Stuck in the Middle With You*

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.