Certainly Certain

An interesting read was a book[1] analysing modern tyrants and comparing them with tyrants from the past. It turns out, according to the authors, that tyrants used brutal power throughout history for different reasons. Tyrants in the pre-middle ages period used excessive power against their opponents because they simply knew no other way to maintain order. Their only known mechanism to settle disputes and rivalries that may form any threat to their rein was to wipe masses off the face of the earth in the name of preserving peace. Now middle age tyrants used excessive brutality to keep opponents in check, knowing that despite the barbarity of the act, those closest to the ruling sphere are in fact constantly and maliciously planning to over throw the rule of whoever is in power or create disturbances (economic and social) between the ruling elite and the peasants. Their act represented “preventative measures”, void of any compassion or humanity, but was necessary in their set of beliefs. Meanwhile, modern tyrants have exercised their tyrannies for multiple reasons, one that does stand out is based on the “ideology of certitude”. These tyrants are certain that their line of thought is the only correct reasoning, that their religion is the only true religion, and that their analysis of socio-political realities are facts written in stone. Hitler did believe that the Arian race was superior; his bespoke rationalism that was stripped of compassion and humanity justified his brutalities in the name of promoting the perfect race. Stalin was also convinced in a Communist society for all; there is no other way, and thus, the promotion of the ideology must come at any cost.

I wonder now if this ideology of certitude is present amongst ISIS militants. First, a brief summary on the Islamic State’s history: the Al-Qaeda affiliated Musab Al Zarqawi founded the “Islamic States of Iraq” concept back in 2006, when he insisted that Sunni Iraqis deserve to have a State of their own that is not subject to the rule of the western affiliated infidel Shias. Islam, and Sunna in particular, is the only accepted religion and line of belief. Shias and everyone else are not only wrong to hold to different views, but have a set of beliefs that are a direct threat to Sunni Muslims. His (Zarqawi) ideals were passed on to both Baghdadi and the ISIS gang, and the Sunni versus everyone else ideology has been gaining popularity by the day. These ISIS militants are certain that their Sunni religious interpretation is the only right one, that Islam is the only true way to heaven, that the death of innocent people will be tolerated as they (innocent dead people) will be considered martyrs and will go to heaven, that their twisted interpretation of jihad is the only solution to the crisis in the Arab and Muslim world, and that they are doing many a favour by spreading the word of God, even if using the sword.

Certitude is indeed dangerous, especially when certainty about something implies negation and utter refusal of anything that contradicts it. If it is white, then it is not black nor orange nor yellow, it is white. If it is an apple, it is not an orange nor a pear nor a chair. Certainty leads to closed-mindedness and jealousy over objects and concepts that have acquired their “certain status”.  The danger becomes even more perilous when the ideology of certitude is mixed with political discourse, where politics and religion become two faces of the same coin. ISIS did not decide to fight off infidels in Lebanon or Israel or Singapore, it did not launch a war against Jews, Christians or atheists, it did not move towards Mecca to liberate from its non-Hashemite rulers or Jerusalem to drive away the Israelis and agnostic Palestinians. The Islamic State chose the Shiites, Iraqi Shiite (and of course their American patrons) as the number one target. It did not move towards any Sunni populated areas to liberate them, but those filled with natural resources, oil and sympathetic Sunni citizens. It did not prioritise fighting the Assad regime in Syria, but chose rival Islamic militant groups in Syria as its target. Calculated, politicised and radicalised is the ISIS certainty about everything.

Not intentionally provoking anyone with the quote I chose to sign off with, as I am sure there are many Muslim scholars and clerics who have uttered similar beautiful words of wisdom, but in the spirit of coexistence and existence, here goes:

If one has the answers to all the questions - that is the proof that God is not with him. It means that he is a false prophet using religion for himself. The great leaders of the people of God, like Moses, have always left room for doubt. You must leave room for the Lord, not for our certainties; we must be humble.

Pope Francis

---

[1] Axelrod, A., Phillips, C. (1994) Dictators & Tyrants: Absolute Rulers and Would-Be Rulers in World History,

 

Melodrama

Podemos, a famous word in the Spanish streets that has been ringing in every TV show, newspaper article, manifesto and demonstration throughout the past year or so. This leftist quasi-revolutionary party has swept the nation and stole the heart and minds of many disenchanted Spaniards. Promising equality, free services to all, absolute intolerance to corruption, national sovereignty over all national matters and a dignified living standards to all citizens, it is no wonder surveys on upcoming national elections indicate that the new party will come third after the scandal-ridden PP and PSOE.

The euphoria and honey moon phase seems to have lasted quite long, and what might have been considered as a mere reaction to countless cases of corruption and inefficiency in the political arena seems to be a self-proclaimed key political player. There is no questioning of the efforts exerted by the party leader and members in galvanizing public support and in working out a political platform that appeals to the masses. The party has been active in universities, streets, institutions, media and the local governments, trying to find a way out of the political mess that has characterized Spanish politics for some time now. This will not be put to doubt, but perhaps it will also be interesting to relate the jubilant and ambitious political discourse of the party with what has been labelled “Left Melodrama**’”. The writer explains quite interestingly that

“Political-theoretical analysis in left melodrama unfolds within a heightened drama that employs categorizations of villainy and victimhood, cycles of pathos and action, and a moral economy of good and evil to organize its critical inquiry. Left melodrama's appeal derives from the moral clarity it confers on difficult situations, the virtuous power it bestows upon subjugation and the assurance it offers that heroic emancipation can conquer the villainous source of oppression. Although left melodrama intends to galvanize its audience for social change, its conventions limit its capacity to depict the distinct challenges and unintended effects of political life.”

Perhaps one should be aware of the melancholic tendencies of leftist slogans and moral stand points. Easy it is to paint a picture of heroism, self-sacrifice and self-righteousness, but reality always always proved otherwise. If politics is indeed but a work of art, a scene in a never-ending play, the audience needs to keep an eye on blazing sentiments of melodramatic actors, as appealing as they may be, as they often end up offering nothing but a good show.

** 

Left melodrama

Elisabeth Anker

http://www.palgrave-journals.com/cpt/journal/v11/n2/full/cpt201110a.html

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.