The Confused Person's Guide to Middle East Conflicts
Confused about what’s happening in the Middle East? No need to worry—our research team at the Institute of Internet Diagrams has come up with the ultimate explainer in the shape of an interactive diagram that sums up the geopolitical alliances traversing this ancient region, which dates back to the Mesozoic Era.
While it is common to hear people describe the Middle East as a complex and obscure place, the diagram plainly illustrates that this is not the case. The relationships follow logical patterns reflecting geopolitical interests, partnerships, and conflicts. For example, the United States is evidently on friendly terms with Iran. In Iraq. But America is on the opposite side of the conflict in Yemen. In Syria, the U.S. and Iran are both against and with each other, depending on the outcome of the nuclear talks.
By carefully following the lines one by one, you can see that Egypt and Qatar are against each other, except in Yemen where they are now allies; Saudi Arabia is both supporting and bombing ISIS; and Libya is its own worst enemy. But it’s best if you draw your own conclusions; the diagram only takes about three minutes to understand fully. After which, you will be qualified to advise President Obama on Middle East policy.
Source: The Atlantic
Mentalizing Yemen’s chaos
Yemeni blogger Afrah Nasser continues to be a powerful voice and critic from exile in Sweden. But the violence that's plaguing her native country is difficult to bear from a distance.
Death is no longer looming in Yemen; it is definite. Each Yemeni house has at least one who was killed, injured or at least knows of someone who was killed injured during the course of the latest violent upheavals. I lost a distant relative myself in this mosque bombing. It makes you realize how death is so close and God knows who'll be the next victim of the next bomb? Or strike? Or...?
Maybe that explains why instead of talking to the press, I always prefer to spend my time vibering and talking to family and friends in Yemen – there is always that slight possibility that this might be the last time we'd be talking to each other.
Source: Your Middle East
Translating and Hate: Should the Translator Be Held Responsible for ‘Politically Problematic’ Texts?
Greenspan writes about how to deal with the Hebrew slur kushi, and indeed, moving racial slurs and other insults from language to language is a mess. She looks at several different possibilities: What if the writer is being inadvertently racist? (Ugh.) What if the writer is putting the slur in the mouth of a racist character? (Well, that should be fine.) And what if the writer is just a flaming, drop-the-ball-and-kick-it racist? (Well….) These are good questions, and could also be applied to Arabic, or English.
Being an essentially freelance profession, translation has a mountain of drawbacks, but it does make a bit more allowance for choice. The injunction to “translate only what you love” works—as long as you have a stable income outside of translating. I prefer Samah Selim’s version: “Never translate a book you don’t like unless you have to.” Or my own: “Never translate a text you think you’ll regret (unless creditors are outside the window).
Mostly, we don’t choose to translate fascist-nationalist or racist stories. Mostly, chosen texts are not “politically problematic” on their own. Instead, they become so in the way they are framed, foreworded, and discussed.
”But choice is still key. What if the book is mostly wonderful, but has a scene or two that make the translator queasy? These are the quandaries I hear about most often: a rape scene, a racial slur. Every translator I’ve known has felt a sense of responsibility for that scene: If the words come from her pen, she too owns them. And I think it’s best that way.
Source: Arab Lit
