A Saudi jpournalist published on his personal
Twitter account last week an insanely provocative phrase that stated: 'If Israel
attacked Iran and war erupted between the two countries, then I would support
Israel mindfully and heart-fully, considering that our primary enemy is Iran
and not Israel. Arabs of the north must know that'.
Three interesting words were employed by the Saudi
journalist in his insightful tweet: mental, emotional, and primary. Let us
start with mental and emotional capacities first before moving to the equally astute
observation regarding the prioritisation of enemies.
Unlike social relations that are formed and broken
upon the discretion and judgement of individuals who enjoy full liberty in managing
their personal affairs, relations between nations are not. Whilst laws that
regulate social relations could be manipulated to one´s own benefit
based on his/her whims, laws that govern diplomatic relations are vigorously
guarded to ensure the preservation of national interest. Such laws are not
solely formulated in legislative forums, but have been preceded by natural laws
that are have are innate in modern systems, may they be political or social.
The Saudi journalist suggested in his tweet that
from a rational perspective (mindfully) and based on his sentiments (heart-fully),
he would stand by Israel should a war break off between Tel Aviv (Jerusalem to the
liking of the journalist) and Tehran. He justified his position on both reason
and sentiment. It is the same rhetoric that has been employed across time and
the perfect excuse to turn a blind eye towards the laws that govern our being, including those derived from morals, religion, history, and constitutions. In the eighteenth century Charles
de Montesquieu beautifully portrayed human behaviour and how it should be
reined:
Man, as a physical being, is like other bodies
governed by invariable laws. As an intelligent being, he incessantly
transgresses the laws established by God, and changes those of his own
instituting. He is left to his private direction, though a limited being, and
subject, like all finite intelligences, to ignorance and error: even his
imperfect knowledge he loses; and as a sensible creature, he is hurried away by
a thousand impetuous passions. Such a being might every instant forget his
Creator; God has therefore reminded him of his duty by the laws of religion.
Such a being is liable every moment to forget himself; philosophy has provided
against this by the laws of morality. Formed to live in society, he might
forget his fellow-creatures; legislators have therefore by political and civil
laws confined him to his duty (The Spirit of Laws).
The impetuous passions of our fellow journalist have been heated up with regional events that include Iran´s dominance expansion with Hezbollah´s victory in Lebanese parliamentary elections, Shiite victory in
Iraqi parliamentary elections, Iran´s clandestine nuclear programme that was unravelled recently
by Israel, the Israeli attack on Iranian interests in Syria, and Europe´s hesitation
to support the US´s withdrawal from the nuclear accords with Iran on 8 May. To face the perils of Persian further
empowerment, the journalist tossed religion, morals, and laws into the bin of
´you do not serve me at the moment´, and attempted to stir impulsive, manipulative,
and self-serving emotions. Such emotions precisely contradict the journalist’s punchline in his intelligent tweet: our primary enemy is Iran, not Israel. If he is
suggesting that Israel ranks second on the enemy list, why would he ´mindfully
and heart-fully´ support his second enemy? Irrespective of the reader´s stance regarding
the Iranian-Arab and Arab-Israeli drama, it makes little sense to support a historic
enemy (to respect the journalist´s use of words and rhetoric albeit wrongfully).
And why would such calculated support be ceded with both passion and reason?
Importantly, how did he expect that ‘Arabs from the north´ would justify the
support to Israel - the secondary threat - in a hypothetical war with Iran -
the primary source of danger? In what way did he expect that reason and emotions guide the Arab nation in justifying take sides in a war between common 'enemies'? When will respect to laws be the sole guide to a nation´s affairs? Why did the journalist make no reference to the importance of respecting the cultural and historic sensitivities that have been entrenched in legislative systems of neighbouring nations, and opted for a narrow, self-serving view that he advised others to follow? Why is it that after three centuries one is still debating the dangers of emotionally-charged sentiments that come at the cost of established laws and regulations?
When emotions are high, people vent and spurt out
irrational statements. When seasoned journalists take that route,
politicians might likely follow suit…and no Montesquieuan remedy could help in that case.
* To those who know what this song means to me, you are very very much missed.
No comments:
Post a Comment