Amorphous

According to a report by the Wall Street Journal, the European Union has expanded its sanctions on Syria. The new sanctions target seven Syrian businessmen, one of whom is being accused of acting as an intermediary between the Assad Regime and the infamous ISIS in their oil purchase dealings. The Hayat daily reported that George Hiswany is the middleman for the oil contracts, being close to the Assad clan and quite savvy in the black and blood tainted oil market. This comes as Mr. Assad spilled his heart out to North Korea’s Deputy Foreigner Minister in ameeting on Sunday on how both Syria and North Korea are targets for western powers due to the fact that they both enjoy true independence and face, hand-in-hand, a common enemy who has it as a mission to change the identity of the two people.

The villanization of the western media, politicians and social activists of the above-mentioned regimes is no secret to anyone. Both countries indeed top the black list in American books in particular, and their regimes, policies, regional ambitions and ideological discourse are much much opposed by the West in general. The rhetoric being employed by Al Assad on Arab nationalism, on unity to face the Zionist project, on strength to face imperial powers robbing the middle east of its wealth, on how the USA is behind these uprisings in the Arab world that brought nothing but demise and how dangerous the situation is after militant Islamists have taken weapons, is now in danger. This rhetoric may be attacked after Al Assad is yet exposed another time. Or is it? Will the fact that Assad is buying ISIS oil be something rejected by Syrians? Or will Syrians  discard these allegations as ludicrous and conspiratorial? The dearth of evidence perhaps can clear the name of the regime? Or is it OK to deal with ISIS to stand up to the West and help thy people?

The problem is, given the situation in the Middle East and the enormous amount of ugliness and viciousness and hatred surrounding us, coupled with despair, broken-hearts and dreams and complete desperateness, everything is open to personal interpretation and justification in these grey political and moral fora. Perhaps a desperate Syrian may think - on the ISIS oil dealing issue - that: how is buying oil from ISIS any more evil than buying it from Iran that discreetly funds and trains militias in the region, or Saudi Arabia that has broken many codes of human rights, or Iraq that is run by mafias, or the USA that is the head of all evil and the source of the chaos to start with? Why would Ms. X from Aleppo not be cynical about the EU sanctions imposed on a man who simply is making her life and that of her family easier between by supplying the country with resources, even if the contractor is Satan himself? And why would it not be credible for another person to believe that the sanctions have only economic interests of “legal oil traders and businessmen” in mind, and has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with Assad, Baghdadi, or our friend Hiswany.

As a child I was also told to take a position, make up my mind, stand next to those who have been done harm and as far away from those who inflicted bad on others. Concepts, in my innocent head, took shapes, and had a three dimensional presence even if in pure abstract and theory. Left or right, centre at times, but always somewhere. Perhaps with age and time things lose their shape and place and sort of float around. They take no place in any moral and right and wrong barometers, they can easily sway according to who is defending the issue at hand. So the EU sanctions may have had an impact on some audience who stood right next to the decision, appalled by the barbarity of the dealing. Yet some, or many, are carelessly and cynically gliding through as they listen to Assad eloquently speaking to fellow Korean victims.

Your Passport Please Mr.Morals

The Jordanian pilot, ISIS, vengeance, conspiracy theories and the western blue print of all of it have been on the news and social media networks in the past month or so. Regardless of the in-depth analysis, a Jordanian soldier died and the news spread. Every Jordanian was appalled to see Muaz Al Kasabe, a fighter jet pilot, burnt to death by the Islamic State’s militants. When the political leadership decided to retaliate, people expressed boisterous support to the retrieval of social dignity. The Jordanian flag hanging on the picture of the deceased pilot became the profile picture of many...the calls for vengeance for the crime committed against beloved Jordan escalated and national pride only was bolstered.

The idea of a welfare state is that which protects its citizens and provides them with all necessary services and goods to guarantee a dignified life. This promise must be met in the good and bad times. Just as the water authority is committed to supplying non-interrupted high quality water services to its citizens across the Kingdom, the army is committed to acting in utmost bravery and sacrifice to protect the nation against any attack. Sweet national social contract.

But then again, what if a neighbouring country went through a period of draught…will the neigh boring country simply ignore the pleas and suffering of the adjacent nation? And what if that same nation were under attack by a ruthless barbaric force (that posed exclusive danger to that nation and not to neighbouring countries); will people stand looking? Will the excuse of “These barbaric thugs pose no immediate danger and so we must stay still and wait” do? Will the social contract signed exclusively between the sovereign/government and the people living within a restricted geographic boundary hinder the facilitation of services to people outside the contract? To what extent are legality and morality mutually exclusive?

The death of the Jordanian pilot was tragic, but it was no more tragic than the death of thousands of children and civilians in Syria and Iraq at the hands of ISIS. The pilot was courageously performing his duties that involved a possible death…the children in ISIS’s captured lands did nor. Outraged should the society have been with the massacre and enslavement of the neighbouring nation, with equal if not surpassing indignation.

For a nation that had prided itself upon following religious codes of conducts (Muslim and Christian) and has enjoyed a long history of nationalist movements that have fought since the Great Arab Revolution for the dignity, rights and equality of Arabs, the reaction of the Jordanian street is very very disappointing. When an opinion poll reveals that many Jordanians are against the coalition forces fighting ISIS, on the premises that there are other priorities facing national security, it is no surprise to be perplexed and embarrassed. When the same poll was conducted after the slaughter of the pilot, the number of supporters to military action soared. So that means that now that a Jordanian is involved in these vicious acts, we must retaliate.

The argument that many employ against intervention is that what the ISIS is doing is no less barbaric than what the Israeli Defence Forces have been doing to Palestinians for years, or what the Americans are doing/have done in Iraq and Afghanistan, or what dictators in Arab states are doing to their very people. Other arguments are based on the claims that the USA, Israel and Gulf States are funding this bogyman to create chaos and facilitate military intervention. Clearly these arguments are neither invalid nor moral. Despite the factors leading to the birth of ISIS, the people behind it, the symmetry between their barbaric actions and those of other powerful nations, the very bottom line of the issue is wrong is wrong. By not fighting the Islamic State militants on the basis that “we are being tricked into a war orchestrated by the devil himself” is not valid. People are dying, children are being orphaned, and women are being enslaved; this IS happening, and stopping it is a moral necessity, even if injustice is not being fought elsewhere.

According to Larry Nucci, a psychologist at the University of Illinois, there are three areas that encompass social behaviour: the personal domain, the domain of social conventions, and the moral domain. In the last domain, social attitudes and conducts are intrinsically right or wrong… not socially conditioned or constructed. If we go back to morals, if we think about the essence of moral behaviour, any other considerations must be stripped off the argument. The justifications of “we are not in direct danger”, “other priorities”, “shortage of supplies”, “economic constraints”, “the western manipulation” etc. should not be any way relevant. What the ISIS is doing to these people is wrong, and our intervention is right. Loving thy nation does not mean forgetting about other nations, our humanity, or our morality. Perhaps the moral compass is broken in that segment of the society that opposed reaching out a helping hand, or perhaps our understanding of what morals are is flawed. And if it were a matter of social convention – not to interfere unless it is absolutely self-threatening -  and if morals are affected and blinded by national pride, then perhaps revisiting one’s senses of national identification and belonging needs to be done.

To conclude, and in the spirit of such a flaring moral discourse and hypocritical calls for self –sacrifice (writing this article whilst sitting safe and warm at home) I post a video of a song written and performed by a Spanish band (Mundo Chillón**). The artist relays the story of a man selling nations with a thank-you –for- buying gift…a catalogue of nations that you can choose from. Well, perhaps I too should consider disowning my national sense of belonging in the sole case of nationalist romanticism and pride possibly hazing my moral judgement. Ah self-sacrifice and moral-enslavement…thinking about Middle East suffering while recalling a night spent listening to the magical tunes of a Spanish guitar and chirpy songs in a coastal peaceful Spanish city.

** Permission has not been requested to post the video. Please don´t sue me. 

The Politics of Vengeance

A Jordanian pilot fighting the ISIS was captured in December 2014 by the Islamic State’s militants. The Jordanian government was on alert ever since, trying to develop a strategy to rescue the pilot whose life is in great peril. The IS threatened to slaughter the pilots well as the Japanese hostage if the notorious Al Qaeda terrorist detained in Jordan is not released. So what can the Jordanian government do? Re-open a channel of diplomatic communication with the terrorist state to negotiate a deal? Agree on a prisoner-swap based on “good faith”? Forget about the pilot and consider him a martyr on the job? Perhaps plan a covert attack and rescue Mr. Moaz Al Kassasbe?

A report recently being circulated in the media claims that Amman is indeed considering a deal to swap prisoners. However, should the IS decide to kill the pilot, the Jordanian government will sentence all prisoners accused of plotting terrorist attacks, having links to terrorist groups and related in any shape or form to the IS to death. Iraqi terrorist, Sajida Al Rishawi, who tried to kill hundreds of innocent people in a failed suicide bomb attack in Amman in 2005 tops the list. The news articles claim that the government sent a clear message to IS militants that it can easily and legally end the life of these prisoners, unless the pilot is returned.

I am not sure if these reports are valid, but for the sake of this article’s argument, we will assume that the plan is authentic. At first glance, one would be appalled to learn that a government that abides to the rule of law and is a signatory to all international charters on human rights and justice protocols would actually use people as a pawn. Should the detained individuals be actually guilty of terrorist crimes, then they should be fairly and legally tried before an impartial court and sentenced to serve sentence assigned by law according to the crime at hand. Sajida Al Rishawi for instance should not be used as a trade-off item. If the court found it just and legal to sentence her to death, the sentence should have been executed back then (or when scheduled) irrespective of external factors or any other considerations. Should the justice system become a player in the politics of international affairs and diplomacy, then its partiality, transparency and respect to justice will be forsaken for ever. The intelligence agency, a fourth pillar of power in Jordan, must no interfere in the justice system, as its role must be limited to transferring cases to courts that must rule fairly and justly.

Not quite partial myself on this nonetheless. Let’s see. A state that is dedicated to killing masses, enslaving women and children, terrorizing nations, expelling thousands of people from their lands and committing atrocities on a daily basis is not a state that responds to reason. Employing diplomatic measures and ethical codes in dealing with it is gullible and useless. Doing the right thing is always right, but sometimes right is not enough. Sinking to the level to IS is ludicrous and insulting, but necessary at the same time. If Jordan ever wants its pilot back, it has to use the same tactics used by IS thugs. When Sajida was detained in 2005 for failing to execute the terrorist attack, I was surprised she was not executed on the spot. I thought she was ready to kill herself along with hundreds of people; grant her the wish. Incarcerating her will serve nothing; she will not “repent” nor “adjust her conduct” nor work on reintegrating into the society as a sane, normal human being. Holding he prisoner in my innocent opinion back then was just cruel and pricey. One less crazy person in this world would have been a better scenario.

Recent events proved otherwise. The famed terrorist will be used in this “prisoner swap deal” or “vengeance act” depending on the IS decision. The tactic being employed (supposedly) is unethical; it reflects vengeance and deals with terrorists whilst abiding to no rule of justice or human rights. Nonetheless, it is necessary and crucial and effective, while no other “legal” and “respectable” strategy is. Vengeance, indeed, is a loud and impacting message that is internationally understood. And so is trade off. You kill my guys, I kill your guys. You free my guys, I free yours or (spare their lives).

It is true that “One should never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it”; but sometimes you need to get filthy and bloody even if the pig likes it.

The Holocaust

*

There comes a time in history when people must forget, forgive, and move on. Everyone suffered. Rights were returned. The page must be turned.

*Image provided by http://www.myriamabdelaziz.com/#!portraitofagenocide/c24vr 

Veil or Unveil

     The visit of Michelle Obama to Saudi Arabia to condole Al Saud for their loss caused vehemence on social networking sites. The first lady was portrayed as an arrogant, defiant, disgruntled and critical little princess who laughed at Saudi culture in the face of the royal family. The virgin eyes of many Saudis could not stand the image of an unveiled lady standing between men in a funeral (the horror). How dare she? How dare she use her position as the president’s wife to defy the essence of Saudi social conduct? Slamming the Saudi attire as inappropriate and feeling relaxed in her wardrobe...the shame.

It baffles me to see how double standards are so easily accepted in many Arab states, Saudi Arabia being crowned at the top of the list. The argument used by some Saudis (not all are closed minded of course – many are enlightened, educated and civilized) is that when in Rome do what the Romans do. Respecting the Saudi culture, good or bad, is only polite. Just like Mrs. Obama wore decent outfits and a veil in her state visit to Indonesia, to show respect to the Islamic culture, the same act of modesty should have been displayed in the Riyadh visit.

Their argument falls short of two important components:

1-    Mrs. Obama and the entire female population are not forced to cover up in Indonesia. The first lady had the choice to either wear a veil – in an act of respect to the culture- or not. Women in almost all Muslim nations across the globe are not confined to certain attire, and their relationship with the veil is governed by their own decision, not the state’s code of clothing. Saudi women are not given the freedom of choice, and are obliged to cover up from head to toe in dark baggy abayias to please hard-liners. No Sir, Michelle Obama will not be coerced into that and will not hide in the background to avoid confrontation.

2-     The argument goes that in a foreign state you must respect the general cultural. By that token, Saudi woman visiting western states must also respect the general culture and unveil in order to respect cultural sensitivities. A veil, which was reduced to a cultural identity rather than an act of modesty and a demonstration of respect to Islamic tenants, must be treated as such outside the borders of the Kingdom. 

Some may agree to humour these fundamental, sexist and absolutely ridiculous norms-of-conduct. Not Michelle Obama, not any woman with a shred of dignity.

What Muslims Need to Do

Paris. The world had it with Islamic militarism… the Charlie Hebdo incident and the shootings at the Jewish store east Paris were the last straw. World leaders joined hands in the anti-terror rally in Paris to express solidarity with victims’ families, renounce violence and reject any form of suppression to the freedom of expression. EU leaders are also holding meetings to study mechanisms to curb violent Islamic radicalism. Jewish communities in France and elsewhere in Europe are being provided extra-protection against possible acts of vengeance and retaliation. The Israeli government, mourning events, took full advantage of the situation and ran to the podium to draw parallels between jihadism and terrorism, ISIS and Hamas and Islamic extremism and the holocaust.

From the many articles and analysis I read on the matter, one particular op-ed stood out. The author, the respectable journalist and expert, Dr. AbdelBari Atwan, sympathized with the victims and renounced all acts of violence. Nonetheless, he demanded equal treatment to other victims in the same country where the drama was taking place. He pointed out to the many acts of violence and discrimination against Muslim citizens in European countries and the hate crimes committed against the Muslim community in the EU. Fifty mosques in European countries have been burnt down/attacked in the past few years, and governments have drawn a blind eye to such incidents. In conclusion, the author demanded equal protection for Muslim citizens against extreme-right wing movements as well as fair media coverage on what the Muslim community in Europe is suffering from.

I fully agree with the author’s standpoint. However, there is one important issue that he left out. The nature of the attacks against Muslim communities in European states is very different form the Paris attack. The former were orchestrated by independent agents with independent agendas and of diverse ideological affiliations, rather than acting on a religious doctrine. The world, as it appears, is ready to forget about crazy people whose acts are based on radical whims, but not forget those committed by any group operating under Islamic slogans. The fame of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran’s entire regime and apparatus, Isis, Al Qaeda, Taliban and Al Shabab have dwarfed the threats posed by any other organized terror group and rendered them benign. They helped in creating the Islamic bogeyman. 

No one is really scared of Buddhists slaughtering Muslims in Myanmar, nor ETA militants targeting innocent citizens in Spain, nor racist policemen attacking minorities in the USA, nor a Norwegian gunman going on a killing spree, nor sikhists seeking vengeance from political leaders. The general public is in reality only scared of militant Muslims. Justified is their fear? Well, yes. It is sadly normal to be suspicious of a bearded man on a metro line or on a plane. The media has fed the audience pure terror, and as an average spectator, I would also be terrified. It is what it is, and it is OK to admit it. 

Reza Aslan, the renowned scholar and author of a series of books on religion, demanded that a distinction be made between Muslims and these scandalous Islamic organizations and what they represent. He hoped that people can distinguish between the interpretation of certain regimes of Islamic law and what the religioun is really about and that Islam not be associated with the practices, teachings and acts of terrorist groups and autocratic political regimes. Islam, Muslims, Islamic states and even Islamic militant organizations must not be painted with the same brush. His requests are very legitimate and noble. Yet, does the general public have the time and interest in researching the true tenants of Islam or the struggles of Muslims against their corrupt governments? Is an average 50 year old residing in a rural town in Spain willing to draw a comparative analysis of Islam in thought and practice? No. Who should be responsible to clarify issues then? Muslims.

Unfortunately, Muslims are now required to do what no other religion or ideology is requested to do. Muslims are asked to constantly clear the name of Islam and remind the world of the true teachings, tenants and message behind the religion, renouncing and fighting all claims that have been associated to it due to terrorist organizations. Muslims, as a community, are required to remind the world that they are doctors and nurses, thinkers and linguists, scientists and poets, pilots and inventors. The world needs to appreciate Muslims and their role in this world beyond the “oil and credit card” contribution. Muslim doctors are curing Christian patients, Muslim teachers are educating Jewish students, Muslim aid workers are saving the lives of Hindus, and Muslim scientists are contributing to science and technology. Muslims, in general, are doing well and are in harmony with the world.

There is a war launched against Islam from within, and the only way to fight it is from within. Islamic NGOs, youth associations, think tanks, professional organizations and every civic body must double their efforts to display to the world, through acts and tangible proof, the true face of Islam. The beautiful face of Islam. 

Hero or Foe?

I was in a philosophy class back in 2003 when my professor warned me/gave me a public advice: “you better stop right now as you already got yourself into too much trouble”. He was referring to some comments I made – undiplomatic and not-so-eloquently-phrased – about the Great Arab Revolt in 1916. Probably influenced by a book I read about the Revolt and how some Arab forces joined hands with the British Empire to topple the Ottoman rule, I criticised the revolutionary forces, the Hijaz leadership and their putsch. Back in my idealistic days, I believed that loyalty must trump interest and that problems should be solved from within, not without. Now the professor feared for himself perhaps and decided to cut my ramblings short, considering that those leaderships I was criticizing (strictly in the 1916 context) were the same leadership ruling the country today (noting that later on I worked in fact in public institutions loyal to this leadership). In any case, I am sure my professor meant well and wanted to avoid an unnecessary confrontation with class mates who would take much offense to my candidacy.  Questioning the validity of past decisions, and stripping policies from “pressures and justifications and good intentions and nativity and oppression” and all other attributes linked to poor judgments is a necessary activity. As citizens and governments we should not shy away from re-examining past actions and evaluating their soundness. The activity should not always be one that leads to criticism….perhaps they in fact confirm the precision of the decision reached at the time. A neutral, scientific, cool-headed and factual attitude in addressing past events is very important… ….agreeing to de-glorify what we so much enjoyed glorifying is not a shameful act. It restores dignity to the objective and open mind.

Why this memory? Well, I was reading a controversial book that day with the title “Spies Against Armageddon”, a pro-Israel book that - in my modest opinion - lacks a tone of humility and objectivity. In one of the chapters, the authors refer to the case of a double agent who worked for the Israeli Mosssad (intelligence) whilst feeding Egypt false intelligence information at the same time. This double agent was first recruited by Egypt to spy on Israel but then Israel recruited him to serve as a double agent. What both stories agree on is that the spy, Rafat Al Jamal, was born in Egypt, recruited by the Egyptian intelligence, resided in Europe for a while and then immigrated to Israel under a false identity where he established himself as an important businessman. So far so good. Now the story changes; according to the Egyptian version – the one I grew up with and the one I so much enjoying watching on TV as it was converted to a famous series -  Rafat was a shrewd agent who spied with much talent and sent Egypt periodic reports. He even helped out in the Six Days War in 1967 by sending information to Egypt about the day Israel would attack. He also played a role in the 1973 war and was an exemplary citizen of nationalism, heroism and servitude to the Arab nation and cause. How impressed was I with that national hero.

Now, the book. According to the Israeli version, Rafat was caught spying on Israel by the Mossad and was given a choice. He either rots in jail for the rest of his life, or he accepts the offer to work as a double agent. He took the latter option and was recruited by the Mossad. Egypt was under the false impression that he was still a loyal agent, and he, to maintain the façade and avoid drawing suspicion, continued sending information to Egypt (albeit useless and marginal). According the book, he did in fact help out in the 1967 war and did inform Egypt about the date of the attack. But instead of telling them that Israel had planned to strike the air force, he told them that Israel will launch ground operations, hence the decision of Egyptian generals to leave fighter planes in the open. Of course, this deviation of attention immensely helped Israel in the war, giving it an upper hand after destroying the entire Egyptian air force in an eye-blink. Thank you Rafat.

I am not suggesting that the Israeli version is true. But what would have been nice was allowing the audience to decide…give them the opportunity to decide…to learn the facts…to hear both sides of the story. Shielding the Arab sentiment from disappointment has been proven to be extremely destructive. Whether it is about the 1967 war, the Arab Revolt or any other key event in the Arab history, narration must be neutral, responsible and modest. I would like to believe that Rafat served his country and the Arab world, and that Israeli narrations stem from spite and embarrassment. But what I desire and what actually happened are totally different issues. I love the truth, good or bad, and I would like to have the facts to reach a sound decision. In all cases, whether the Egyptian version were right or wrong, I believe that national glory and pride do not reside in one person nor in one plot, but in the nation’s ability to remain proud despite mistakes, deceptions and self-criticism.