Thursday, October 30, 2008
The Damascus Community 'School'
I have always resented the Damascus Community School, or the
"American School" as it is called locally. There was something about it
that annoyed me immensely, firstly in that the only people who could
afford to put their children there were very rich people with more money
than sense, secondly their children grew up to be little Americans.
During my last few trips to Syria I had noticed that the wall
surrounding the school has gotten higher and higher to the point where
it now looks like a mini-fortress, much to my approval. I don't believe
it should be a target but I do believe that the students who go there
must be made to recognise that there is something abnormal about their
attending classes there, that they are not the same as other students
elsewhere, and they are not. The curriculum of the school is available online
and I noted with some interest how their "Social Studies" class really
does mold their focus within a US framework. For example, whilst their
kindergarden class begins with conceptions of what makes a good citizen
and to follow the rules, by the time they are in the 11th grade the
questions are related solely with issues concerning American politics,
forms of government and domestic issues. Another theme they like to
stress in the first few years of school appears to be that the Golden
Rule is a theme which we can find in all major religions and
philosophies. I think that is great, perhaps the United States would not
mind to have American citizens educated under principles of Islamic
Sharia, or perhaps a Cold War curriculum devised from Beijing or Moscow?
Wait a minute, no, they only apply the Golden Rule to others and do not
expect it to be carried out on themselves. So much for the Golden Rule
then...Here is another example, in their 11th and, I think, final grade,
Strand 5 - Culture Section carries questions like this:
3. Summarize how and why a distinct American character has developed and continues to evolve.
If you want to see the answer to that question, just look at the pimply Syrian teenager sitting and writing a paper about this in the Damascus Community School. I hope its closure becomes permanent.
.
3. Summarize how and why a distinct American character has developed and continues to evolve.
If you want to see the answer to that question, just look at the pimply Syrian teenager sitting and writing a paper about this in the Damascus Community School. I hope its closure becomes permanent.
.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
My translation: A 'loaded' American provocation of Syria
A ‘loaded’ American provocation of Syria
By Abd al Bari Atwan of al Quds
By Abd al Bari Atwan of al Quds
The latest acts of president George Bush’s administration are characterised by confusion and indecisiveness, especially in the Middle East. The latest operation carried out by the US military in the Abu Kamal region within the Syrian borders, which resulted in the deaths of eight Syrian civilians, is the most prominent example of this.
This unprecedented raid by air has raised numerous questions with regards to its timing, motives and expected results. Especially with regards to the repercussions which will follow it not just with regards to Syrian-American relations but within Iraq and the Arab world as a whole. What was unique this time was the near complete silence of US official spokespeople, with only the slightest of comments regarding the raid, as opposed to the ‘unprecedented transparency’ with which Syrian politicians and media have dealt with the crisis, granting journalists unfettered access to the Syrian civilians there and to the targeted building as well as providing photographs and information about the incident. The Americans have said that the targeted area was a base of operations for an al Qaeda cell, but there is no tangible evidence to show that this is true. Even if what the Americans say is true, then dealing with such issues could have been coordinated through the relevant security channels which are active, either between the American command in Iraq and its Syrian counterpart or between the Iraqi and Syrian governments themselves, as has been done before on numerous occasions.
Even if we assume that there was some al Qaeda cell in the area, that does not give the United States and its forces the right to raid on the territory of a sovereign country and commit a massacre of innocent civilians. This is a clear act of terrorism which confirms that the US administration pays no heed to the international treaties and documents that it so ardently defends and upholds, punishing others who transgress with sanctions and isolation.
In our estimation the situation involves much more than the presence of some cell of al Qaeda, or even the presence of a major coordinator for smuggling arms and volunteers into the Iraqi hinterland. For it is no coincidence that the raid took place at a time when US hopes of a security agreement with the government of the “New Iraq”, which should have been ratified by the parliament before the end of the year to grant ‘legitimacy’ to the presence of over 150,000 American soldiers on Iraqi soil.
It is no secret to anybody that Iraq’s neighbours, Iran and Syria in particular, oppose the presence of US troops permanently in Iraqi bases, which pose a strategic threat to them. For the latest security agreement, and the clauses within it, places Iraq under an American mandate for decades to come. This makes the United States a permanent feature in the area.
The Iranians did not hesitate for an instant to openly oppose the agreement, issuing fatwas from Shia authorities forbidding the signing of the treaty and enjoining its allies, of whom it has many, in Iraq to stand against it. Even the government of Nouri al Maliki refused to ratify it, delaying presenting it to the parliament whilst requesting that the US administration modify a number of clauses to which it had previously agreed to, in fear of provoking Iranian anger. An anger that wil threaten grave implications should it be ignored.
The Syrians also oppose the treaty, though in their own special way – under the table. This whilst they give out clear signals indicating their wish to cooperate with the Iraqi government and the American project for Iraq through the opening of an embassy after twenty years of broken relations as well as receiving Iraqi leaders with noticeable warmth.
The US administration, which has lost 4200 American soldiers in Iraq and 700 billion dollars, is currently behaving like a wounded bull as it sees the allies it helped to power refusing to ratify an agreement that would legitimise its presence, in spite of its continued threats with grave consequences if they continue in this position, and for this it is starting to get desperate in its actions and decisions.
In other words, the administration cannot send its helicopters to strike the Iranian Revolutionary guards inside Iranian territory under the pretext that they arm and train militias opposed to the US presence in Iraq. That is because it knows full well that any such attack would provoke a painful response through sleeper and active cells which are operating in Iraq. It also, the US administration, is aware that it cannot dismiss al Maliki’s government because it knows that such a move would cost them, not only for the lack of a better alternative to him, but also because of the economic crises, military defeats and financial collapses which surround them from all sides.
The attack on Syria was the least expensive option for president George Bush Jnr. And his military command in Iraq, due to the fact that Syria is the weakest link in the chain. It has recently been subjected to numerous Israeli air raids, the most prominent of which targeted an alleged nuclear facility in the North-East of the country, as well as the carrying out, by the Israeli Mossad, of several high profile assassinations of Lebanese and Syrian personalities, such as General Muhammad Suleiman and al Hajj Imad Mughniyeh the head of the military wing of the Lebanese Hezbullah. The common denominator in all these raids and killings was the absence of any Syrian response and the adherence by the Syrian leadership to the highest levels of self restraint, avoiding falling into the trap of American backed Israeli provocation.
The American raid on Abu Kamal confirms this new development in America’s confused policies, which is that the US military leadership has decided to carry out its revenge on Syria by provoking it into a response for these attacks, instead of using the Israelis as was the case previously. This indicates that the new American strategy is to target Syria, paving the way for attacks on Iran, Hezbullah and Hamas the main backbone of the ‘Axis of Evil’ of the American presidential elections.
The Syrian government has shutdown the Cultural centre and American school in Damascus as an initial response to the raid, also delaying a meeting of the Syrian-Iraqi association which was due to take place in the next few days. It has also demanded explanations from the US and Iraqi governments regarding the raid. However, it is apparent that the Syrian response will not exceed the framework of non-violence at the present time. There are numerous cards in the hand of the Syrian government and which could lead to catastrophic results for the American project in Iraq if it decides to play them, individually or collectively. It is enough for the Syrians to scale back their cooperation on policing the border with Iraq, and ignore the smuggling operations which bring in weapons and fighters into Iraq, as well as stopping coordination with the American and Iraqi commands. For when the border with Iraq was open for volunteers to join the ranks of the Iraqi resistance, the number of operations targeting US forces exceeded 1000 a month, whilst al Qaeda was able to carry out over 700 suicide operations within a period of three years.
We do not expect the Syrian government to abandon its position of self-restraint, and risk provoking the raging American bull with wounds in the closing months of this defeated administration. It is behaving as other countries in the region and the world are, biding its time until the curtain is lowered on one of the most hostile American administrations towards Arabs and Muslims ever, in the hope that a new administration would learn from their mistakes and choose a policy of dialogue rather than confrontation in the Middle East.
Morally bankrupt, from the root to the leaves. This is my growing
opinion of the West. The rest of the world faces occupation, bombing,
extortion, economic ruin and poverty because of their corrupt ideologies
- is it any surprise to see how petty and repulsive their popular
culture can be on a local level? As if he has nothing better to do,
Gordon Brown has waded
into a celebrity tit-for-tat. Russell Brand, a celebrity famous for
being famous (he is praised by the masses for the amount of drugs he
took and for telling everybody about his sexual experiences) insulted a
veteran actor by leaving a message on his voicemail telling him "he
f*cked his granddaughter" on a radio show. Oh, he also said that he used
a condom. How very nice of him and how funny. The maiden whose virtue
was tarnished by this? She works as a 'burlesque' dancer for a group
called the "Satanic Sluts". For Middle Eastern readers unfamiliar with
this terminology, burlesque is a way of saying she is a stripper, but
making it sound like something sophisticated and refined.
Many would say that I am talking rubbish, that Ofcom has been inundated with complaints by people, proving that such behaviour is unacceptable. Nobody seems to remember that it is the same public which has made such human garbage famous and rich. They are the same people who might say that many in the UK opposed the invasion of Iraq, but forget to mention exactly how and why Blair was re-elected after the invasion and the sham of the WMD's. The exact same logic applies to America and the answer is clear in the economic recession which is affecting both countries. You people only care about money, you want to be ruled by the person who can get you the most money and it doesn't matter one bit who you bomb, kill or steal from to get it. You think you are more just and moral than the world, but in reality you are all hypocrites. At least the rest of the world does not hide and pretend it is something else.
.
Many would say that I am talking rubbish, that Ofcom has been inundated with complaints by people, proving that such behaviour is unacceptable. Nobody seems to remember that it is the same public which has made such human garbage famous and rich. They are the same people who might say that many in the UK opposed the invasion of Iraq, but forget to mention exactly how and why Blair was re-elected after the invasion and the sham of the WMD's. The exact same logic applies to America and the answer is clear in the economic recession which is affecting both countries. You people only care about money, you want to be ruled by the person who can get you the most money and it doesn't matter one bit who you bomb, kill or steal from to get it. You think you are more just and moral than the world, but in reality you are all hypocrites. At least the rest of the world does not hide and pretend it is something else.
.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
The on-going resistance against foreign occupation: principles according to international law.
For those who might still be confused about what is happening in
Iraq, an extract from a piece on International law regarding resisting
foreign occupation :
This rule is augmented by the principle of self-determination: under the law of self-determination, a people have the right to resist, with force if necessary, an alien or foreign occupier. The fact that some of the people resisting the U.S./British occupation of Iraq were not part of the pre-invasion Iraqi armed forces is not relevant, as persons who were civilians can take up arms as insurgents against any occupier. As protected combatants they have the right to take up arms against the Occupying Power and cannot be criminally charged except for acts that violate the laws and customs of war. The reason for this rule is obvious: were civilians who spontaneously take up arms and organize themselves into defense forces to be considered “terrorists” instead of combatants, this would mean that persons under attack from a foreign or oppressive force would not be able to fight back and resist without being considered terrorist.
The U.S. administration has generally succeeded in its political rhetoric on the issue: practically no U.S. politicians and very few scholars in NGOs in the U.S. have challenged the false labelling of the Iraq resistance as “terrorist.”
.
This rule is augmented by the principle of self-determination: under the law of self-determination, a people have the right to resist, with force if necessary, an alien or foreign occupier. The fact that some of the people resisting the U.S./British occupation of Iraq were not part of the pre-invasion Iraqi armed forces is not relevant, as persons who were civilians can take up arms as insurgents against any occupier. As protected combatants they have the right to take up arms against the Occupying Power and cannot be criminally charged except for acts that violate the laws and customs of war. The reason for this rule is obvious: were civilians who spontaneously take up arms and organize themselves into defense forces to be considered “terrorists” instead of combatants, this would mean that persons under attack from a foreign or oppressive force would not be able to fight back and resist without being considered terrorist.
The U.S. administration has generally succeeded in its political rhetoric on the issue: practically no U.S. politicians and very few scholars in NGOs in the U.S. have challenged the false labelling of the Iraq resistance as “terrorist.”
.
Monday, October 27, 2008
The village bicycle...
It seems that the only purpose for the borders of Eurasia and it's
security is to keep undesirable Eurasians out and to make their lives
miserable. Other than that they don't appear too concerned with
fly-overs, bombings or even troop landings by anybody else. Still, they
do manage to complain loudly.
.
.
The Arab calendar
It is with great shame that I admit I don't follow, nor know much
about, the Arabic calendar. In fact I know roughly that we are in the
year 1429 Hijri, but if you ask me which month we are in, I wouldn't
have a clue what to say apart from when we are in Ramadan. I think that I
am not the only one and in fact the problem is absolutely chronic
throughout the Arab world. Isn't it shameful that I don't even know what
day and year I was born in my own calendar? Many
people mistakenly believe, as I did, that these are the Islamic names of
the month when in fact they are completely derived from the Arab
culture.
In an attempt to remedy this shameful deficit, I thought I'd post some useful information on the subject. This is a translation from a post by someone called Hejazy, who kindly put down all this information and appears to have copied it from elsewhere according to what he says.
The "Shahr" شهر is the name of a month in Arabic, it was called a shahr because it was the amount of time it took for one complete rotation of the moon around the Earth, usually 28 or 31 days (29 days in the "kabisah" year). It was called a shahr by the Arabs because the period ended with the moon showing "يشهر القمر". As for the week, it was called Osboo' "أسبوع" and the root of the word is saba'a "سبعة" (seven), the number of days in a week.
The names of the months in the Arabic calendar were used at the beginning of the fifth century AD. They are as follows:
Muhram محرم
The first month in the Arab calendar. It was called Muhram because it was forbidden for any fighting to take place amongst the Arabs during this month.
Saffar صفر
The second month in the Arab calendar. Saffar meant to empty and some have said it described the Arab towns which were emptied as the Arabs went on raids or to do battle. Others said it was due to their raiding of lands which went by the name of al Saffaryah, and others still said it referred to Mecca when many of its inhabitants would leave during this month.
Rabea al Owal ربيع الأول
The third month, when the grass would begin to grow and the weather would get better.
Rabea al Akher ربيع الآخر
The fourth month and the end of spring.
Jamadi al Oola جمادي الأولى
An interesting thing to note is that all the Arab months are masculine apart from Jamadi al Oola and Jamadi al Akhera. Jamadi was called so because it came during the winter when the water would start to freeze, it comes from the word jamad, or froze. Prior to Islam it was called Jamadi khamsa.
Jamadi al Akhera جمادي الآخرة
The sixth month and named for the same reason as mentioned above. Prior to Islam it was called Jamadi sitta.
Rajjab رجب
It was called Rajjab due to the importance the Arabs placed on this month and their strong discouragement of any fighting during it. It's name can mean to glorify something or it meant to leave (fighting).
Sha'aban شعبان
The eighth month of the Arabic calendar. It's name comes from tasha'aba, or to spread out. During this months the Arab tribes would spread out and prepare to raid after spending Rajjab without fighting. Others say that the tribes spread out seeking water during this month, hence the name.
Ramadan رمضان
Prior to Islam the ninth month was called Nateq ناطق and when the month was renamed it coincided with a period of intense heat, Ramad رمض , and so it was called Ramadan. Others say that the sun was so strong that the stones became hot, or Ramadat.
Shawal شوال
It is said that during this month the livestock would raise its tails in heat, others say that during this month the milk of livestock would diminish due to the heat, tashoul تشول. Others say Shawal because the month was extremely hot.
Tho al qi'da ذو القعدة
During this month the Arabs would not travel and some say they would not fight in this month either because it was one of the months when combat was forbidden. Qi'da means to sit, so it was the month of sitting.
Tho al hijja ذو الحجة
The month of pilgrimage and the final month of the calendar. It was called pilgrimage حجة because the ancient Arabs had always performed this rite at this time.
The days of the week
The sabat سبت
To say of somebody that they have sabat means that they are resting. It was called during the pre-Islamic days of Ignorance Jahiliya جاهلية shabar شبار.
The Ahad الأحد
The first day of the week and the root of it is wahed واحد meaning one. During the Jahiliyah it was called Owal أول (first)
Ithnein الأثنين
The second day of the week. Two means ithnein أثنين. In the jahiliyah it was called Ahon أهون
Thalatha' الثلاثاء
The third day of the week and it means three in Arabic. The jahiliyah name was Jabar جبار
Arbe'a الأربعاء
The fourth day of the week and means four in Arabic. Previously called dabar دبار
Khamees الخميس
The fifth day of the week, meaning five. Previously called Mo'ns مؤنس
Jumu'a الجمعة
The sixth day of the week meaning to gather and could have meant that it gathered all the days of the week as their culmination. In the jahiliyah the Arabs called it Arooba عروبة
.
In an attempt to remedy this shameful deficit, I thought I'd post some useful information on the subject. This is a translation from a post by someone called Hejazy, who kindly put down all this information and appears to have copied it from elsewhere according to what he says.
The "Shahr" شهر is the name of a month in Arabic, it was called a shahr because it was the amount of time it took for one complete rotation of the moon around the Earth, usually 28 or 31 days (29 days in the "kabisah" year). It was called a shahr by the Arabs because the period ended with the moon showing "يشهر القمر". As for the week, it was called Osboo' "أسبوع" and the root of the word is saba'a "سبعة" (seven), the number of days in a week.
The names of the months in the Arabic calendar were used at the beginning of the fifth century AD. They are as follows:
Muhram محرم
The first month in the Arab calendar. It was called Muhram because it was forbidden for any fighting to take place amongst the Arabs during this month.
Saffar صفر
The second month in the Arab calendar. Saffar meant to empty and some have said it described the Arab towns which were emptied as the Arabs went on raids or to do battle. Others said it was due to their raiding of lands which went by the name of al Saffaryah, and others still said it referred to Mecca when many of its inhabitants would leave during this month.
Rabea al Owal ربيع الأول
The third month, when the grass would begin to grow and the weather would get better.
Rabea al Akher ربيع الآخر
The fourth month and the end of spring.
Jamadi al Oola جمادي الأولى
An interesting thing to note is that all the Arab months are masculine apart from Jamadi al Oola and Jamadi al Akhera. Jamadi was called so because it came during the winter when the water would start to freeze, it comes from the word jamad, or froze. Prior to Islam it was called Jamadi khamsa.
Jamadi al Akhera جمادي الآخرة
The sixth month and named for the same reason as mentioned above. Prior to Islam it was called Jamadi sitta.
Rajjab رجب
It was called Rajjab due to the importance the Arabs placed on this month and their strong discouragement of any fighting during it. It's name can mean to glorify something or it meant to leave (fighting).
Sha'aban شعبان
The eighth month of the Arabic calendar. It's name comes from tasha'aba, or to spread out. During this months the Arab tribes would spread out and prepare to raid after spending Rajjab without fighting. Others say that the tribes spread out seeking water during this month, hence the name.
Ramadan رمضان
Prior to Islam the ninth month was called Nateq ناطق and when the month was renamed it coincided with a period of intense heat, Ramad رمض , and so it was called Ramadan. Others say that the sun was so strong that the stones became hot, or Ramadat.
Shawal شوال
It is said that during this month the livestock would raise its tails in heat, others say that during this month the milk of livestock would diminish due to the heat, tashoul تشول. Others say Shawal because the month was extremely hot.
Tho al qi'da ذو القعدة
During this month the Arabs would not travel and some say they would not fight in this month either because it was one of the months when combat was forbidden. Qi'da means to sit, so it was the month of sitting.
Tho al hijja ذو الحجة
The month of pilgrimage and the final month of the calendar. It was called pilgrimage حجة because the ancient Arabs had always performed this rite at this time.
The days of the week
The sabat سبت
To say of somebody that they have sabat means that they are resting. It was called during the pre-Islamic days of Ignorance Jahiliya جاهلية shabar شبار.
The Ahad الأحد
The first day of the week and the root of it is wahed واحد meaning one. During the Jahiliyah it was called Owal أول (first)
Ithnein الأثنين
The second day of the week. Two means ithnein أثنين. In the jahiliyah it was called Ahon أهون
Thalatha' الثلاثاء
The third day of the week and it means three in Arabic. The jahiliyah name was Jabar جبار
Arbe'a الأربعاء
The fourth day of the week and means four in Arabic. Previously called dabar دبار
Khamees الخميس
The fifth day of the week, meaning five. Previously called Mo'ns مؤنس
Jumu'a الجمعة
The sixth day of the week meaning to gather and could have meant that it gathered all the days of the week as their culmination. In the jahiliyah the Arabs called it Arooba عروبة
.
Nabil Sukkar's name keeps coming up in many articles whenever there
is a discussion on Syria's economy. Here is a recent quote from him on
Time Magazine:
"Syria is a virgin country, like China was 20 years ago," says Nabil Sukkar, one of the country's leading economic reformers. "No matter what you do, you find gold."
Really? Perhaps he should read the latest statements made by Alan Greenspan:
"Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?"
Greenspan replied: "Yes I found a flaw. I don't know how significant or permanent it is, but I've been very distressed by that fact."
.
"Syria is a virgin country, like China was 20 years ago," says Nabil Sukkar, one of the country's leading economic reformers. "No matter what you do, you find gold."
Really? Perhaps he should read the latest statements made by Alan Greenspan:
"Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?"
Greenspan replied: "Yes I found a flaw. I don't know how significant or permanent it is, but I've been very distressed by that fact."
.
Translation: “The Israeli ‘Veto’ and ‘Moussa’s League’”
by Abd el-Bari Atwan in al Quds al Arabi
27/10/2008
We never imagined a time when Israel would impose its ‘veto’ on the participation of the Arabs in regional and international conferences, and to succeed in doing so with the utmost east, but it appears that everything is possible in this despicable time for the Arabs.
Yesterday the Jordanian government cancelled a Mediterranean conference on water in protest at Israel’s refusal of a delegation from the Arab League – on the grounds that it was not a Mediterranean country. Just like that. In bygone days, it was the Arabs who would refuse any Israeli participation to conferences they had been invited to, and would withdraw from the main hall of the United Nations General Assembly en-masse, if the Israeli delegate assumed the podium. The same would have been done by the Islamic and Third World countries in sympathy with the Arab cause. Now it is Israel which protests and opposes, finding support and sympathy from many nations, including the Arabs, sadly, to such an extent that all its wishes are fulfilled completely. Mr Amro Moussa, the Secretary General of the Arab League, fumed and thundered, attacking that Israeli ‘veto’ against his league’s participation in the “Union for the Mediterranean” and said, “I just cannot understand that an Arab League initiative can take place, in the absence of the League. We cannot accept such a travesty”.
What Mr Moussa does not wish to admit is that this Israeli arrogance would not have reached such levels as we have witnessed were it not for the ‘weak’ and ‘complicit’ positions of his league, and the eagerness with which it would participate in any conference or meeting that involves the Jewish state.
It may help to remind Mr Moussa of his own personal attendance to the Nobel Prize winners awards ceremony in Petra, Jordan early this year, with his famous tantrum that the organisers would not allow him, due to protocol, from addressing the audience, in response to the attacks of the Israeli president Shimon Peres in which he attacked the Arabs for not wishing peace. On that day, he withdrew from the ceremony, only to return to his seat after he was allowed to speak in the hall, just like any other participant.
The participation of the Arab governments in the organisation “Union for the Mediterranean”, launched by the French president Sarkozy last July was humiliating and according to the conditions set by the Europeans. In these, France insisted on the membership of all states in the European Union, with no exception, and with them Israel. Meanwhile the Arab states would not even insist on the inclusion of the Arab League. The Secretary General did not hold a press conference declaring his opposition to this, threatening to resign from his post in light of this inappropriate treatment of his League. In fact he did the exact same thing when he went to the peace conference in Annapolis, called for by the American president George Bush last November, to renew the Arab-Israeli peace talks. Mr Moussa said that the Arabs will not participate unless Israel committed to stopping settlement building and to lifting the siege on the Palestinian people. They [the Arabs] all attended, including the Secretary General, whilst the siege continued and the settlement building intensified.
The Arabs are the ones who are clamouring for Israel to normalise with them, not the opposite. The foreign minister of Qatar Sheikh Khaled Al Khalifa had called for a regional organisation including Israel, Iran and Turkey and in a position superior to the Arabs. What was the response of Mr Moussa to this unprecedented move? He praised this proposal, describing it as “deep” and reiterating that the Arab members of the league were to seriously consider it.
Such positions encourage Israel to impose a “veto” on the participation of the Arab League or of Arab states to international conferences. They also encourage European countries to support the Israeli position, since they know well that there is no such thing as Arabs who are able to take brave positions against this series of insults.
We are now faced with much more dangerous situations and we wish to hear Mr Moussa’s honest opinion towards them. For the president of the Jewish state Shimon Peres wants a complete peace with the Arabs, claiming that the two-partner peace talks have been proven a failure. That is, he wishes to return to what the Arabs had been calling for, and what Israel had rejected. However, Peres’ invitation is ‘mined’ since he wishes to negotiate on the basis of an Arab peace initiative after it has been modified, and returned to its original Saudi origin. This means the abandoning of the Palestinian right of return. In other words he wishes to sit on the negotiating table, with the Arab countries gathered, on the foundation of an Arab peace initiative after it has been modified, so the normalisation of relations before any withdrawal from the occupied territories, the lifting of the siege on the people of Gaza or even the dismantlement of one checkpoint amongst the six hundred points in the West Bank, or of a single “illegal” settlement, let alone any of the two hundred “legal” settlements. Legal, that is, according to the Israeli definition, which is any settlement built with government approval.
This Israeli arrogance, and Arab submission, appears at a time when the economies of the Western world, the main pillars of support for Israel, are collapsing, and the world political map is being redrawn with new great powers such as China, Russia, India, Brazil and Iran (there is no sign of the Arabs, nor will there be for the foreseeable future), and with America facing two defeats in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Logic tells us that the Arabs should take a much braver approach in dealing with Israel and its European and American allies. Especially since they now possess huge financial resources due to the returns from oil (1 trillion dollars a year). Yet what we see happening is the exact opposite, for they have grown accustomed to insult and to receiving blows with no right to complain from the pain.
Mr Moussa can rest assured that Israel will not pay any attention to his protests, and will continue to use its ‘veto’ against his organisation, or any other governments participating in it, for it knows well that Arab governments are eager to normalise with it and unconditionally, begging it to lead an Israeli-Arab alliance against Iran, the new enemy of the Arabs. Gone from his mind is the fact that Israel now boycotts Arabic satellite stations for their criticism of its occupation and its criminal activities, using the excuse that they are “unprofessional” or “lack objectivity” and refusing the statements of some Arab journalists if they deviate from its instructions on providing coverage and portrayed it as a force of occupation and injustice, the case of al Jazeera being the most prominent of many.
In conclusion we would like to say, Mr Moussa, that the Arab peace initiative will be modified according to Israeli conditions, and we will see Arab nations normalising for free amongst the countries that have not yet normalised with Israel. We would like to stress to him that even if he were to extend an invitation to it to join the Arab league, it would reject it out of disgust and arrogance. How could Israel accept this when it has the final say in the Mediterranean union as it is, and invitations are flooding in for it to join regional groupings with Arabs, Turks and Iranians and by Arab government officials themselves?
.
27/10/2008
We never imagined a time when Israel would impose its ‘veto’ on the participation of the Arabs in regional and international conferences, and to succeed in doing so with the utmost east, but it appears that everything is possible in this despicable time for the Arabs.
Yesterday the Jordanian government cancelled a Mediterranean conference on water in protest at Israel’s refusal of a delegation from the Arab League – on the grounds that it was not a Mediterranean country. Just like that. In bygone days, it was the Arabs who would refuse any Israeli participation to conferences they had been invited to, and would withdraw from the main hall of the United Nations General Assembly en-masse, if the Israeli delegate assumed the podium. The same would have been done by the Islamic and Third World countries in sympathy with the Arab cause. Now it is Israel which protests and opposes, finding support and sympathy from many nations, including the Arabs, sadly, to such an extent that all its wishes are fulfilled completely. Mr Amro Moussa, the Secretary General of the Arab League, fumed and thundered, attacking that Israeli ‘veto’ against his league’s participation in the “Union for the Mediterranean” and said, “I just cannot understand that an Arab League initiative can take place, in the absence of the League. We cannot accept such a travesty”.
What Mr Moussa does not wish to admit is that this Israeli arrogance would not have reached such levels as we have witnessed were it not for the ‘weak’ and ‘complicit’ positions of his league, and the eagerness with which it would participate in any conference or meeting that involves the Jewish state.
It may help to remind Mr Moussa of his own personal attendance to the Nobel Prize winners awards ceremony in Petra, Jordan early this year, with his famous tantrum that the organisers would not allow him, due to protocol, from addressing the audience, in response to the attacks of the Israeli president Shimon Peres in which he attacked the Arabs for not wishing peace. On that day, he withdrew from the ceremony, only to return to his seat after he was allowed to speak in the hall, just like any other participant.
The participation of the Arab governments in the organisation “Union for the Mediterranean”, launched by the French president Sarkozy last July was humiliating and according to the conditions set by the Europeans. In these, France insisted on the membership of all states in the European Union, with no exception, and with them Israel. Meanwhile the Arab states would not even insist on the inclusion of the Arab League. The Secretary General did not hold a press conference declaring his opposition to this, threatening to resign from his post in light of this inappropriate treatment of his League. In fact he did the exact same thing when he went to the peace conference in Annapolis, called for by the American president George Bush last November, to renew the Arab-Israeli peace talks. Mr Moussa said that the Arabs will not participate unless Israel committed to stopping settlement building and to lifting the siege on the Palestinian people. They [the Arabs] all attended, including the Secretary General, whilst the siege continued and the settlement building intensified.
The Arabs are the ones who are clamouring for Israel to normalise with them, not the opposite. The foreign minister of Qatar Sheikh Khaled Al Khalifa had called for a regional organisation including Israel, Iran and Turkey and in a position superior to the Arabs. What was the response of Mr Moussa to this unprecedented move? He praised this proposal, describing it as “deep” and reiterating that the Arab members of the league were to seriously consider it.
Such positions encourage Israel to impose a “veto” on the participation of the Arab League or of Arab states to international conferences. They also encourage European countries to support the Israeli position, since they know well that there is no such thing as Arabs who are able to take brave positions against this series of insults.
We are now faced with much more dangerous situations and we wish to hear Mr Moussa’s honest opinion towards them. For the president of the Jewish state Shimon Peres wants a complete peace with the Arabs, claiming that the two-partner peace talks have been proven a failure. That is, he wishes to return to what the Arabs had been calling for, and what Israel had rejected. However, Peres’ invitation is ‘mined’ since he wishes to negotiate on the basis of an Arab peace initiative after it has been modified, and returned to its original Saudi origin. This means the abandoning of the Palestinian right of return. In other words he wishes to sit on the negotiating table, with the Arab countries gathered, on the foundation of an Arab peace initiative after it has been modified, so the normalisation of relations before any withdrawal from the occupied territories, the lifting of the siege on the people of Gaza or even the dismantlement of one checkpoint amongst the six hundred points in the West Bank, or of a single “illegal” settlement, let alone any of the two hundred “legal” settlements. Legal, that is, according to the Israeli definition, which is any settlement built with government approval.
This Israeli arrogance, and Arab submission, appears at a time when the economies of the Western world, the main pillars of support for Israel, are collapsing, and the world political map is being redrawn with new great powers such as China, Russia, India, Brazil and Iran (there is no sign of the Arabs, nor will there be for the foreseeable future), and with America facing two defeats in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Logic tells us that the Arabs should take a much braver approach in dealing with Israel and its European and American allies. Especially since they now possess huge financial resources due to the returns from oil (1 trillion dollars a year). Yet what we see happening is the exact opposite, for they have grown accustomed to insult and to receiving blows with no right to complain from the pain.
Mr Moussa can rest assured that Israel will not pay any attention to his protests, and will continue to use its ‘veto’ against his organisation, or any other governments participating in it, for it knows well that Arab governments are eager to normalise with it and unconditionally, begging it to lead an Israeli-Arab alliance against Iran, the new enemy of the Arabs. Gone from his mind is the fact that Israel now boycotts Arabic satellite stations for their criticism of its occupation and its criminal activities, using the excuse that they are “unprofessional” or “lack objectivity” and refusing the statements of some Arab journalists if they deviate from its instructions on providing coverage and portrayed it as a force of occupation and injustice, the case of al Jazeera being the most prominent of many.
In conclusion we would like to say, Mr Moussa, that the Arab peace initiative will be modified according to Israeli conditions, and we will see Arab nations normalising for free amongst the countries that have not yet normalised with Israel. We would like to stress to him that even if he were to extend an invitation to it to join the Arab league, it would reject it out of disgust and arrogance. How could Israel accept this when it has the final say in the Mediterranean union as it is, and invitations are flooding in for it to join regional groupings with Arabs, Turks and Iranians and by Arab government officials themselves?
.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Philosophy and.... the Oud
At the time of the Islamic conquests, philosophers and educated men
had, by and large, accepted the Aristotelian view of the world. In this
metaphysics, all of reality was composed of earth, wind, fire and water
categorised into two broad categories of dry and hot, cold and wet. The
heavier elements, earth and wind, gravitated to the centre of the
universe whereas the lighter elements fire and air moved upwards and
away from it. Surrounding the universe was the ether, a fifth element.
The earth was considered to be at the centre of this universe. The
elements had a hierarchy of importance with the earth considered the
lowliest whilst the higher up you moved in the elemental chain the more
worthy the element up until ether. Beyond that were the
angels/demons/gods and so on, who were all subservient to The One if you
were a neo-Platonist or "The Unmoved mover" if you were a strict
Aristotelian. The earth was considered in the sub-lunar layer of this
cosmology, the planets were beyond that and the outer limit were the
stars, which rotated around the earth and possessed their own, higher,
intellects and were closer in the hierarchy to this One and His
influence. The fact that there was generation and corruption on the
earth, as well as any movement at all, was due to the mixing and
churning of these elements in the sub-lunar level. As a result, we and
all other creation were a mix of these elements and conditions to
varying extents. Where you were born and what stars were in the sky at
the time influenced your character and fortune and these continued to
exert an influence indirectly on you as a result of their effect on one
or more of the elements within you.
The early Muslims largely accepted this view of the world and any educated man worth his salt was to have some grasp of these concepts. Revelation was concerned mainly with the conduct and morality of individuals and the nature of their relationship with their creator rather than reveal what some today call "scientific truth". Anyhow, the early Arab philosophers picked up on these strands of thought as the Greek texts began to be translated and the first Arabic philosopher al-Kindi pondered the nature of The One in his "On First Philosophy", only parts of which remain extant, before writing extensively on everything from the soul and the natural sciences to the making of swords and lenses. This understanding of the human body as a mixture of these four elements was the basis of medical knowledge and how physicians would deal with various symptoms in their patients. One method they used, which I had heard of before, was music. It was only I read a plaque in the Azm palace in Damascus on music that I understood the importance of it. The early Ouds had four sets of double strings, the fifth, middle one, being added by Zeryab in al Andalus during the period of Islamic rule.
Each of these four strings corresponded to one of the four elements and when plucked in different combinations and ways, were supposed to stir the necessary parts of the body or human emotion and had beneficial effects on them. The highest cord on the Oud, the zir, was yello and represented yellow bile. The second set of strings, the mathna, were red and associated with blood. The third set, the mathlath, were white and were related to phlegm whilst the fourth set, bam, were associated with the colour black and yellow but I do not know what they corresponded to in the human body.
.
The early Muslims largely accepted this view of the world and any educated man worth his salt was to have some grasp of these concepts. Revelation was concerned mainly with the conduct and morality of individuals and the nature of their relationship with their creator rather than reveal what some today call "scientific truth". Anyhow, the early Arab philosophers picked up on these strands of thought as the Greek texts began to be translated and the first Arabic philosopher al-Kindi pondered the nature of The One in his "On First Philosophy", only parts of which remain extant, before writing extensively on everything from the soul and the natural sciences to the making of swords and lenses. This understanding of the human body as a mixture of these four elements was the basis of medical knowledge and how physicians would deal with various symptoms in their patients. One method they used, which I had heard of before, was music. It was only I read a plaque in the Azm palace in Damascus on music that I understood the importance of it. The early Ouds had four sets of double strings, the fifth, middle one, being added by Zeryab in al Andalus during the period of Islamic rule.
Each of these four strings corresponded to one of the four elements and when plucked in different combinations and ways, were supposed to stir the necessary parts of the body or human emotion and had beneficial effects on them. The highest cord on the Oud, the zir, was yello and represented yellow bile. The second set of strings, the mathna, were red and associated with blood. The third set, the mathlath, were white and were related to phlegm whilst the fourth set, bam, were associated with the colour black and yellow but I do not know what they corresponded to in the human body.
.
"We arrived in Damascus in the light of the crescent moon. It seemed
appropriate enough. This, after all, is the city Muhammad refused to
visit, because he preferred to save paradise for paradise, the city
that was conquered by Muslim armies AD635, and that remained under
Islamic rule of various kinds until 1918. Even now, with a government
fiercely committed to the ideal of the secular state, Syria is largely a
Muslim country – but one, you quickly find, in which Muslims,
Christians and Jews share the richest of histories." (Thanks Serene)
.
.
"Iraqi secret police believed that the notorious Palestinian assassin
Abu Nidal was working for the Americans as well as Egypt and Kuwait
when they interrogated him in Baghdad only months before the
Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. Hitherto secret documents which are
now in the hands of The Independent – written by Saddam Hussein's
brutal security services for Saddam's eyes only – state that he had
been "colluding" with the Americans and, with the help of the Egyptians
and Kuwaitis, was trying to find evidence linking Saddam and al-Qa'ida." (Thanks Serene)
.
.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Who I write for and why in English...
I've been asked recently by one reader why I write in
English and who I write for. That is a very good question and one which
deserves an answer. With regards to the second part of the question, I
write mainly for myself, that is, I wish to put down somewhere my
reflections and thoughts on what is happening in the Arab world. This
amazing part of humanity has offered, and continues to offer, so much
that is meaningful to the world. In spite of continuous aggression and
occupation, physically and intellectually, it has confounded the most
concerted efforts to subdue it. It is vibrant, diverse and individualist
in a true sense, unlike the monotone consumer societies of empire. So
when I write, I am writing to discover what it means to come from this
world, hence the raw nature of some of my posts. The further I write,
the more solid the articulation of myself and my identity becomes, as if
the text and I have some bizarre relationship that allows us to grow
together.
That leaves us with my choice of language, which is English as some of you may or may not have noticed by now. My English is slightly better than my Arabic because the schools I was educated in believed that the West is superior to our Arab societies (they didn't realise it but it was taken for granted that this was the case). So they thought they were doing me a favour by making me more employable and integrable in today's "global" culture. They were right to some extent, my current abode is in the heart of this "global" culture, better known as the heart of capitalism to some. I like to call it "The Little Satan" due to it's relationship with the United States of America. That I can write any good Arabic at all is only due to a conscious effort on my part over the past few years and I may decide to write in it one day, but currently my context is outside the Arab world and I write best about what I know best. I am planning to move back up there one day and when that happens I will most probably write in Arabic and with as much vigour.
.
That leaves us with my choice of language, which is English as some of you may or may not have noticed by now. My English is slightly better than my Arabic because the schools I was educated in believed that the West is superior to our Arab societies (they didn't realise it but it was taken for granted that this was the case). So they thought they were doing me a favour by making me more employable and integrable in today's "global" culture. They were right to some extent, my current abode is in the heart of this "global" culture, better known as the heart of capitalism to some. I like to call it "The Little Satan" due to it's relationship with the United States of America. That I can write any good Arabic at all is only due to a conscious effort on my part over the past few years and I may decide to write in it one day, but currently my context is outside the Arab world and I write best about what I know best. I am planning to move back up there one day and when that happens I will most probably write in Arabic and with as much vigour.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
The cheapest commodity in the world...
"Pressure is growing on Dubai's newest and largest hotel resort to free a whale shark from its aquarium."
Please note that the resort is the new Atlantis resort, owned by a
company known worldwide for its multi-million dollar gambling venues.
If, on the other hand, you'd like to see how the Emirates slave labour has been doing then please click here.
.
If, on the other hand, you'd like to see how the Emirates slave labour has been doing then please click here.
.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Gambling to be legalised in the Gulf?
It
looks like plans to introduce widespread gambling into the Gulf are
already underway with massive investments being carried out on Palm
Island. Purely speculating of course, it is no coincidence that Kerzner
International now has a foot on the island with its new Atlantis resort. It's also no coincidence that the QE2 was
sold off as a £50 million investment to Dubai, again as a 'hotel'. It
doesn't take much imagination to see it sail in international waters off
the coast and well stocked up with whiskey, prostitutes and lots and
lots of gambling. There I was thinking they were going to sail it to
Gaza to break the seige...
When I read more
about these things, it just reminds me how much I don't like rich
people. I mean the rich people you don't hear about because they are
rarely in the news, the ones that really do bank in obscure
principalities in central Europe, in the Carribean and other places. The
ones that can pay half a billion pounds sterling in 500 foot yachts
armed with missile defense systems and a built in submarine, coupled
with 50 crew and an armed detachment of British mercenaries from the SAS
- the mercenary factory of choice for those who want to overthrow
central African republics (think Mark Thatcher) or unreasonable Gulf
Sheikhs, such as what happened in Oman. Is it any coincidence that the
capital of choice for so many of these people is London? Is it not fair
to say that we all, those of us who choose to remain (greedy for our big
break) in these cosmopolitan cities, stand guilty of shared theft? I
think it is.
.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
It's funky to be from...the Kingdom!
Another manifestation of "Cool Arabia"?
"The issues addressed are as much personal or domestic as they are global. The artists have chosen not to focus on negative perceptions of the Middle East or artistic and intellectual clichés associated with the region and instead present a contemporary world view that is as unpredictable as it is beautiful."
.
"The issues addressed are as much personal or domestic as they are global. The artists have chosen not to focus on negative perceptions of the Middle East or artistic and intellectual clichés associated with the region and instead present a contemporary world view that is as unpredictable as it is beautiful."
.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Colonialism in philosophy
Whilst in Eurasia, I was surprised by the attitudes of friends and
family who learned of my interest in philosophy. One person's jaw
literally dropped when they heard what my Masters degree was in, "You've
gone all the way to London to study philosophy?". Others worried about
my soul and warned me of the dangers of losing myself in its treacherous
waters. In many ways I'm not surprised, the attitudes of many people
towards the subject mirrored similar attitudes people in the West had,
but not to Philosophy with a capital P but with Arabic philosophy in
specific. It is perhaps typical that the mentally colonised would
belittle their own capabilities, imbue the philosophy of the occupier
with awe and fear and internalise the colonisers attitudes towards the
subject.
For a long time I puzzled as to why books on the history of philosophy were so dismissive towards the entire body of Arabic philosophy. According to one scholar, Dimitri Gutas, attitudes towards it are essentially based on orientalism, whereby the dominant view held in much of the West was that Arabs and Muslims were simply incapable of clear philosophical thought, being somehow 'naturally' inclined towards religious fanaticism and despotism. No attempt by any orientalists was made to even consider the vast body of texts which were still untranslated because of this attitude. What little there was to be read simply got reinterpreted in a way which reinforced this attitude, either consciously or unconsciously. The older these studies became, the more authority they seemed to hold in the minds of those who followed. Gutas argued that there were four attitudes which were rooted in this orientalist approach to Arabic philosophy and were largely responsible for the decline in interest in it or mis-interpretation of it.
The first attitude views Arabic philosophy as nothing but a mystical and exotic mish-mash of ideas and beliefs. This attitude has perhaps the weakest of orientalist foundations and quickly dissipates as we find that its proponents were usually either not bothered with investigating further or were themselves working with extremely limited sources, unaware of the wealth of this area.
A second attitude, one which I first noticed in Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy but which carried on from earlier attempts, portrays Arabic philosophy as, at best, some caretaker or intermediary of Greek philosophy. Once Europeans were sufficiently prepared they then carried the torch forward, being much better suited and disposed to make use of such texts than the backwards Muslim peoples. This attitude continues on from the first and is hardly surprising as a conclusion.
The third attitude views Arabic philosophy as nothing more than an endless struggle between philosophy and religion. Each trying to outdo the other and prove its own truth. It ignores the profound impact that philosophy had on Islam itself and belittles the huge efforts of those within the tradition who pursued genuine philosophical enquiries. This attitude in particular was a Western concern. The majority of philosophers at the time believed in some form of religion and the nature of debate was usually centred on either epistemology or how logical propositions really were. In the first, the discussions were on how prophets were able to make the statements they did with no philosophical backgrounds. The second area of discussion was usually with regards to the logic of their propositions and of what nature these were. Were they demonstrative, dialectical, sophistical or something else. The fact that Western scholars miss this point may be to their misunderstanding of the nature of many texts made by Arabic philosophers. They forget that Ibn Rushd and al-Ghazali were primarily lawmakers and as such, texts they made which might appear to be concerned with the religion vs. philosophy debate were in fact legal texts to do with the legality of philosophical pursuits under Islamic law, and not under Arabic philosophy. The confusion increases when legal debates and legal styles are considered to be representative of all Arabic philosophy texts
Finally, we are told constantly that Arabic philosophy ends with Ibn Rushd and that the torch from there passes on to the West. This gives the impression that no philosophy was carried out, or is carried out, in Arabic or Islamic lands today. One scholar, Henry Corbin, mentions this fallacy numerous times and yet had been largely ignored. He cites numerous philosophers that I had never heard of who would have, and continue to be, amazed by the pre-eminence given to the al-Ghazali/Averroes debates. In fact they would have been mostly unaware of the attention given by the West to this matter. No attention is paid to any original work which continued to be produced after Ibn Rushd.
Between these four positions, according to Gutas, we are given the lense with which to view Arabic philosophy. This prevents us from seeing it as only philosophy and I think that those who have helped in shaping this could only be called colonialists of the mind. That some Arabs would internalise these positions and take them as their own only shows what mental occupation is capable of doing to somebody but recognising it as such is the first step in a truly free continuation of Arabic thought in all its multitude and diversity beyond the confines of Western colonialism.
.
For a long time I puzzled as to why books on the history of philosophy were so dismissive towards the entire body of Arabic philosophy. According to one scholar, Dimitri Gutas, attitudes towards it are essentially based on orientalism, whereby the dominant view held in much of the West was that Arabs and Muslims were simply incapable of clear philosophical thought, being somehow 'naturally' inclined towards religious fanaticism and despotism. No attempt by any orientalists was made to even consider the vast body of texts which were still untranslated because of this attitude. What little there was to be read simply got reinterpreted in a way which reinforced this attitude, either consciously or unconsciously. The older these studies became, the more authority they seemed to hold in the minds of those who followed. Gutas argued that there were four attitudes which were rooted in this orientalist approach to Arabic philosophy and were largely responsible for the decline in interest in it or mis-interpretation of it.
The first attitude views Arabic philosophy as nothing but a mystical and exotic mish-mash of ideas and beliefs. This attitude has perhaps the weakest of orientalist foundations and quickly dissipates as we find that its proponents were usually either not bothered with investigating further or were themselves working with extremely limited sources, unaware of the wealth of this area.
A second attitude, one which I first noticed in Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy but which carried on from earlier attempts, portrays Arabic philosophy as, at best, some caretaker or intermediary of Greek philosophy. Once Europeans were sufficiently prepared they then carried the torch forward, being much better suited and disposed to make use of such texts than the backwards Muslim peoples. This attitude continues on from the first and is hardly surprising as a conclusion.
The third attitude views Arabic philosophy as nothing more than an endless struggle between philosophy and religion. Each trying to outdo the other and prove its own truth. It ignores the profound impact that philosophy had on Islam itself and belittles the huge efforts of those within the tradition who pursued genuine philosophical enquiries. This attitude in particular was a Western concern. The majority of philosophers at the time believed in some form of religion and the nature of debate was usually centred on either epistemology or how logical propositions really were. In the first, the discussions were on how prophets were able to make the statements they did with no philosophical backgrounds. The second area of discussion was usually with regards to the logic of their propositions and of what nature these were. Were they demonstrative, dialectical, sophistical or something else. The fact that Western scholars miss this point may be to their misunderstanding of the nature of many texts made by Arabic philosophers. They forget that Ibn Rushd and al-Ghazali were primarily lawmakers and as such, texts they made which might appear to be concerned with the religion vs. philosophy debate were in fact legal texts to do with the legality of philosophical pursuits under Islamic law, and not under Arabic philosophy. The confusion increases when legal debates and legal styles are considered to be representative of all Arabic philosophy texts
Finally, we are told constantly that Arabic philosophy ends with Ibn Rushd and that the torch from there passes on to the West. This gives the impression that no philosophy was carried out, or is carried out, in Arabic or Islamic lands today. One scholar, Henry Corbin, mentions this fallacy numerous times and yet had been largely ignored. He cites numerous philosophers that I had never heard of who would have, and continue to be, amazed by the pre-eminence given to the al-Ghazali/Averroes debates. In fact they would have been mostly unaware of the attention given by the West to this matter. No attention is paid to any original work which continued to be produced after Ibn Rushd.
Between these four positions, according to Gutas, we are given the lense with which to view Arabic philosophy. This prevents us from seeing it as only philosophy and I think that those who have helped in shaping this could only be called colonialists of the mind. That some Arabs would internalise these positions and take them as their own only shows what mental occupation is capable of doing to somebody but recognising it as such is the first step in a truly free continuation of Arabic thought in all its multitude and diversity beyond the confines of Western colonialism.
.
Meanwhile, setting Spain altogether apart from several other
European countries is the fact that its history is deeply intertwined
with Islam. Regardless of the fact that for centuries Spain's leaders
have fought viciously and consistently to eliminate all trace of this
legacy, memory of Al-Andalus and Muslim rule in Spain continues to
constitute an extremely important part of both the Spanish and the
Arab-Islamic identity. One indication of how deeply enmeshed the Arab
legacy is into Spanish consciousness is an old popular joke: "The Arabs
occupied Spain for 800 years, and they still haven't left."
.
.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
On travelling with an Arab "passport"
I sit with the man and his wife, and countless others, for hours on
end. We are all the same, we speak the same language. It is only as we
are about to land that I notice a nervous activity as people begin to
fill landing cards. These people are unfortunate enough to have the
wrong paper work. They are flying with Arab passports. There are usually
two ways many people decide to approach this. One is that Arabs are
being unfairly targeted, that we have been given a bad name, or simply
that we should do more to be accepted into this system and so that
people finally see us as the same as everyone else, so that our
"passport" regains its value and respect which it so deserves. I for one
don't care, I'll use the devil's passport to fly into his country. The
acceptance that those people crave means that they surrender to this
unfair "international" system, one which is designed to forever keep
imperialists on top.
The logic of this system goes like this: You must never break the rules of the system, otherwise you risk chaos and many bad things will happen. If I break the system, it is in order to save it. Without the system you are all jeapardised. So I break the system for your own good, in other words, I am the system. You must protect me as I protect myself.
The only way to get out of this mess is to simply play the system and stop being stupid. Just get that meaningless piece of paper which will get you out of trouble and make your life easier when you travel. Force the system to discriminate against you again but this time in the open and because of your skin colour, religion or ethnicity or your financial status - the way it always has. At least this way everybody gets to see it for what it is, a big fat lie.
.
The logic of this system goes like this: You must never break the rules of the system, otherwise you risk chaos and many bad things will happen. If I break the system, it is in order to save it. Without the system you are all jeapardised. So I break the system for your own good, in other words, I am the system. You must protect me as I protect myself.
The only way to get out of this mess is to simply play the system and stop being stupid. Just get that meaningless piece of paper which will get you out of trouble and make your life easier when you travel. Force the system to discriminate against you again but this time in the open and because of your skin colour, religion or ethnicity or your financial status - the way it always has. At least this way everybody gets to see it for what it is, a big fat lie.
.
We all love you Big Brother!
Discretion is the better part of valour and nowhere is this more the
case than in Eurasia. It seems that ingrained in every Eurasian's mind
is a deep reluctance to publicly discuss politics whether inside or
outside the country. The situation is certainly not as bad as it was in
Saddam's Iraq, or today's occupied Iraq for that matter, but it is bad.
Sentencing is quick and hard for those who happen to get caught, an
example for others of course. This is the case regardless of the persons
intentions or political affiliations, you could easily land into
trouble even if you are singing praises for the "right" side simply for
being prominent enough to be noticed or heard. One side effect of this
is that the system produces the exactly right type of "intellectual"
that it needs - the morally bankrupt type. I have always disagreed with
many Eurasian bloggers about this and I still firmly hold the position
that making a martyr of yourself verges more on the stupid than the
brave. If you are in Eurasia, keep your head down and find another way
to get your point across. Now smile your biggest smile and sing your
praise to Big Brother.
:-)
.
:-)
.
Cool Arabia
I had the chance to spend a considerable amount of time watching
Arabic satellite channels over the past few weeks and one thing struck
me almost immediately - how very Saudi a lot of it is. This is probably
not a surprise, but it would be interesting to see how and when (and by
whom) the decision was made to start a concerted and massive PR campaign
for the Saud family's private kingdom (formerly the Hejaz). In the many
adverts, you almost always see a smiling woman in a fresh and
attractively wrapped hejab promoting the latest product. Slick adverts
show you a situation that could be in any metropolitan city in the
world, but there is always the innocuous appearance of a man in a
galabiyah or a woman in a hejab placed discreetly and professionally.
Saudi music is also increasingly popular thanks to the many degenerate
music channels such as Rotana and Melody that now grace our airwaves.
The new Saudi Arabia is hip, trendy and forward looking. Ramadan and Eid
are commercialised with enticing and orientalised adverts whilst Arab
countries now vie for tourist traffic through specially designed adverts
catered for the Gulf [Saudi] family - for an example just look at the
recent adverts for Egypt which, apart from being demeaning for the
country, are aimed exclusively for these Gulf tourists. LBC has, for
some time now, also been quite happy to take part in this phenomenon and
routinely shows programmes where Wahhabi sheikhs handle queries from
the many faithful. It goes without saying that the "It's cool to be
Saudi" ads are now standard on the channel but something like this would
have been impossible to imagine in the late eighties. I guess this is
hardly surprising considering the countries political climate and the
neo-liberal vision that Hariri had for it before his untimely demise.
"Cool Arabia" has been born, where it is funky and hip to be from "The
Kingdom" or KSA as some like to call it.
----
On a slightly different subject, does anybody know what the situation is with Prince Walid bin Sultan regarding Syria? I hear he has now pulled most of his investments out of the country apart from the Four Seasons hotel. I've also heard - unreliably - that Prince Bandar's son is being held incommunicado for the Mughniyeh killing in Syria.
.
----
On a slightly different subject, does anybody know what the situation is with Prince Walid bin Sultan regarding Syria? I hear he has now pulled most of his investments out of the country apart from the Four Seasons hotel. I've also heard - unreliably - that Prince Bandar's son is being held incommunicado for the Mughniyeh killing in Syria.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Disclaimer
This policy is valid from 05 August 2009This blog is a personal blog written and edited by me. This blog does not accept any form of advertising, sponsorship, or paid insertions. We write for our own purposes. However, we may be influenced by our background, occupation, religion, political affiliation or experience.
The owner(s) of this blog will never receive compensation in any way from this blog.
The owner(s) of this blog is not compensated to provide opinion on products, services, websites and various other topics. The views and opinions expressed on this blog are purely the blog owners. If we claim or appear to be experts on a certain topic or product or service area, we will only endorse products or services that we believe, based on our expertise, are worthy of such endorsement. Any product claim, statistic, quote or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer or provider.
This blog does not contain any content which might present a conflict of interest.
To get your own policy, go to http://www.disclosurepoli
No comments:
Post a Comment