "The dominant patronage culture in academia, the shortage of research funding, the almost complete absence of private research, the difficulty of registering and protecting intellectual property, as well as the rote-based education system."

Some experts observe that Islam's scientific heritage equips Muslims to look positively upon modern science. In fact, many Muslims believe that modern science confirms the Qur'an. "In those countries where fundamentalism has taken hold among the youth in the universities, it is striking to observe that the fundamentalist students are in a majority in the scientific institutions," says Farida Faouzia Charfi, a science professor at the University of Tunis. "[Islamists] want to govern society with ideas of the past and the technical means of modernity."

But this selective interest in science is a double-edged sword because it encourages people to disregard inconvenient scientific truths if they conflict with or contradict their faith. Attitudes aside, another important factor that is often missing from the equation is the simple question of resources. I think it's no coincidence that the start of Europe and the west's golden age and the Arab and Muslim world's gradual decline occurred at about the time when Muslims ceded their grip on global trade to Europeans who also "discovered" a resource-rich "new world" in the process.

But things are looking up, according to Nadia al-Awady, a freelance science journalist based in Cairo. Writing in Nature, she links the surge in science coverage in the Arab media with a related boom in Arab research and development activities. Since 2006, there has even been an Arab Science Journalists Association (ASJA).

"Although the science staff of media organisations in the United States and Europe face cutbacks, a survey of ASJA members in January 2009 indicated that full-time jobs for Arab science journalists have remained relatively stable over the past five years," reports al-Awady.

However, quantity does not always mean quality, as al-Awady herself freely admits. "As I sit at my desk in Cairo, it is easier for me to know what is happening in American universities halfway across the globe than to know what is happening within the walls of Egypt's National Research Centre just across the street… Another problem for science journalism stems from a more general issue. Many media platforms are government-owned and, as a result, many journalists provide uncritical coverage of government announcements."

In addition, for someone whose role is to be a chronicler of science, al-Awady holds some pretty unscientific views. Writing for Islam Online, she goes against the scientific consensus and describes homosexuality not as a natural sexual orientation but as an individual lifestyle choice or a psychological condition that can be "cured".

More tellingly and even less scientifically, she cautions her readers, in case her scientific arguments have failed to persuade them: "Islam is a way of life. It is a system of beliefs based on divine revelation… As a Muslim, one cannot choose to follow parts of Islam and disregard others."

This illustrates well how scientific truth is sacred until it contradicts the holier truth of the Qur'an. During Islam's scientific boom years, such an attitude could just about survive alongside scientific inquiry – although many of Islam's greatest scientists were sceptics, theists or agnostics.

However, in the modern world, science fact increasingly contradicts religious myth and, for the Arab world to advance, it needs not only to invest more in research, it also has to hold universal truths above religious ones.

This column appeared in The Guardian Unlimited’s Comment is Free section on 24 July 2009. Read the related discussion.

VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Post to Twitter Tweet This

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

The audacity to dream

VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

By Khaled Diab

If we suspend scepticism and take up Barack Obama’s invitation to dream of change, what Middle East can the audacity of hope help to forge?

November 2008

Since Barack Obama’s victory, I have been somewhat at odds with myself. The realist and sceptic tells me that, despite the euphoria, it may well be back to business more or less as usual once the president elect actually takes office.

 Still, the dreamer and romantic urges me to savour the symbolism of Obama’s victory, with the way it has energised US voters and inspired people around the world, and allow myself the luxury of dreaming that change really can happen. This leads me to wonder about my native Middle East, one of the world’s most troubled regions, and what kind of change there could I and would I believe in.

 The most immediate dream I have – and one that is probably shared by most of the region – is to dispel the spectre of conflict which has destroyed Iraq and locked Israelis and Palestinians in a spiralling death dance. Although there is much more to the Middle East than the wars and disputes that grab the headlines, the threat of the spread of conflict – to Iran, Syria and Lebanon – or the shadow ongoing conflicts cast on the entire region has a massive destabilising effect.

 Peace will encourage stability, and stability will trigger change and progress. But what change does the Middle East need?

 Well, the region is a diverse and complex place, and there is no general panacea. But to take up Obama’s challenge for people to have the audacity to hope, I will suspend my disbelief and allow myself the luxury to flesh out my own Middle Eastern dream.

 The Middle East I dream of is one of greater equality and empowerment, where the fruits of economic development are shared more equally among citizens, where people have more power to make a difference and where governments better reflect the will of their people.

 I dream of societies that have the self-confidence to look to the future, and take assured strides into the unknown, rather than fixating on the past, whether in terms of glories or grievances. I desire societies that put more trust in innovation, and less in tradition, and where change is something to be striven for and not just emulated. I wish people would realise just how inappropriate, counterproductive and indecorous it is for them to let religion out on to the streets to make a nuisance of itself and intimidate others, when its rightful place should be at home and in the heart, where it can engage in private affairs with the faithful.

 I hope that the failed dream of pan-Arabism can be resurrected in a more inclusive form to build a loose trans-national union between all the peoples of the region: Arabs, Persians, Turks, Israelis, etc. I aspire to a future in which national and ethnic identity become less important and more blurred, so that a non-Muslim can become the leader of a Muslim majority country, or a non-Jew the prime minister of Israel.

 These prospects seem like fantasy at the moment, but, after much blood, sweat and suffering, what was once deemed impossible, sometimes does become possible. Pre-Obama who would’ve thought that America could overcome the legacy of slavery and segregation to elect a president with some African blood? Who would’ve thought apartheid or Soviet communism would end so suddenly and unceremoniously? In the wake of the Second World War, who would have thought that a borderless union in which Germany and France are the strongest allies would have emerged out of the wreckage?

 Since Obama triggered this train of thought and since we shouldn’t get too carried away with dreaming, let’s start with the United States. What can America do to improve the Middle East?

 There are hopes that, under Obama’s tutelage, America will become more positively and benignly engaged in the region. My wishes are rather different. Instead of wanting America to play a more positive role, I merely wish for it to play less of a negative one.

 Given America’s own aversion to foreign meddling in its affairs and the clear evidence that the most enduring change is that which comes from within, why do so many Americans believe that other countries need or welcome American interference?

 The major difference America can truly make is to withdraw from Iraq and offer Iraqis support through international mechanisms to clean up the mess the American invasion has caused. In addition, the best way the United States can serve the cause of political reform and peace in the Middle East is to phase out its support for authoritarian and semi-authoritarian regimes that oppress their own citizens or other peoples, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel.

 Left to its own devices, the shaky regime of the ageing Hosni Mubarak in Egypt would soon buckle to growing grassroots pressure for reform. Similarly, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would sooner be resolved if Israel did not benefit from such excessive American largesse and almost unconditional support.

 Nevertheless, the outlook of the Pax Americana empire is unlikely to change all that much, and the United States is likely to continue to believe that its narrow imperial interests are served by continued support for forces that are ultimately not in the interests of the Middle East and its people.

 Of course, America, whose citizens possess a strong and admirable sense of idealism, can make a positive contribution to the region and the world by mobilising the US’s significant ‘soft power’ in concert with the international community and through multilateral mechanisms. This can help meet global challenges and create a sense that there is an international order that no one stands above or outside, even a superpower. Luckily, this is something Obama is more likely to do than his predecessors.

 

This column appeared in The Guardian Unlimited’s Comment is Free section on 30 November 2008. Read the related discussion.

This is an archive piece that was migrated to this website from Diabolic Digest

VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Post to Twitter Tweet This

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

Israel’s other Arabs

VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

By Khaled Diab

A new book lifts the veil off Israel’s Arab face and shows how, like the Palestinians, Middle Eastern Jews fell victim to political forces beyond their control.

April 2009

To the outside world, Israel stands, depending on your political perspective, as either a proud outpost of the west or humiliating western implant in the Middle East. Although Zionism was born and developed in Europe, up to 3.5 million Israelis trace their roots back to Arab lands – in fact, until the early 1990s, these Mizrahim and Sephardim, as they are known, made up the majority of Israel’s population.

 Not the enemy by Rachel Shabi, herself an Israeli of Iraqi Jewish ancestry, provides a fascinating account of the personal stories and h

Cover of Rachel Shabi's Not the Enemy
Cover of Rachel Shabi's Not the Enemy

istory of Mizrahi Jews, whose world fell into the abyss of the Arab-Israeli conflict, while their dual identities as Arabs and Jews proved unable to bridge the ever-widening chasm.

 “The absence of the Mizrahi face from the global snapshot of Israel feeds back into a polarised position, serving those on both sides who favour the dichotomous formula of Arab versus Jew,” writes Shabi, who is also a regular contributor to the Guardian.

 Even though I knew about Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews beforehand, I was, nevertheless, rather taken aback by how Middle Eastern Israel seemed when I was there a couple of years ago. In fact, my first encounter was with a Moroccan Jewish taxi driver who could shame any Cairo cabbie with his colourful use of curses and expletives and his love of Umm Kalthoum, the Arab world's legendary singing diva.

 Subsequently, I met numerous Mizrahi Jews, including a colourful oud player called Murad (Mordechai), nearly all of whom recalled fondly their previous lives before coming to Israel. These encounters sparked a fascination in me to learn more about their history and tragic plight, and Shabi’s book compellingly fleshes out how Middle Eastern Jews were first yanked out of Arab lands and then had the Arab yanked out of them in Israel.

 Shabi documents the ironic descent of Arab Jews from generally well-integrated and successful minorities at the very heart of Arab culture, politics and business to a relatively marginalised and disadvantaged population in Israel. Through a mix of personal narratives and historical research, the book examines how, despite its pseudo-messianic pledge to provide salvation for Jews, Zionism actually hurt Middle Eastern Jews as Arabs eventually committed the monumental crime – and one for which they need to apologise – of equating Judaism with Zionism and started viewing their Jewish populations as “enemies within”.

 In fact, some Mizrahim are very blunt about the link between Zionism and their plight. “If Israel had not been established, nothing would’ve happened to the Iraqi Jews,” opines the Iraqi-Jewish poet Me’ir Basri.

 But the suspicion and distrust did not end there. Their resemblance to Arabs – in fact, you could argue that they are also ‘Israeli Arabs’ – in everything but religion caused them to be viewed with a mixture of condescension, contempt and even fear. This kind of culture shock is, at one level, understandable, as it is a myth to expect the simple fact of belonging to a single faith automatically means that people are the same. “We have here a people whose primitiveness sets a record,” wrote a Ha’aretz reporter in 1948, not of the Palestinians, but of Mizrahi refugees.

 This anti-Mizrahi prejudice among the Ashkenazim (European Jews) elite translated into them being whisked away to live in the remotest parts of Israel and populate what are known as ‘development towns’ which failed to develop into anything beyond a receptacle for broken promises and shattered dreams.

 The Ashkenazi elite also set about ‘civilising’ the Mizrahi Jews and shaping them into modern ‘Israelis’. Of course, up to a certain extent, this happened to all immigrants, but since the Ashkenazi were calling the shots, it was their culture that most influenced the Israeli ideal. “I don’t have a cultural identity,” confesses Sasson, an ex-teacher from Sderot, the development town on the edge of Gaza whose population is almost exclusively Moroccan Jewish. “My heart is in the east and my culture is western… They dressed me up in a culture that wasn’t mine.”

 Things have improved significantly in recent years, and Mizrahi culture is growing in popularity and influence. They and Ashkenazi are increasingly intermarrying and there are plenty of successful Mizrahim around. But much as Israelis would like to bury this ‘ethnic demon’, it keeps coming back to haunt them like a “genie in a bottle”, Shabi observes.

 Mizrahim still make up the bulk of Israel’s poor and undereducated; they are often stereotyped in the media as pimps, hustlers and whores; their culture, despite making major inroads, is still seen as somewhat inferior; and their accent, although it is the more accurate form of Hebrew, is scorned.

 Although the disappeared Jewish presence in Arab lands was not quite a paradise lost, their migration to Israel was not a paradise found either. Despite certain episodes of oppression, such as the persecution instigated by the fanatical Almohads in North Africa and Spain in the 12th century, Arab Jews were an integral component of the region’s cultural, social and economic fabric.

 This was especially the case in Iraq, which arguably had the world’s oldest continuous Jewish presence. Babylonian Jews – who once made up to one in four of Baghdad’s population – were significant players in every walk of life, including politics, the arts, music and business. As Shabi’s father put it, referring to the famous Rivers of Babylon hymn – spread by the disco prophets Boney M: “They weren’t crying. They were singing and dancing and drinking arak.”

 Could this common cultural heritage and affinity aid the quest for peace with the Arabs – what Shabi calls the “Mizrahi bridge hypothesis”? She once hoped it could, but her research led her to abandon her “crashed pet theory”.

 “This theory is pathologically detached from reality,” she concludes soberly, “a type of falsely cheery wallpaper that refuses to stick to walls wet with blood”.

 Despite all the signs to the contrary, I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the potential role Mizrahi Jews could play in building understanding and empathy. The fact that they are more likely to be ultra-nationalistic, ultra-conservative and ultra-right wing than Ashkenazis is partly due to their sense of betrayal at the hands of the Arab world and Israel alike.

 But as new generations of Mizrahi Jews discover a renewed pride in their heritage, this could lead to further corrosion of the simplistic polarity of the official narratives of the Arab-Israeli conflict. This, in turn, could prompt more dialogue with Arabs, which could eventually build the kind of understanding required to provide a solid foundation for peace.

 Moreover, the Mizrahi experience resembles that of the Palestinians, and this is increasingly leading to joint activism at the grassroots level, such as when Israeli Arabs joined Mizrahi Jews protesting eviction in a village on the outskirts of Tel Aviv, even though it had once been a Palestinian village.

 In addition, a vocal Mizrahi minority have been at the forefront of the peace movement for decades. For instance, it was a Mizrahi organisation, the radical Black Panthers, which was the first Israeli group to recognise the PLO, and a couple of years before the Madrid peace conference, Arab Jewish and Palestinian politicians, writers and academics held their own informal peace conference in the Spanish city of Toledo.

 And even if it is misguided to believe that the chasm can be bridged, those who wish to work for peace and coexistence must continue to stretch as far across it as they can. As Sasson Somekh, the Iraqi-born professor of Arabic literature and long-time friend of the late Egyptian Nobel laureate Naguib Mahfouz, expressed it: “I am aware that I did not produce any important results, but I’m not going to stop.”

This column appeared in The Guardian Unlimited’s Comment is Free section on 2 April 2009. Read the related discussion.

VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Post to Twitter Tweet This

Tags: , , , , ,

Related posts

The Middle East must look to the future

VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

By Khaled Diab

A secular society confines religion to the spiritual sphere where it belongs, and leaves worldly affairs to human resourcefulness.

April 2009

In my previous piece on Arab secularism, both overt and veiled, I promised to consider ways of advancing progressive secularism in the Arab world.

The question of bringing the Arab and Muslim worlds into the 'modern age' has occupied some of the greatest minds of the past two centuries. It has been approached by natives of the region and foreigners, by friends and foes, by those with an honest desire for reform and those with their own agenda.

Some may question why Arab and Muslim societies need to secularise, while others will argue it is a doomed project because Islam and secularism are apparently incompatible beasts.

Well, it is my conviction that secularism is the bedrock of enlightenment because it confines religion to the individual spiritual sphere where it belongs, and leaves the ever-shifting reality of worldly affairs to human resourcefulness. The compelling proof of this is that Europe and the west's success has been largely secular, as was the Muslim world's before that, by the standards of the time. So, what can be done to speed up the train of secularisation and modernisation?

The Guardian's Brian Whitaker explores this question thoroughly in his new book – which I was interviewed for and had the pleasure of reading and commenting on in pre-publication – and in a series of articles for Comment is free.

"The Middle East will only be convinced by Islamic arguments for a secular state," he argues. "Secularists have to be prepared to engage with religious arguments – something they are often reluctant to do."

Since enduring reform comes from within and is usually gradual and incremental; this has also been my position. In self-defined 'Islamic' states, especially those with a vibrant political landscape and nascent democratic institutions, such as Iran, this can empower reformers. While in Arab and Muslim states which are already secular, Islamic arguments for secularism can help steal the thunder of the Islamists and neutralise them intellectually.

This also broadly corresponds with what generations of Muslim reformers have attempted, beginning with the 'Islamic modernists'. The founder of that movement, Muhammad Abdu, sought to "liberate thought from the shackles of imitation/tradition [taqlid]" and to prove that "religion must be accounted a friend to science". Abdu lamented the closing of the gates of ijtihad and that through this manner of reasoned (re)interpretation Islamic morality and law could be adapted to suit the modern world.

However, placing secularism in an Islamic shell is not enough. It needs to regain its credibility by delivering concrete results. Many Arab and Muslim societies seem to be caught between the rock of repressive regimes, often with western backing, and the hard place of the Islamists, who are likely to take authoritarianism to a new level if they gain power.

Secular opposition needs to find a way of offering a viable alternative to the Muslim Brotherhood and other mainstream Islamists in the eyes of the disenchanted. There are early signs of this occurring in places like Egypt where secularists have been regrouping in recent years.

As Whitaker points out in his book, one of the key appeals of the Muslim Brotherhood is not so much their religious identity but their promise – whether honest or not – to stamp out corruption and restore the rule of law. To highlight that Islamism is not the only show in town, secularists need to demonstrate that their efforts to promote democratic freedom and limit the political powers of leaders is driven by a desire to protect the dignity and rights of the individual.

Dressing secularism up in Islamic garments is a useful stepping stone, but will eventually come up against the brick wall of what I term the "God veto" on issues where religious and cultural beliefs are too strong to be reasoned with effectively. A good example of this is the status of women.

In Egypt, for example, although the legal, social and economic status of women has improved significantly over the past century, efforts to create true equality are often derailed or watered down, as occurred during the revamping of the country's personal status laws, by an unholy alliance between religious and conservative circles.

There are also limitations on the ideological plane. Muhammad Abdu's back to fundamentals "salafiyya" was interpreted by secular reformers as an opportunity to jettison Islam's historical baggage and create a new, modern future-oriented society. However, by the likes of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, it was interpreted as an invitation to re-create the "glorious" past of the "pious ancestors".

To overcome this kind of inertia requires a society not to seek guidance from the past but from the future, and this requires the culture to shift away from the tendency to 'emulate' – whether the Islamic past or the western present – and move towards 'innovation', a challenge many ancient societies in decline have faced in the modern age.

Contemporary western societies possess both the confidence and resources to future-orient their perspectives. I don't believe it is an accident that the west's "golden age" has coincided with its domination of the global trading system, and the Middle East's terminal decline coincided with the loss of its monopoly on east-west trade.

Today, the pursuit of knowledge and development is such a resource intensive undertaking that, what had been in the mid-18th century a relatively small qualitative gap, has widened to almost unbridgeable proportions. Most Arab and Muslim societies, as well as many other developing countries, are trapped in a vicious cycle of poverty, domestic and global inequality, ignorance, and systematic disadvantage in the global balance of economic and political power.

To overcome this requires reform in every sphere, from decent education to political freedom, not to mention efforts to promote equality not just between individuals within a society, but between countries in the global trading and political system.

This column appeared in The Guardian Unlimited’s Comment is Free section on 21 April 2009. Read the related discussion.

This is an archive piece that was migrated to this website from Diabolic Digest

VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Post to Twitter Tweet This

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Related posts

تغيير على مستوى الجذور نستطيع أن نؤمن به

VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

بقلـم خالد دياب

كان أحد شعارات حملة باراك أوباما الناجحة "تغيير نستطيع أن نؤمن به". ومع توليه الرئاسة، تغير كل شيء، إلا أن شيئاً لم يتغير بالنسبة لسياسة الولايات المتحدة الخارجية تجاه النزاع الإسرائيلي الفلسطيني.

قدم أوباما، مقارنة بسلفه، تحولاً كبيراً في لغة السياسة الخارجية، حيث تعهد الاعتماد بصورة أقل على التدخل العسكري وبصورة أكبر على الدبلوماسية العالمية والحوار. ولكن هذا التحول لا يعتبر هاماً وكبيراً بشكل كافٍ لإعادة إحياء عملية السلام وبدء تحرك جديد. لذا أعتقد شخصياً أن الأمر عائد للفلسطينيين والإسرائيليين ليجدوا طريقهم إلى الأمام.

يشكل خطاب الرئيس أوباما في مصر هذا الأسبوع جزءاً من توجهه الساحر نحو الفوز "بالقلوب والعقول" – ذلك التعبير المبتذل الذي استخدم بشكل زائد – في العالمي العربي والإسلامي. ويبدو أن جهود أوباما أخذت تؤتي ثمارها. فقد أظهر استطلاع أُجري مؤخراً أنه رغم كون ثلاثة أرباع العرب يعتبرون الولايات المتحدة ثاني أعظم خطر وتهديد في العالم، تتراوح نسبة الموافقة على أوباما حول 45%، وهو تحسن ضخم مقابل وضع جورج دبليو بوش، الذي أعتبر أول أو ثاني شرير في العالم.

أدى هذا التغيير في اللهجة، إضافة إلى مؤشرات برزت مؤخراً بتوجه أكثر نشاطاً وعملية حيال النزاع الإسرائيلي الفلسطيني إلى كم معين من التفاؤل في بعض النواحي. وقد فسّر عماد جاد في صحيفة الأهرام الأسبوعية المصرية إصرار أوباما على تجميد عملية بناء المستوطنات على أنها مؤشر بأن "الدولة الفلسطينية المستقلة هي احتمال أكيد".

أجد من الصعب، عند هذا المفترق على الأقل، أن أشارك الكاتب تفاؤله. قد يكون أوباما مختلفاً عن بوش اختلاف النار عن الأرض، ولكن الولايات المتحدة التي يقودانها ليست مختلفة إلى هذه الدرجة الجوهرية. أحد الأسباب الرئيسية لانهيار عملية السلام هي أن واشنطن لم تنجح أبداً في لعب دور وسيط صادق غير منحاز. ما هي احتمالات أن يضغط أوباما، الذي يصف نفسه بأنه "صديق إسرائيل" على دولة يتزعمها بنيامين نتنياهو اليميني الذي يتمتع بشعبية، ونائبة الديماغوجي ووزير الخارجية أفيغدور ليبرمان، لتقديم التنازلات الضرورية من أجل التوصل إلى تسوية مع الفلسطينيين، خاصة مع وجود حماس المتطرفة بشكل مماثل، تقبع وسط القيادة الفلسطينية؟ من المفيد هنا أن نتذكر أنه بحسب البعض، فقد تم تخريب عملية أوسلو إلى درجة كبيرة من قبل نتنياهو وحماس.

يأمل البعض أن يتمكن أوباما من الاستفادة إلى أقصى حد ممكن من دور الوساطة الذي تلعبه مصر منذ مدة طويلة في النزاع الإسرائيلي الفلسطيني. إلا أن القاهرة، مثلها مثل واشنطن، لديها مشكلتها الخاصة في المصداقية، إذ لا يثق بها اليمين في كل من إسرائيل وفلسطين. إضافة إلى ذلك، أدى إغلاق معبر رفح الذي زاد من معاناة الفلسطينيين إلى إذكاء الشعور بخيبة أمل كبيرة من طرف الفلسطينيين، والغضب في الشارع المصري.

وفي الحقيقة، يشعر المصريون ذوو العقلية الإصلاحية بخيبة أمل بزيارة أوباما لأنها تعبّر ضمنياً عن الدعم لنظام غير شعبي يعاني من عجز مزمن في الشرعية. "كان بعضنا يأمل بعلاقة أكثر فتوراً بين إدارة الرئيس أوباما والنظام المصري"، يقول كريم مدحت، وهو شاب مصري يعمل في مجال تقديم المعونة للاجئين.

برأيي أن ما يحتاجه الشرق الأوسط، وخاصة القضية الإسرائيلية الفلسطينية، ليس مزيداً من المشاركة الأمريكية، بل مشاركة أقل. التغيير الذي يبقى هو التغيير العضوي الذي يأتي من الداخل. ولا تحتاج واشنطن، حتى تساعد هذه العملية، أن تعارض النظام في القاهرة أو الرياض بنشاط، وإنما لأن تسحب دعمها الحالي مثل الدعم العسكري لمصر والذي يبلغ 1,3 مليار دولار سنوياً. وبالمثل، يتوجب على الفلسطينيين والإسرائيليين أن يجدوا الطريق الخاص بهم نحو السلام. والأسلوب الذي يمكن للولايات المتحدة من خلاله مساعدة هذا التوجه هو إزالة تأثيرها الضخم الذي يشّوه الوضع، مثل المعونة العسكرية البالغة 3 مليارات دولار التي تقدمها إلى إسرائيل كل سنة.

وبما أن الدينامية بين اللاعبين، خصوماً أكانوا أم وسطاء، بالكاد تغيرت منذ قدوم أوباما على مسرح الأحداث، أعتقد أن الوقت قد حان لأن يتخلى الناس عن الحلول من الأعلى إلى الأسفل للنزاع الإسرائيلي الفلسطيني. تقدم الجهود التدريجية على مستوى الجذور، عند هذه النقطة، أفضل أمل بتحقيق اختراق. أحد الخيارات التي طالما دافعت عنها في كتاباتي هو تحويل النزاع إلى كفاح اجتماعي سياسي تدريجي يتعامل مع الحقوق المدنية الأساسية، مثل حرية التنقل والحركة والحق بالعيش بأمن وسلامة والحق في التعليم والحصول على فرص العمل وحق التصويت والحق في المواطَنة والجنسية، بدلاً من مفاهيم مجردة كالقومية وقضايا شائكة حول الحدود.

سوف تعمل حركة حقوق مدنية أساسية على تحسين الوضع على الأرض، وتستطيع أن تزيل تدريجياً القومية البشعة الاستثنائية التي أذكت نار هذا النزاع خلال العقود الستة الماضية.

مصدر المقال: خدمة Common Ground الإخبارية 8 حزيران/يونيو 2009

VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Post to Twitter Tweet This

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

Tainted honour

VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Rana Husseini's book about honour killings

Rana Husseini's book about honour killings

By Khaled Diab

The taboo surrounding the cruel murder of family members in the name of honour is slowly being broken.

May 2009

Though relatively rare, killing a family member in the name of honour should be a cause for shame, not pride, as it reflects a cowardly compliance with inhumane norms.

Killing someone, especially a family member, is something I cannot begin to contemplate. Of course, I realise that it is a sad fact of life that some of the worst physical, sexual and psychological abuses – and even murders – are perpetrated by relatives.

In some ways, it is more horrifying and tragic when abuses are committed not to satisfy some base motives but for the apparently exalted ideal of "honour". Each year, thousands die around the world – from the Middle East to the Indian subcontinent, and from Latin America to China – in the name of family honour. The victims of these crimes are mostly women.

Rana Husseini – a courageous and outspoken Jordanian journalist who has dedicated most of her career to campaigning against this warped cultural practice – will publish a book on the subject at the end of May.

Murder in the Name of Honour (pdf) continues Husseini's groundbreaking efforts to break the silence on this disgraceful crime. The book shines a human light on some of the victims of honour killings, exploring their lives, circumstances and deaths – an epitaph to women whose families and communities would rather forget.

The first case Husseini investigated, back in 1994, was that of Kifaya, a young woman from a very traditional family in a conservative neighbourhood of Amman, who became pregnant after being raped by one of her brothers, Muhammad.

Instead of understanding and sympathy from her family, the poor young woman who had been violated by her own kin was forced to marry a man 34 years her senior to cover up the scandal. When the marriage ended in divorce six months later, the perceived shame led the family to decide that Kifaya had to die, and her other brother, Khalid, was forced to carry out the ugly deed.

Although most honour killings are ordered by men and carried out by men, Kifaya's father, who worked abroad to provide for his family, had no idea of the plot co-hatched by her mother, and the news of her death devastated him. "I would never have allowed anyone to kill my daughter, no matter what," he confessed to Husseini.

The fact that Kifaya was a victim twice over – once for being blamed for her rape and then being murdered for dishonouring the family – is not unusual in the grizzly annals of this type of crime, where a woman's virginity is worth more than her life. In fact, there are women in the most conservative circles who have paid with their lives for the malicious gossip of others.

Husseini points out that only a small number of men are murdered in the name of honour, despite the fact that they played a major role in the supposed dishonour. Indeed, men – even rapists – do get off lightly in this type of sex-related honour crimes. But her assertion overlooks the fact that there is a whole other world of honour that overwhelmingly claims men as its victims: the vendetta – think Romeo and Juliet or mafia films but in real life.

One place where this dated practice, known locally as 'el-tar', still continues, despite decades of efforts to wipe it out, is Egypt's stronghold of conservatism and tough traditions, al-Said (or Upper Egypt). Highly codified and ritualised, some of these feuds can last for generations, perpetuated by a stubborn belief in "el-tar walla el-aar" ("revenge is better than disgrace").

It's not just the fact that someone can muster up the ability to murder a loved one that disturbs, it is also the cruel manner and abandon some people bring to the task. One father hired two thugs to rape his daughter for two hours – as punishment for shaming him – before killing her. To my mind, there is no way a father like that can be anything but completely diseased in the head.

The crime can also be cruel on the chosen executioner. Families often choose one of the younger men – often a minor – to carry out the crime because he will probably get off with a lighter sentence, although the powerless youngster is condemned to a lifetime of trauma and often regret. "I know that killing my sister is against Islam and it angered God," said Sarhan, a young honour-killer Husseini visited in prison. "She was close to me, she was the one who resembled me the most," he said. "I alone cannot change or fix things in my society. My whole society has to change."

And change is coming gradually. Thanks to the efforts of Husseini – who has endured slander, unpopularity and even death threats – and other activists and campaigners, the issue has become a very public one in Jordan, and concern about it has grown in other countries, particularly Pakistan.

This breaking of the taboo has incensed many, not because they approve of the crimes but because of the shame and embarrassment it brings upon their societies. At one level, this is understandable: although honour killings are pretty isolated occurrences, many in the outside world have the warped idea that most Arab and Muslim men are bloodthirsty women-bashers. However, sweeping the issue under the carpet is not an option, and it must be dealt with.

Although Jordanian campaigners have so far failed to change the law that enables honour murderers to get off lightly, the struggle is as much about changing cultural perceptions and attitudes as it is about legislation. Public and judicial tolerance of these crimes is wearing thin as the silent majority begin to raise their objections to these barbaric acts. "The protection of every woman's life should be a key issue for the government and community alike," emphasises Husseini. "Real honour is about tolerance, equality and civil responsibility."

This column appeared in The Guardian Unlimited’s Comment is Free section on 3 May 2009. Read the related discussion.

VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Post to Twitter Tweet This

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Related posts

Grassroots change we CAN believe in

VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

By Khaled Diab

One of Barack Obama’s winning campaign slogans was “change we can believe in”. And with his presidency, everything has changed and nothing has changed when it comes to US foreign policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Compared with his predecessor, Obama has already delivered a substantive rhetorical shift in US foreign policy, with his pledge to rely less on military intervention and more on international diplomacy and dialogue. But this shift is not substantial enough to revive the peace process and set in motion a new dynamic, so I believe that it is up to Palestinians and Israelis to find their own way forward.

The speech Obama will give in Egypt this week is part of his charm offensive to win—in that hackneyed and overused expression—“hearts and minds” in the Arab and Muslim world. And Obama’s efforts seem to be paying off. A recent poll reveals that, even though more than three-quarters of Arabs regard the United States as the second greatest threat in the world, Obama’s approval ratings hover around the 45% point—a vast improvement on George W Bush’s public villain number one or two status.

This change in tone and recent signs of a more robust and hands-on approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have led to a certain amount of optimism in some quarters. Writing in the Egyptian al-Ahram Weekly, Emad Gad interpreted Obama’s insistence on a settlement-building freeze as a sign that “an independent Palestinian state is a definite possibility”.

At least at this juncture, I find it hard to share this optimism. Obama and Bush might be as different as earth and fire, but the United States they lead is not that radically different. One key reason why the peace process broke down is that Washington has never succeeded in playing the role of an honest and impartial broker. How likely is it that Obama, as a self-described “friend of Israel”, will lean hard enough on an Israel led by the populist, rightwing Binyamin Netanyahu and his demagogical deputy and foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman, to make the necessary compromises to reach a settlement with the Palestinians, especially with the presence of the equally extremist Hamas sitting among the Palestinian leadership? It is worth recalling that, according to some, the Oslo process was sabotaged largely by Netanyahu and Hamas.

Some hope that Obama will be able to make the most of Egypt’s longstanding mediation role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But, rather like Washington, Cairo also has its own credibility problem: it is not trusted by the Israeli and Palestinian right wings. In addition, the closure of the Rafah border crossing and other actions that have worsened Palestinian suffering have fuelled a sense of severe disappointment on the part of the Palestinians and anger on the streets of Egypt.

In fact, reform-minded Egyptians feel let down by Obama’s visit because it implicitly expresses support for an unpopular regime with a chronic legitimacy deficit. “Some of us hoped for a more frosty relationship between the Obama administration and the Egyptian regime,” said Karim Medhat Ennarah, a young Egyptian who provides legal aid for refugees.

In my view, what the Middle East, particularly the Israeli-Palestinian question, needs is not more US involvement, but less. The change that most endures is the kind of change that is organic and comes from within. To help this process, Washington does not need to oppose the regimes in Cairo or Riyadh actively, but to withdraw its current support, such as the $1.3 billion of military aid that goes to Egypt each year. Likewise, Palestinians and Israelis need to find their own way to peace. The way the United States can help this quest is by removing its massive distorting influence, such as the $3 billion in military aid it gives to Israel each year.

Since the dynamic among the players—whether antagonists or brokers—has hardly altered since Obama’s arrival on the scene, I think it’s time people give up on top-down solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At this point, gradual grassroots efforts offer the best hope for a breakthrough. One option I have advocated in my writing is to transform the conflict into an incremental socio-political struggle dealing with concrete civil rights—such as freedom of movement, the right to live in security and safety, the right to education and employment, the right to vote, the right to citizenship—rather than abstract notions of nationhood and thorny questions of borders.

Such a bread-and-butter civil rights movement will improve the situation on the ground and could erode the ugly and exclusionary nationalism that has fuelled this conflict for the past six decades.

This article first appeared on the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) on 4 June 2009.

VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Post to Twitter Tweet This

Tags: , , , , ,

Related posts

Is Obama’s change simply cosmetic?

VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

By Khaled Diab

Obama may gain some trust, but America's deceptive belief that it is not an empire condemns its leader to repeating old mistakes.

June 2009

Obama's masterful Cairo speech is an eloquent sign that Washington is under new management, but can his shift in rhetoric deliver the kind of change Arabs and Muslims can believe in?

Whatever else he achieves during his stint as president, one thing we can be sure of is that Barack Obama will consistently deliver masterful speeches. Not only does he put his bumbling predecessor to shame, he easily outshone his drab and cautious Egyptian host, Hosni Mubarak.

His Cairo speech was both daring and cautious, conciliatory and confrontational, nuanced and simplistic. Despite the undoubted heat he will face for it from his conservative opponents back home, Obama did not shy away from praising Islamic culture and highlighting the centuries-old mash of civilisations, which stands in stark contrast to the clash favoured by the previous administration. I was also surprised that he referred to the Qur'an four times in his 45-minute speech.

This rhetorical shift away from the clash of civilisations is laudable and, to his credit, Obama did not shy away from criticising some aspects of US foreign policy. But can the master orator's eloquence deliver the kind of change in American attitudes and foreign policy needed?

Well, hints of the Real McCoy American arrogance were clear to see. Obama insisted that "America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire", but is "founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words – within our borders, and around the world."

Of course, America is not the evil empire, as some outsiders allege, but nor is it the benign superpower, as too many Americans believe. Obama's description smacks too much of American exceptionalism and the country's wishful self-image as the "Land of the Free" standing up for liberty wherever it is threatened. And it is this self-deception, this belief that America is not an empire, that it is not motivated by imperial designs, that it is somehow more virtuous than the rest of the world that will condemn it to keep repeating the same mistakes.

And it is not Obama but this empire that dare not speak its name that many people around the world ultimately distrust. The president's words went down quite well among many Arabs, while a poll carried out shortly before this visit found that Obama's approval rating among Arabs hovers around the 45% point – a far cry from George Bush's public villain number one status. But just because they are fond of the emperor, it does not mean that Arabs trust the empire: a full three-quarters still regarded the US as the second greatest threat in the world.

And, to a certain extent, they have a point: beneath the inviting and embracing surface gloss, there still lurks the outline of the same old American foreign policies, especially relating to Afghanistan, where Obama insists on pursuing a military solution in a part of the world where decades of superpower intervention have only brought misery. While he seems willing to spend hundreds of billions more on a war that has already cost hundreds of billions, he could only find a paltry $2.8bn for development in Afghanistan over an unspecified period of time.

His refusal to acknowledge US culpability in invading Afghanistan was dishonest, since America did not have to succumb to kneejerk vengeance after the 11 September attacks, especially since the Taliban were a monster of US-Pakistani making. However, it is welcome that he recognises that the US should not have invaded Iraq, but whether he will do anything to return control of the Iraqi economy to Iraqis once US troops pull out remains to be seen.

Obama has indicated a greater willingness to take a more robust and hands-on approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and has used much tougher words than his predecessor when referring to Israel, which has sparked anger and panic among Israel's new rightwing government. But Obama comes to the table with nothing new – besides the weathered and worn road map – and he may well meet with the same kind of failure Bill Clinton did.

One reason why the peace process broke down is that Washington has never succeeded in playing the role of an honest and impartial broker. How likely is it that Obama, as a self-described "friend of Israel", will lean hard enough on an Israel led by the populist, rightwing Binyamin Netanyahu and his demagogical deputy and foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman, especially with the presence of the equally extremist Hamas sitting among the Palestinian leadership? At this point, gradual grassroots efforts offer the best hope for a breakthrough.

Obama's stance on global nuclear disarmament is a noble one in principle. However, how likely is it that the US and the other major nuclear powers will give up their membership in the nuclear arms club?

On the topic of democracy and freedom, Obama delivered a breath of fresh air when he said: "No system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other … America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election."

His insistence that change must come from within and that the US could only help indirectly was a very mature position to take. However, his failure to directly criticise the dismal record of Washington's to closest Arab allies, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, left a bitter taste in the mouths of opposition figures and reformers.

In fact, quite a few Egyptians questioned the wisdom of Obama's choice of Egypt as his podium. "Obama, a man of democracy and diplomacy, has made a mistake coming to Cairo as opposed to a secular and democratic state, such as Turkey," opined Kholoud Khalifa, a young Egyptian journalist.

To help the process of democratisation, Washington does not need to oppose the regimes in Cairo or Riyadh actively, but to withdraw its current support, such as the $1.3 billion of military aid that goes to Egypt each year.

With Obama, change will almost certainly come, but whether there is enough change to make a real positive difference is something only time will tell.

This column appeared in The Guardian Unlimited’s Comment is Free section on 5 June 2009. Read the related discussion.

VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.8.3_1051]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Post to Twitter Tweet This

Tags: , , , , , ,

Related posts