By Tarek Heggy
Introduction: When we were young Leftists in the second half of the Sixties, a peculiar friend of us became, amongst our group, known as "our eccentric friend"– was an exceptionally well-read Marxist. One could not mention a literary or ideological work without discovering that he had already read it. On June 5th, 1967, it seemed as if a knife had pierced him to the heart. On that fateful day, I recall him saying in anguish: "It is the roots of the tree that are rotten, not the branches or the fruit". He disappeared to Europe, where he lived for several years, and returned with an adamant denial of all ideologies. He would often say, "I believe in science and progress"; and at others times, "an ideologist in today's world is a psychiatric case; you can't talk to such people until they've been cured!" During the past year, I began to put in writing his enthusiastic outpourings during our discussions, and the resulting article contains some of his observations taken down in the course of four meetings that took place within last month (August, 2004).
• Sunday 1st August:
As usual, my eccentric friend began to put forth his questions tonight with his volcanic vehemence. He said: The media in our region has managed to steer public opinion towards the conviction that there is absolutely nothing good about the US; that everything they do is wrong; and that they are intent upon perpetrating crimes against the Arabs. This same media says nothing about the corruption of the Palestinian leadership; and could find nothing to say about Sadat except that he was a 'traitor'; nor has it ever been mentioned once during the past forty years that the Arabs' current predicament with Israel is the result of Gamal Abdel Nasser's misguided actions in May and June of 1967. This media has never once given voice to the opinion of those cultured Palestinians who see that the suicide attacks against Israel have considerably weakened the Palestinian cause, nor does it ever link between Israel's excessive use of force and these attacks. This media has never dared to criticize its own leadership or mention the corruption ingrained in many of its public figures. How, then, can any sane person in the civilized world respect the leanings of a public opinion that is so blatantly shaped by this type of media, in countries, moreover, where the illiteracy rate is almost fifty percent?
My eccentric friend rushed on enthusiastically: Don't you agree that the claim made by some Arabs that they are Semites and therefore cannot possibly be labeled as anti-Semitic is one of the most preposterous blunders ever? Anyone with even a bare minimum of knowledge is aware of the fact that the term "anti-Semitism" is synonymous with "anti-Jewish" - i.e. being against the Jews simply because they are Jewish – ever since the atrocious Dreyfuss case in France at the end of the nineteenth century. Yet some of these people speak and write in a manner that confirms their hostility towards the Jews (simply because they are Jews), and not in their capacity as Israelis who have adopted policies that the writer finds unacceptable, then these same people go on to argue that they cannot be accused of anti-Semitism because they themselves, as Arabs, are Semitic in origin. It baffles me how a cartoonist could actually bring himself to portray an Arab asking Hitler: "Why didn't you finish your task?!" and then make the outrageous claim that he is not anti-Semitic?! And how a religious man could stand on a pulpit in order to curse the Jews, stating that treachery and betrayal are in their very nature, and then be defended on the grounds that he is an Arab, therefore a Semite, and accordingly cannot be described as anti-Semitic?! It is common for religious men to denounce Jews from their pulpits during Friday prayers, pouring curses upon them, whereas they could simply condemn the killing of innocent civilians in general, no matter by whom.
He rushed on enthusiastically: As you know, the Arabs never stop accusing the West in general and the US in particular of having double standards and of showing no respect for world opinion; yet in the past few weeks, the world looked on in amazement and disbelief as the Arabs denounced international legitimacy when it ruled against their wishes with regard to the events in Sudan; and when the whole world condemned the Syrian intervention in Lebanon, the Arabs raised a hue and cry and launched a vicious attack (headed by the Secretary-General of the Arab League) against the international community. The Arabs were guilty of a far graver and infinitely more disastrous incidence of this type of attitude when they refused to accept international rulings regarding the division of Palestine into two separate states in 1947, one for the Arabs and the other for the Jews. Ironically, these same Arabs would literally be dancing for joy if they were to be given the same opportunity the United Nations made them in 1947 and which they then refused, leading to the first disastrous confrontation with Israel in 1949 which culminated in Israel’s acquiring more land than had originally been allotted to it by the UN decree of 1947. According to former president Clinton’s book, published last June, the Arabs would be beside themselves with joy if, in a few years’ time, the UN were to make them the very same offer that Yasser Arafat turned down in Camp David four years ago. A striking example of the ‘foresight’ and perspicacity of some of our current Arab leaders…! I would advise you to buy Dennis Ross’s book, due to be published within the next few weeks, which provides ample evidence of how Yasser Arafat has wasted a probably never-to-be-repeated opportunity for his beleaguered people.
My eccentric friend then switched from his customary discourse to a serious question, asking me: Do you think there is the slightest glimmer of hope in this dismal situation where the only concern of most of our leaders is simply how to remain in power?! I answered with a firm: Yes! I really am optimistic that the age of totalitarianism is approaching its end, that civil liberties are on the way to becoming a reality, and that political, economic, educational and media reforms will be implemented (“whether anyone likes it or not”, as Arafat is fond of saying!). I also believe that the moderate form of Islam will prevail; an Islam that believes implicitly in coexistence with others and does not claim that any one sect is superior to another, an Islam that defines jihad or the holy war as a legitimate defense of self rather than as spreading the word through the sword; an Islam that wholeheartedly supports the march of human civilization in democracy, civil liberties and social sciences. It is my firm belief that this, the true form of Islam, will eventually win through, and that the Islam of caves and hideouts; of the brutal killing of innocent civilians; of explosive belts and car bombs, will soon be relegated to the Museum of Evil. On a smaller scale, there is much that is heartening: for although Lebanon, rather than teaching its neighbors democracy and a respect for the constitution, seems instead to have learned the opposite from them (as witnessed by the events of a few days ago) and indeed to have drawn closer to them, there is yet more than a glimmer of light in the Lebanese situation. I cannot adequately express the extent of my admiration for the four Lebanese ministers who handed in their resignations in protest against the ‘modifications’ that took place in the constitution to serve the interests of the country’s leader rather than its people. Theirs is a noble and honorable stance, and although three of them belong to a group headed by a man I respect but whose views I mostly disagree with – Walid Jumbulat – I maintain that he and the three men in question deserve the unstinting respect and admiration of us all. I cannot hide my disappointment at the Arab reaction to this momentous event; a reaction that only goes to confirm yet again that democracy is certainly not a priority with the majority of Arab pol. The Arabs who cry out in protest against the US presence in Iraq did not utter a murmur when one of the most villainous criminals modern history has ever known took control of the country from 1968 until his ignominious capture (he was found hiding in a hole in the ground like a cornered rat) in 2003. These same Arabs who remained unmoved by the atrocities committed by the Arab Sudanese tribes against the Sudanese tribes of African origin (both of whom are Muslims), and minimized the extent of the crimes perpetrated against them, raised a hue and cry over the UN intervention in Sudanese affairs, headed by the Secretary-General of the Arab League. As if the sovereignty of the Sudan were more important than the lives of the thousands of Sudanese who were massacred and left homeless! What kind of murky reasoning is this?
• Sunday 8th August:
My eccentric friend showered us tonight with a fluid of questions and remarks:
- “Why is it”, he said, “that not one single writer in any Arab country has tried to envisage an alternative scenario to the one that transpired in 1948, to speculate on what would have happened if the Arabs had accepted the UN Partition Plan to divide Palestine into two separate states, one Arab (Palestine), the other Jewish (Israel)? How would events have played out if that had been the case? Has the choice our leaders made at the time fulfilled the prophecy of Ismail Sidki in 1947, when he warned that we would lose what was attainable while striving for the unattainable?”
- No waiting for an answer, he proceeded to the next question: “The Muslim Brothers have always been ardent proponents of armed resistance and were at the forefront of the call to arms in 1948. Why is it that eminent historians like Dr. Abdul Azeem Ramadan and Dr. Yunan Labib Rizk have never analyzed the armed movement launched by the Brothers in 1948 and the results it produced? Why are we not given access to the facts that must be taken into account when we hear them using the same logic today, why are we not told of the devastation their zeal has rained on our heads?
- Before I could reply, he was already on his next question: “Do you realize that if we succeed in restituting the Golan Heights, the Shaba Farms, the West Bank and Jerusalem we would only be recouping losses we suffered in the space of six dark days in June 1967? And even if we do manage to get our lost territories back, will we ever be able to undo the harmful effects these thirty-seven years have had on our region of the world?” Again he did not give me a chance to answer before firing yet another question at me: “Why has no writer or intellectual tried to explain what would have happened if the Palestinians and Syrians had accepted President Sadat’s invitation to join him in negotiating with Israel a quarter of a century ago? Or what would have happened if the results achieved in Taba forty months ago had been accepted by Arafat and the Palestinian leadership? Which is more advantageous, what Arafat refused at the time or the roadmap? And if what was on offer in Taba is better than what is now on offer under the roadmap, who should be held accountable for the lives lost, the losses incurred and the time wasted? Or is accountability a concept that is alien to the Arab world?”
- Taking a deep breath, I prepared to launch myself into the murky waters his questions had stirred up but before I could formulate a response he was ready with his fifth question. “What do you think, he said, of the following phased plan of action?
First: Convince Arafat to appoint Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) as his Prime Minister and to delegate most of his powers to him.
Second: Have Arafat denounce the random use of violence by both Israelis and Palestinians, that is, the targeting of civilians by the two sides, explain to his people that the suicide bombings have led to a severe decline in the conditions and quality of life of both Israelis and Palestinians, and call on Islamic Jihad, Hamas and Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade to halt attacks on civilians.
Third: Two or three weeks after these steps are implemented, have Arafat announce that he must go to Cairo for health reasons and name Abu Mazen as acting president during his absence, which could extend for as long as the treatment of his many ailments requires.
Fourth: Abu Mazen then resumes negotiations with the Israelis in the aim of implementing the roadmap and possibly even the agreements reached in Taba during the final days of Clinton’s presidency.
Fifth: Egypt would coordinate and supervise the plan and apprise Washington of all developments so that the US and Israel come to recognize not just that the peace plan is a purely Egyptian initiative but that only Egypt can push it through.
Sixth: As Palestinian-Israeli talks progress, Egypt announces that as soon as an agreement acceptable to both parties is achieved, it will use all the cultural and media tools at its disposal to lead the region towards a culture of peace.”
As I was organizing my thoughts to comment on his proposed plan, he reminded me of an article I had written a few years ago on the culture of peace. “You were attacked at the time”, he said, “by the noted intellectual S.Y., but when the political leadership in Egypt had the foresight and wisdom to set up an organization for the express purpose of disseminating a culture of peace, the same intellectual remained prudently silent! Who knows, he might even become one of the main exponents of a culture of peace; after all, this would be quite in character for the breed of ‘bureaucratic intellectuals’ to which he belongs!
Can you conceive of a greater contradiction, in both philosophical and linguistic terms”, he asked bitterly, than the one between the notion of ‘intellectual’ on the one hand and that of ‘bureaucrat’ on the other? Sartre summed up the role of the intelligentsia when he said that an intellectual must never become a ‘supporter’, that is, he must never become a bureaucrat.” My eccentric friend ended his impassioned tirade with a statement he never tires of repeating: “Questions have eyes … answers are blind!”
The minute out eccentric friend stopped to have a sip of his drink, another "sane friend" who rarely utters a word made the following comment: Mr. Arafat is obviously better qualified than I am to respond to my eccentric friend’s questions. I would therefore hope that he gets to read this article and that he will graciously agree to reply to as many of these simple (!) questions as possible, as well as to yet another question my eccentric friend put to me a few days ago: “The first Palestinian Intifada won the sympathy and admiration of the whole world because it did not resort to random violence against civilians. As to the present Intifada, while it does have its supporters it also has many detractors who deplore its use of violence against civilians. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the current Intifada will produce better results than those which could have been achieved in January 2001, what will Arafat do with the strongmen who are flexing the muscles they developed in the period between September 2000 and the present day, and who are becoming increasingly ready to assert their political will over his, as they did at the Cairo meetings? What will Arafat do (after his big victory) with the genie he let out of the bottle, a genie as dangerous as the one Sadat released, with disastrous consequences, in the seventies of the last century? Or is this his legacy to the coming generations in Palestine and throughout the region?”
• Sunday 15th August:
My eccentric friend joined our circle almost beside himself with anger. Even before he was seated he announced that he would not be holding forth or volunteering his views on the miserable truths that were only too obvious in our region. “All I shall do today,” he said, “is raise a few questions that I suggest you go home and think about.” He gave us no time to comment on this new method of his, but plunged straight into a volley of queries:
It has become almost mandatory amongst our intellectuals to begin any discourse by attacking tUnited States. It is almost as if they wish to appease their audiences by denouncing the US and its policies, and even expressing the hope that the US should fail in whatever it sets out to do. This "playing it safe" or policy of appeasement is a typical attribute of the Arab and Muslim character, where people make a point of saying what they think will mollify others (whether rulers or ordinary people) and thus guarantee their own safety. This conciliatory attitude is the natural outcome of a long history of tyranny and repression, evidenced at its worst in the brutal slaughter by the Caliphs of anyone who dared refuse their sovereignty (Yazid Ibn Muawya's murder of Al Hussein is a classic example) or sheer psychopathic bloodthirstiness (take Haroun Al Raschid's murder of his brother-in-law and all his relatives, or Al Maamoun's brutal violence towards anyone who opposed him even in philosophical issues). I tell you, my friends, hatred of the west is nothing more than hatred of progress in any form.
Progress is a phenomenon that belongs to humanity as a whole; it cannot be classified as eastern or western; as Muslim or Jewish or Christian; it is neither European nor Arab nor Chinese: it is the outcome of accumulated human endeavor. However, the driving force or catalyst that sets the process in motion is, at present, the West. Accordingly, a total rejection of the West is tantamount to a rejection of progress in all its forms. I can understand that an over-imaginative Islamist might treasure the unfounded belief that he and his like could provide an alternative (while in actual fact he lives in a state of complete dependency on the fruits of western civilization), but for others to do so is beyond belief. My only explanation is rooted in psychological factors that I do not wish to enter into, to avoid causing further distress. I would simply like to remind you of our conversation a few days ago concerning our colleague H.T., whose only crime was that he was that he far excelled his peers, as you unanimously agreed.
Before we could say a word, my eccentric friend threw another question our way:
What led the majority of rulers in our region to react the way they did towards the proposed reforms suggested by the Americans and the Europeans? Why on earth did they incite public opinion in their respective countries (needless to say, via their civil servants in the media) against these reforms? Only the Leftist writer Mohamed Salmawy was brave enough to say that he had read them and found no cause for concern. How could some rulers be so misguided? Syria, for example, will eventually have to carry out the four things it was asked to do: close its borders with Iraq to would-be terrorists who enter Iraq via Syria; withdraw its army from Lebanon; expel Khaled Mashal and all leaders of Palestinian organizations similar to his; and refrain from using Hezbullah instead of the Syrian army, which we all know is happening. Syria will ultimately have to comply. So why do it in the future at a horrendous cost, when it can do so now within an agreement that is to its benefit? Later on, Syria will stand to lose rather than gain, and will be giving, not taking. And why can't Yasser Arafat understand that he has no choice but to become an honorary leader of the Palestinians and let someone like Mahmoud Abou Mazen or Mohamed Rahlan take over the leadership of the Palestinian Administration, or else undoubtedly perish? He has two, and only two, options, yet he still cannot understand the provisions of today's world.
My eccentric friend paused for breath, took a sip of tea, and resumed his never-ending questions:
Pray tell me, what exactly are the objectives of the satellite channel that I call Al Mareera ("the bitter" – my eccentric friend was, of course, referring to Al Jazeera)? It is a weird mix of high technology coupled with a deliberate mental, intellectual and psychological assault on the minds of the Arab masses, whom I need hardly add are only too receptive to this insidious form of destructive ideology. This channel adds fuel to the fire on a daily basis, while implementing a deliberate, studied transformation of Osama Ben Laden and his accomplices, and of the Iraqi terrorists (who kill their fellow Iraqis along with Turks, Egyptians, and Pakistanis and who demand ransoms in return for setting their hostages free) into heroic figures! Yes, this Al Mareera channel actually portrays these villains as heroes! A few days ago, one of their presenters, Jomana Namur, could not contain her gleeful joy as the screen showed a number of Palestinians dancing and passing round sweets on September 11, 2001, after they had heard of the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers in New York! How could the minds of the masses be left to the mercy of a presenter whose behavior may be likened to that of a savage wild cat driven by animal instincts and devoid of reason, logic or common sense?! This Jomana Namur is a typical personification of the savage, barbaric, tribal mindset that celebrated gleefully the day Anwar Sadat – indisputably the most sensible Arab ruler of the twentieth century – was brutally assassinated.
Before he left us, he flung one last question at us:
Whom do you think will win the presidential elections in the United States in two months' time? Let me tell you now that George Bush will wipe out John Kerry with an overwhelming victory of at least 7% (a high percentage for the US), and all those who think and function under the same logic as Jomana Namur might as well know that they have another four years of frustration ahead of them!
• Sunday 22nd August:
Tonight, my eccentric friend was fond of asking awkward questions and speculating on what would have happened if history had taken a different course. He started by asking us to envisage the following alternative scenario of events. Nearly ninety years ago, he began, British intelligence was divided on itself between two schools of thought. The first, propounded by the India desk of MI-6, was that Britain should support Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud, who was extending his dominion westwards across the Arabian Peninsula after capturing Riyadh in 1901. The most prominent advocate of this line was John, later Abdullah, Philby, father of the famous British mole Kim Philby. A senior MI-6 operative, the younger Philby defected to the Soviet Union in 1963 when publicly revealed to have been a double agent for the KGB. The second, propounded by the Egypt desk of MI-6, argued in favour of supporting Al-Sharif Hussein, who ruled Hijaz from Mecca, to ensure that he and not Ibn Saud would win the power struggle in the kingdom of the Arabs. The most prominent advocate of this line was T.E. Lawrence, immortalized in books and on film as Lawrence of Arabia.
If the second line had prevailed, my eccentric friend continued, Al-Sharif’s descendant, the reigning Jordanian monarch Abdullah, would have today ruled over the Kingdom of Arabia, an area comprising what is now known as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Had things worked out that way, Wahhabism would have been nipped in the bud and things would have been very different in the Arabian Peninsula.
However, Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud’s victory over his Hashemite rival and his successful takeover of most of the Arabian Peninsula, including the key cities of Najd and Hijaz, opened the door wide to the spread of Wahhabism. This extremist doctrine, based on the teachings of Ibn Taymeya, gained converts not only in the Arabian Peninsula but, thanks to petrodollars, throughout the world. Most of the Islamic centres and schools established in the last forty years in various parts of the world were built with a combination of Wahhabi zeal and an unlimited supply of oil money. Small wonder then that a serious student of Islamic jurisprudence will not find a trace of the Hanafi, Shafei or Malki doctrines or of the Shiite creed in these centres and schools.
After this lengthy exposé, my eccentric friend proposed calling on M16 to declare a period of mourning for its intelligence, which deserted it at such a crucial moment with dconsequences for the world at large.
• Sunday 29th August:
This evening, our eccentric friend arrived a bit later … but was not equally late in firing a peculiar remark: “I was reading an Arab newspaper yesterday when I came across the following names, all on the same page: Dary [derived from the word for ferocious beast], Harb [war], Sa’ab [harsh], Mot’eb [troublesome], Mos’eb [ruthless], ‘Adey [aggressive], Mohned [sword-bearer] and Juhaiman [implacable]. In addition, there was a woman’s name, Anoud [stubborn]. A sociological study that takes into account the factors of geography and politics can easily trace the cultural background of the geopolitical environment that bestows such names on its children. The common denominator linking all these names together is xenophobia, an inflexibly hostile and combative attitude towards the other.”
“Do you mean,” I asked, “that the Islamic background is the common denominator between these names?” Forcefully denying that this had been his intention, he reminded me that according to the prophet’s biographer Ibn Hashem, when Mohamed’s first grandson was born he refused to name him Harb (war) and called him Al-Hassan instead. The explanation for the belligerency of the names, said my eccentric friend, is that they are a product of the culture and mentality of Bedouin tribes struggling for survival in the inhospitable deserts of the Arabian Peninsula. In this harsh environment, the Other is seen as an enemy that must be destroyed [hence the name Fatek or Destroyer], ferociously fought off [hence the name Dary or Ferocity], engaged in battle [hence the name Harb or war], and shown no mercy [hence the names Sa’ab, Mos’eb and Mote’eb, all from the same etymological root of the Arabic word for harsh, ruthless or uncompromising]. Communication with the Other is through the language of the sword [hence the name Mohannad or sword-bearer], no quarter given [hence the name Juhaiman or implacable]. Even women in that society are given names like ‘Anoud or stubborn. There is nothing Islamic about those names, he went on, they are exclusive to the Bedouin culture that developed in the harsh deserts of the Arabian Peninsula. This is confirmed by the fact that they are totally absent from other Islamic societies like Egypt, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia and Lebanon. No Egyptian peasant would dream of bestowing any of those names on his son. He will call his first-born Saber or patient, and his long-awaited second son Shehata or Shehta, which means charity, in gratitude for the munificence of God in answering his prayers for another son. Even if he opts for a name that includes a reference to God, he will normally steer clear of names that conjure up the awesome and fear-inspiring aspects of the Almighty, like Abdul Gabbar, and go instead for names that reflect His benign nature, like Abdullah, Abdul Latif, Abdul Hafith or Abdul Ghani. The reason Egyptians prefer to focus on the benevolence of their Creator is deeply embedded in the Egyptian character.
Having spent many years in North Africa and made frequent visits to Syrian and Lebanon, I can safely say that what is true of Egypt applies equally to all these societies, where the bloody phalanx of names deriving from the austere and belligerent culture of desert tribes is virtually unknown. I am writing these lines in a region lying along the Egyptian-Libyan border where the cultural influences of the two countries blend and interact to form a unique composite culture. Nowhere did I come across any of the names that reflect a paranoid sense of conflict ascribed to the supposed hostility of the Other, who is automatically cast in the role of the enemy. In this northwestern corner of Egypt, the name Salem or peaceful is one of the most common names, despite the harsh environment imposed by the geography of the place, while in Sudan to the south the name Bashir, or harbinger of glad tidings, is frequently heard.
My eccentric friend ended with the words: “Imagine yourself talking to a man from those societies who introduces himself as Fatek ibn Dary el Juhaimy … What could you say except: God spare me from your ferocity, destructiveness and implacability!”
