Sami Moubayed at PostGlobaltag:onfaith.washingtonpost.com,2010:/postglobal/sami_moubayed/3812009-06-26T19:28:33ZMovable Type 4.2-enThe King of Pop in the Muslim World, Tootag:newsweek.washingtonpost.com,2009:/postglobal/sami_moubayed//381.455622009-06-26T19:21:30Z2009-06-26T19:28:33ZTo young teenagers growing up in the Arab world, there were three cherished pop idols to those aged 13 and above: Madonna, George Michael, and Michael Jackson.Sami Moubayed
I woke up on Friday morning--a weekend in the Arab and Muslim world--and turned on the TV in customary fashion, to hear the news. The normal stories were being mercilessly debated to death: Iran, Gaza, Iraq, Lebanon, Sudan. In a small note, running on the news bar of al-Jazeera, were the words, "American pop icon, Michael Jackson, dies at 50." I could not believe what I was reading, and grabbed the remote control to switch to CNN, NBC, and BBC. The world was ablaze with news that the King of Pop had died in Los Angeles.
I belong to a generation that grew up listening to Michael Jackson's music in the 1980s. Relations with the United States were cordial--to say the least--under Reagan's America, and very little of America's culture had infiltrated into the Arab world. There were no Levi's outlets, no KFCs, or McDonald's. We got Hollywood movies on video cassettes (not in cinemas), and watched American sitcoms, like Three's Company and the Cosby Show, on Jordan TV. To young teenagers growing up in the Arab world, there were three cherished pop idols to those aged 13 and above: Madonna, George Michael, and Michael Jackson. With the passing of time, Madonna became too outrageous for the Arab East and George Michael sunk into obscurity. The only name that was constantly in the news was Jackson. As teenagers, we learned to moonwalk, sported red leather jackets like the one he wore in Thriller, and danced to his music at private parties--long before nightclubs had invaded the night life of Damascus.
We brought ourselves to believe that Michael Jackson 'liked' the Arab World because he wore a jacket that 'looked Arabic' in "We are the World." He reportedly had a fling with Brooke Shields in the 1980s--a woman who was adored by young people throughout the Middle East, and a poster of them walking the red carpet into the Oscars soon became a must in the bedrooms of young teenagers.
Then suddenly, a baseless rumor ripped throughout the Arab world, saying that Michael Jackson hated the Arabs, and had hostile feelings towards Muslims. This affected the popularity of Michael in the Arab world, and coincided with career setbacks for the King of Pop, which made him literally disappear from news, until the early 1990s. Then, ugly stories of the artist began to surface in the international press, with story after another, of improper sexual behavior with minors. That had a very negative affect on his image, and probably explains why very little was said about him on the day of his death, in the Arab world. Strangely, his tour of Dubai, temporary residence in Bahrain, and friendship with Saudi billionaire Prince Walid Bin Talal, did little to polish his shattered image in the eyes of Arab media.
A few years ago, a song called "Give Thanks to Allah" praising Islam--with some phrases sung in excellent Arabic--began circulating via Bluetooth on mobile phones. It sounded like Michael Jackson, and being a Jackson fan for years, I could have sworn it was him singing. Internet stories immediately dismissed the song, saying that it was performed by a South African singer called Zain Bhikha, from an album called, "Towards the Light" (2001). I was never able to verify if the song was performed by Michael, but most people here who admired the singer want to believe that it was Michael who recorded the song.
As I got news of Michael's death, childhood memories began coming to mind, about Beat It, Billie Jean, Thriller--and my favorite, Man in the Mirror. His death--at the young age of 50--reminded me of Elvis's death at the age of 42 in 1977. The two men single-handedly revolutionized the music business in the 20th Century, each with his own private signature. I have been a loyal Elvis fan for years, and as a young teenager got 'excited' when Michael married his daughter Lisa Marie in 1994. The fact of the matter is, however, that now both Elvis and Michael are dead, and the music world will never be the same, without them. So many people I met today--especially those now in the early 30s--were saddened by the death of such a legend. This was clear from casual conversations, profile status on Facebook, and similar ones on Twitter, all by Syrian fans who had one uniform word, "RIP Michael!"
My good friend Anas Abu Qaws, a young Syrian rocker from Aleppo, was planning to bring Michael Jackson to Damascus. Less than month ago, the two of us had spent an entire night watching an early 1990s documentary about Michael Jackson. Anas went into absolute trance when "Beat It" was played--especially when it came to the electric guitar in mid-song--saying: "This man is a genius! Listen to that music!" Anas was the son of Syria's legendary tenor Sabah Fakhri, a man who had topped the charts in our part of the world--for four decades non-stop, singing classical Arabic music, known as muwashahat and qudod. He preserved the heritage of Arabic music, and Anas--like so many music-admiring Arabs--saw no contradiction in listening to both Sabah Fakhri, and Michael Jackson.
Michael Jackson will be missed, and forever remembered, by his Arab and Syrian fans.
Learning from Cuba and Dwight Eisenhowertag:newsweek.washingtonpost.com,2009:/postglobal/sami_moubayed//381.455242009-06-24T18:20:21Z2009-06-24T18:24:25ZI think that the Iranian elections should make everybody sit back, take a deep breath, and try to see whether they really understand the dynamics of Iranian politics. Sami Moubayed
I think that the Iranian elections should make everybody sit back, take a deep breath, and try to see whether they really understand the dynamics of Iranian politics. Some are covering the "developing Iranian story" from the luxury of faraway places like Washington, D.C., London, and Paris. From their air conditioned offices, they write story after story on Iran, typing away on their laptops, frantic either to meet publication deadlines, make an extra buck (if they are freelancers), or simply, add spice to an event that is seen by everybody as "a hot topic." Most of those who are writing on Iran have never been to Tehran, and never met a post-1979 Iranian politician in their lives. They fall in the trap of getting "taken away" by what Western audiences want to hear and see, basically, that the Iranian regime is about to collapse, because of fraud and corruption, any minute now.
Reading stories in the Western press reminded me of a cartoon showing ten U.S. presidents, from Dwight Eisenhower to George W. Bush, saying: "Any minute now, Fidel Castro will fall!" Castro actually survived all of them, and stepped down at will because of illness and old age, bequeathing power to his brother, and neither the cunning of Kennedy nor the might of Reagan or the diplomacy of Clinton, were able to bring down America's cigar-chomping nemesis. Cuba was simply too strong to fall that easily. And the same applies to Iran, which has survived every US administration since Jimmy Carter. It has outlived two Reagan presidencies, Bush Senior, two Clinton administrations, two Bush administrations, and is likely to survive, Barack Obama as well. Simply put, Iran--like Cuba--is too strong to fall that easily.
Was there fraud? Personally, I doubt that a government--any government--can doctor 11 million votes, while the entire world from Tokyo to Washington, D.C., was watching. Fraud happens everywhere--we all remember Jeb Bush's controversy in Florida--and if this is really the case, then the Iranian system should deal with it, in a proper manner. Observers are drawing parallels between what is happening today, and what happened to the Shah back in 1979. That too is a misunderstanding of Iran, although by all accounts, the demonstrations of today are new, very significant, and worthy to watch as they venture into their third week. Back in 1979, the revolution had clear objectives: bringing down the Shah and setting up a theocracy, independent of Western control. That does not apply to the demonstrators of Tehran, who do not claim that they are bent on regime change. The demonstrators of 1979 had a charismatic and immensely popular leader, being Ayatollah Ruhollah al-Khomeini. It is wrong to believe that Mir-Hussein Mousavi, who recently lost the presidential race, comes even close to matching the popularity of Khomeini. But what really matters in comparing 1979 to today is the fact that the Shah only fell when Iranian soldiers decided to stop firing at the demonstrators. Any regime, no matter how strong, collapses when its soldiers decide to refuse obeying orders, and side with the people against officialdom. By all accounts, that is not the case in Iran today and there are no indicators whatsoever that the Iranian Army is about to rebel against President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, or Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Having said that, this brings us to the question put forth by the Washington Post's Panel, "What do your heart and head tell you as you look at pictures, videos, and other kinds of stories from Iran? Should the world help the protestors--and how?" I think that the worst mistake Barack Obama made was coming out and speaking in defense of the demonstrators. That immediately backfired against them, making it easy to target them as puppets of the United States. Interior Minister Sadeq Mahsouli snapped on Wednesday, accusing the demonstrators of being agents of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The best way to deal with what is happening in Iran is to stay out of the Iranian crisis, and realize that when the West interferes in such domestic issues, this makes the Iranians angry and bitter, and usually, makes things worse for everybody. They often unleash their anger either on the international community (in this case it was against Great Britain) or against the demonstrators themselves.
If the world really cared about Iran, it would respect the Iranian system--which is more democratic than any country in the Arab world. Since the revolution took place in 1979, Iran has had six different presidents, while certain Arab countries that are close to the U.S. (like Libya and Egypt) have had the same president in power for decades. In Egypt, Husni Mubarak has been president since 1981 while in Libya, Muammar al-Qaddafi has been around since 1969. It is pure hypocrisy for the West to criticize the Iranians for lack of democracy, yet nod and smile, to the tenures of its Arab allies. Back in 1956, Dwight Eisenhower--eager to replace Great Britain's influence in the Arab world--sided against Israel in its war on Egypt. One reason was because Eisenhower felt awkward criticizing the Soviet invasion of Hungary, and keeping silent of the Israeli-French-British attack on Egypt.
If any spirit were to be upheld on Iran today, it would something similar to what Eisenhower did in the 1950s.
Palestinian Land, Freedom, and Justicetag:newsweek.washingtonpost.com,2009:/postglobal/sami_moubayed//381.418162009-01-23T15:55:05Z2009-01-23T17:12:36ZThe Palestinian and Arab dream is not so far removed from Martin Luther King's.Sami MoubayedCurrent Discussion:What's the biggest mistake Barack Obama could make in his first six months in foreign policy?
PostGlobal asks what mistakes Barack Obama should avoid during his first 6 months in office. The answer seems crystal clear to observers from Damascus. Ask any ordinary Syrian, and he or she would reply: turning a blind eye to Israel's war machine in the Arab world would ruin Barack Obama's image in the eyes of ordinary Arabs.
]]>
"We shall not achieve our goal if the Arabs are in this small country. There is no other way [other] than to transfer the Arabs from here to neighboring countries - all of them! Not one village, not one tribe should be left." In 1948, there were 475 villages in Palestine, 385 of which were bulldozed to the ground by Israel. In 1938, the "founder" David Ben Gurion told the World Council of Poale Zion, "The boundaries of Zionist aspirations include southern Lebanon, southern Syria, today's trans-Jordan, all of the West Bank and Sinai." Ten years later, as premier of Israel, he said, "Our aim is to smash Lebanon, trans-Jordan and Syria. We shall establish a Christian state [in Lebanon], and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate trans-Jordan, then Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria and Sinai." (Taken from Michael Bar Zohar's Ben Gurion: A Biography).
These words, along with what is happening in Gaza, have had more of an impact on Arabs, even those who are moderate and Westernized, than Obama can possibly imagine. My friend and colleague, Abdulsalam Haykal, publisher of Syria's English monthly Forward Magazine, was sitting next to me while I was writing this article. I discussed Ben Gurion's words with him, and he replied that Israel will not rest until it sees a Palestinian State without the Gaza Strip. He believes, as do several Arab intellectuals, that for a variety of reasons related to Israel's security, Israel is bent on re-occupying the Gaza Strip and push every single Palestinian out--just like Weitz said 69 years ago--preferably into Egypt or perhaps, into the West Bank.
As an African-American who grew up inspired by the American Revolution against colonialism, and as someone who knows forwards and backwards the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, how can Obama admire a people uprooting, terrorizing and "smashing" another people? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is the trinity that holds the U.S. together and defines its democracy, yet it has not been applied by the US when dealing with the Middle East. Obama, with his "yes we can"
attitude, must show the world that things have changed and that this is a new United States.
Obama knows how much African-Americans suffered from persecution during the civil rights movement. To mainstream Arabs, the symbols of resistance are the Palestinian women kept waiting at checkpoints for hours, the stone-throwing children and the aging men being shoved around by young Israeli soldiers, and the young boys and girls torn to pieces by the missiles landing on Gaza. Arab intellectuals and activists have read the famed speech by Reverend King, and like him they have often spoken of their dream of emancipation, from Israeli occupation. The Arabs had a dream that their children would one day live in a nation where they would not be judged by their leaders as inferior to the powerful elite; "not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Like King, they had a dream that "with this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, and to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day".
It is all about land, freedom, and justice for the Palestinians.
]]>
Israel's Leadership Out Of Touch On Gazatag:newsweek.washingtonpost.com,2009:/postglobal/sami_moubayed//381.417412009-01-12T19:32:50Z2009-01-13T15:42:15ZIs it really possible that Israel's leaders don't understand "why they are doing this to us?" Sami MoubayedCurrent Discussion: What's the most likely outcome of Israel's invasion of Gaza? A wider war? A Hamas defeat? Just more of the same?
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert seemed to be living on another planet when he recently said, "We have never agreed that anyone decide for us if we are allowed to strike at those who send missiles into our kindergartens and schools, and we never will."
One week ago, Israeli President Shimon Peres appeared on Al-Jazeera TV, saying that no Palestinian civilians were being targeted in Gaza, and asking the anchor, Mohammad Kreshan, "Why are they doing this to us; why don't they want us to live in peace? We are not targeting children; they are!" The Doha-based Arabic channel--running the interview live on air--immediately sliced the screen in half and showed footage of blood-stained Palestinian children, some blown into pieces, challenging the Israeli President's argument.
The President of Israel and his Prime Minister were seemingly not watching the news to see whose kindergartens and schools were being hit by missiles. As of the afternoon of January 11, the death counter in Gaza has reached 919, including 275 Palestinian children. Olmert added, "No country in the world, even those preaching morals to us, would have shown the tolerance and restraint that we have!"
What restraint, the Arabs were loudly asking? Israel was using absolute and unacceptable force, violating every law there was to break in the Geneva Convention. As of this weekend, nearly 1,000 Palestinians have perished, as compared to 13 Israelis, in addition to 4263 Palestinians wounded. Of the Palestinians killed, nearly 225 died on the first day of the offensive, December 27, 2008. A total of 46 were killed--in cold blood--in one strike on an UNRWA school in Gaza, and on January 3, the IDF attacked the Ibrahim al-Maqadna mosque in Beit Lahiya packed with 200 Palestinian worshippers during evening prayer. Thirteen people, including six children, were killed.
]]>
Israelis are in disagreement on what to do with Gaza. Nobody in Israel wants to return to the war-torn and poverty-stricken Gaza Strip, but everybody in the upper echelons of power wants to see an end to Hamas rule there. Yitzhak Rabin once famously said, "I would like Gaza to sink into the sea!" showing just how distressed Israelis have been by Gaza, a thorn in their backside. As the war enters its 18th day, however, there are no signs that Hamas is retreating, or even close to being annihilated. Olmert's deputy Haim Ramon, recently said that the objective of the Gaza war was to "topple Hamas" while Major Gen Uzi Dayan, the former Chairman of the Israeli National Security Council, said Israel's goal should be to surround the Gaza Strip and "dismantle" the Hamas regime. When asked who should rule in post-Hamas Gaza, he replied that this was none of Israel's business, noting, "I prefer a vacuum to what is there now."
Israel is pushing ahead with "Phase Three" of its war on Gaza, dropping leaflets on the district's 1.2 million inhabitants, saying that this war was not against them--or what remains of them--but rather, "on Hamas." It wrapped up saying, "Stay safe by following orders!"
Also on Sunday, Israeli radio announced that thousands of Israeli reserve soldiers have been waiting to receive a green light from Israeli security cabinet to invade the Gaza City. Palestinian fighters continued to send missiles into Israel, on the southern city of Beersheba, after having struck at Netivot, Sderot, Ashkelon, and Ashdod. Additionally, on Sunday the IDF confirmed that for the first time since the war began, Hamas was using anti-aircraft and anti-tank missile, increasing the range of its missiles from 16 to 40 kilometers.
Those whose hopes were lifted by the passing of UN Security Council Resolution 1860 on January 8, which calls for an "immediate" and "durable" ceasefire in Gaza, were disappointed to see it being rejected by both Hamas and Israel. Fourteen out of 15 member states supported the resolution, while the United States--not surprisingly--abstained from voting. Olmert claimed that the resolution was "unworkable" while Hamas spokesman Ayman Taha accused Hamas of having not taken into account "the interests of our people." Israel will not stop before crushing Hamas--or accepting defeat and acknowledging that it cannot root out Hamas from Gaza. It will not repeat the experience of 2006, when it stopped the war and failed to achieve any of its objectives vis-à-vis Hizbullah. Back then, Olmert said that he wanted to destroy Hizbullah and liberate the two Israeli soldiers abducted by the Lebanese group. Neither objective was achieved when a ceasefire was reached in August 2006, through UNSCR 1701. Olmert turns 64 in 2009 and leaves office next February. He will not allow himself to go down in Israeli history as the first Prime Minister to have lost two wars, with Hamas and Hizbullah.
For its part, Hamas will not lay down its arms before the Israeli assault comes to an end, and the siege of Gaza is lifted. It will demand an end of the embargo, and opening of the Rafah Crossing--the lifeline of Gaza--which in turn, would be de facto recognition of its control of the Strip. According to Hamas, only 10 of its fighters have been killed, while Israel claims the number is closer to 300.
While all of this was happening, Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal spoke over the weekend from Damascus, boasting that, "Israel's offensive in Gaza has failed." He added, "In all modesty, I can say with full confidence that on the military level the enemy has totally failed. It has not achieved anything." He asked, "Has it stopped the rockets?" pointing out that since the war on Gaza began, Hamas has been raining rockets on Israel, proving that its fighting abilities remain intact despite the colossal damage inflicted on Gaza by the IDF. While Meshaal was uttering these words, a delegation from Hamas landed in Cairo--for the second time since the current war began in late December--to discuss an Egyptian ceasefire proposal. The Egyptians are calling for an international force to monitor the Palestinian territories, something that is echoed by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, but curtly refused by Hamas. Meshaal said that any international force would be treated as an "occupation force" by the Palestinians.
Hamas clearly still has plenty of fighting spirit, shown by the defiant words of Meshaal and Prime Minister Ismail Haniyya. If it cannot score a military victory, as Hizbullah did in Lebanon in 2006, it aims at scoring a political one, by sitting with all parties involved, to re-open the Rafah Crossing, which was closed when Hamas took over Gaza in 2007. According to the agreement of 2005, the crossing would be administered by the Europeans, Israel, Egypt, and the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) of President Mahmoud Abbas.
When the PNA's Force 17 withdrew from Rafah in 2007, so did the Europeans. The Egyptians were unwilling to re-open the crossing by signing an agreement with Hamas that would offer de facto recognition of the party's control of Gaza. It would legitimize Hamas control and, from an Egyptian standpoint, transform Egypt's borders into borders with Iran, rather than the Palestinians. Hamas would be scoring a political victory if it gets all parties to re-open Rafah, and recognize its government in Gaza.
Although Israeli sources said that the war on Gaza was approaching its final stages, observers of the scene are not optimistic. Any deal, logically, would need U.S. backing or sponsorship. The French have proposed to broker such a deal, and so have the Turks, but Israel will not accept unless a deal is hammered out by, or under the watchful eye of, the Americans. In the remaining eight days of his presidency, George W. Bush cannot broker any deal in Gaza. It would have to wait until Barack Obama comes to power on January 20. And even then, it cannot happen overnight, meaning a sustainable deal cannot be reached until 7-10 days after Obama comes to the White House. That would add up to a 30-33 day war on Gaza--identical to the number of days Israel fought Hizbullah in Lebanon. If 919 were killed in 17 days--and Israel lives up to its record--we might wait for another 919 to die in Gaza, bringing the total number to over 1,800. No political gain in the world--neither for Israel or for Hamas--would ever be worth that number of deaths.
Shimon Peres should have someone tune him onto al-Jazeera to get an answer to his lame question, "Why are they doing this to us?"
Region's Dynamic Will Change, Regardless of the Outcometag:newsweek.washingtonpost.com,2008:/postglobal/sami_moubayed//381.412522008-11-05T20:47:14Z2008-11-05T20:48:03ZPeace isn't likely, but a regional shake-up is.Sami Moubayed
At this stage, the talks can be seen from different angles. From the Saudi point of view, or that of the March 14 Coalition, these talks are a threat that the Syrians are back on their way to re-establishing themselves in the Middle East. Many in Lebanon are not comfortable with that, thinking that any peace deal with the Israelis would also mean eventual normalization with the US as well. This normalization, they believe, would be at the expense of Lebanon, the Harriri Tribunal and the Syrian Accountability Act. But except for the lip service offered by Condoleezza Rice to Foreign Minister Mouallem, the United States has offered little interest in the talks. This plays nicely into the hands of the Saudis and Lebanese who do not want Bush on board in the talks; because as long as the Americans do not support the talks, they will never materialize.
From the Syrian perspective gain is there whether or not a treaty comes out of these talks. If a treaty does arise, the Syrians will have gotten back the Golan. If it doesn't, Syria's chance to re-establish its voice in regional affairs will itself arise, by showing how willing they were, and how unwilling Israel was at achieving peace. There is a lot of talk about Iran being unhappy about the talks taking place indirectly through Turkey. Additionally there is speculation that the Iranians believe that these talks would be at the expense of Iran, or Hizbullah. So long as the United States remains ambivalent about these talks, nothing more will come from them and Iran has no need to worry. What is taking place in Turkey is a demo for what can lead to a serious peace, once Bush leaves the White House and once Ehud Barak assumes the Syrian-Israeli talks himself, as condition for joining the Livni cabinet.
I agree with Professor Oren that a land-for-peace deal, as with the Egyptians would both restructure the Middle East and have its impact on the region's nonstate actors. But I wouldn't bet on the deal going through. The Syrians will not cut their relationship with either Hizbollah or Hamas prior to the signing of a treaty. And even after, I don't think it is in anyone's interests that backdoors are closed with Hamas or Hizbullah; although the relationship, and its nature, will change with Damascus.
Syria was able to moderate the behavior of these groups and curb radicalization, when needed. The West needs backchannels open with these groups because they are not going to disappear. There are several theories floating in this regard. One says that a deal has been struck between the Syrians and Iran, for Iran to accept and not veto the peace talks, when they reach a serious face-to-face level, in exchange for Syria using its influence in the international community to negotiate on the issue of Iran's nuclear file. This theory writes off the expected break between Syria and Iran if/when peace is signed. Another theory says that Iran is very worried and will work to drown the talks, thinking that they will be at their own expense.
Defending Aishatag:newsweek.washingtonpost.com,2008:/postglobal/sami_moubayed//381.406282008-10-06T16:53:55Z2008-10-06T17:02:40ZSherry Jones was wrong, but it's high time Muslims stopped being obsessed with such trifling matters and focused on the bigger problems we face.Sami MoubayedCurrent Discussion: A London publishing house was firebombed for agreeing to publish 'The Jewel of Medina', a controversial novel about Muhammad's wife, which Random House dropped earlier this year because it feared terrorist threats. In hindsight, was Random House in the right? Does this justify censorship of this kind in the future?
The latest controversy over the book, "The Jewel of Medina" has caused a storm among intellectual circles worldwide. It is a novel by Sherry Jones, scheduled for publication by Random House in August 2008. The project was canceled, and moved to the U.K., because it tells a fictitious tale about Aisha Bint Abu Bakr, the daughter of Islam's first Caliph and second wife of the Prophet Mohammad. ]]>
"I don't have a problem with historical fiction. I do have a problem with the deliberate misinterpretation of history. You can't play with a sacred history...The combination of sex and violence sells novels. When combined with falsification of the Islamic past, it exploits Americans who know nothing about Aisha or her seventh-century world and counts on stirring up controversy to increase sales."
Among the many who spoke out on the matter was British-Indian writer Salman Rushdie, who aroused similar controversy in the 1980s with his work The Satanic Verses, saying, "This is censorship by fear and it sets a very bad precedent indeed." Andrew Franklin, who worked for Penguin Books when they published The Satanic Verses, described the decision as "absolutely shocking" and called the Random House editors "such cowards." The book has so far appeared in Serbia, with a provoking illustration of Aisha on the cover (in Islam it is forbidden to portray the wives of the Prophet, known as the "Mothers of Believers"). After protests from Serbian Muslims, this edition was also pulled from bookstore shelves.
The entire story brings back memories of similar cases: Rushdie, the Danish cartoons, and the Pope's remarks on the Prophet Mohammad, which also sent shockwaves throughout the Muslim world. The pope infuriated the Muslim world by quoting the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II telling a Persian intellectual in 1391: "Show me just what Mohammed [the Prophet of Islam] brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he has preached." The pope did not say that he agreed with these words. Nevertheless the damage was done and, regardless of intentions, violence and anti-Christian feeling immediately soared throughout the Muslim world. One phrase from Benedict's lecture that was completely ignored by the mass media was: "The emperor must have known that Sura 2:256 [of the Koran] reads: 'There is no compulsion in religion.'" True, that is what Muslims believe, and Benedict XVI did not fail to point to it.
But regardless of intentions and in light of his belated apology, let us stop for a moment to think objectively of all that is happening and being said in the Muslim and Christian worlds. The pope was quoting a Byzantine emperor speaking to an unnamed Persian intellectual, taken from an obscure document, 617 years ago, in 1391. It is unbelievable that we still have the energy to dig up these ancient arguments, use them to arouse emotions, riot like madmen, and foster hatred in both communities. It is equally repugnant that the pope would make such a miscalculated remark, knowing perfectly well how much disgust it would cause in Muslim communities around the world. It is equally startling how people like Sherry Jones would wish to add insult to injury, and bad feelings, with her book on Aisha.
Equally guilty, however, are the Muslim leaders who responded to the Pope's remarks with church attacks and violent rallies around the world. God created the human mind to debate, study, analyze and explain. Isn't it the duty of Muslims, after all, to educate non-Muslims on the true nature of the religion of Mohammed? If the pope or Mrs Jones were misinformed, then Muslims are responsible for not explaining the true nature of their faith to the world, or marketing its true values. They are to blame for letting terrorists like Osama bin Laden hijack Islam and ruin its name.
This same pope, struggling to fit into the oversized shoes of his predecessor John Paul II, had condemned the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed earlier in the year, and also called on Christians "to open their arms and hearts" to Muslim immigrants and to dialogue on religious issues. He added that the Church's "inter-religious dialogue is a part of its commitment to the service of humanity in the modern world". He described this dialogue as "important and delicate". The pope has called for the establishment of a Palestinian state, and on July 14, 2006 the Vatican condemned Israel's attack on Lebanon.
For all of the reasons mentioned above, I would like to believe that the pope's insult was an unintentional mistake that will not be repeated. I would also like to believe that Jones was equally misinformed about Aisha. When terrorists using the name of Islam strike the heart of New York, or detonate bombs in the London Underground, this makes it more difficult to defend Muslims against people like Jones, since she attributes these acts to all Muslims, and not the few who are fanatics. All her remarks, which have resurfaced in the past week on websites and editorials, show a grand misunderstanding of Muslims.
I cite the example of David Irving, the famous British historian who went to jail for his views on the Holocaust. His 1977 book Hitler's War was the first of his two-part biography of Adolf Hitler. In it he described World War II from Hitler's point of view - a taboo throughout most of the Western world. Irving showed that Hitler was a rational, intelligent leader and human being whose main motivation was to increase the prosperity of Germany. It was British prime minister Winston Churchill who escalated the war after coming to power, stated Irving, not Hitler. Irving did not deny the Holocaust but said Hitler did not order it or know of it, enraging the Jewish community around the world. Irving attributed the Holocaust to Hitler's right-hand man Heinrich Himmler.
Irving controversially remarked: "There were no gas chambers at Auschwitz. It makes no sense to transport people from Amsterdam, Vienna, and Brussels 500 kilometers to Auschwitz simply to liquidate them [when] it can be done 8 kilometers from the city where they live." The historian challenged any person to come up with an authentic written order by Hitler for the Holocaust. Irving then wrote The War Path in 1978, with similar views on World War II. In 1987 he wrote a very ugly biography of Churchill, showing him as an alcoholic who sold out the British Empire and blamed him for "turning Britain against its natural ally, Germany".
By the 1980s, Irving was banned from entering Austria. In the 1990s he was banned from entering Germany as well. The same applied to South Africa, Australia, and Canada in 1992. In September 2004, New Zealand declared that he would not be allowed to enter the country to give lectures at the National Press Club. He defied the ban and tried to go but was arrested in Austria. In court he tried to change discourse, but Austrian authorities did not believe him and at the time of writing he still languishes in jail. He had tried to revoke ideas he had promoted for years by saying: "The Nazis did murder millions of Jews. I made a mistake by saying there were no gas chambers, I am absolutely without doubt that the Holocaust took place. I apologize for those few I might have offended."
Learning from Syrian history
It is a funny world with funny double standards indeed. To make things easier for everybody - especially the oversensitive millions in all faiths - it is safe to say that critical issues such as the Holocaust and Islam become red lines that should not be crossed. In saying that, we can assume that Jones, Benedict and Irving all committed mistakes.
Offending others for the sake of free speech should not be tolerated. Yes, the Holocaust did happen, and it would be a crime to say that it did not. But my own word of advice to the Muslim community is to think big and avoid the trappings of critical articles, novels like that of Jones, comments here and there, or cartoons. Islam is much greater than these small, really small, issues.
Seventy years ago, in April 1928, a 20-year-old girl named Nazira Zayn al-Din wrote a book called Unveiling and Veiling, saying she had read, understood and interpreted the Holy Koran. Therefore, she said, she had the authority and analytical skills to challenge the teachings of Islam's clerics, men who were far older and wiser than she. Her interpretation of Islam, she boldly said, was that the veil was un-Islamic. If a woman was forced to wear the veil by her father, husband or brother, Zayn al-Din argued, then she should take him to court. Other ideas presented by her were that men and woman should mix socially because this develops moral progress, and that both sexes should be educated in the same classrooms. Men and women, she said, should equally be able to hold public office and vote in government elections.
They must be free to study the Koran themselves, and it should not be dictated on them by an oppressive older generation of clerics, she said. Finally, Zayn al-Din compared the "veiled" Muslim world to the "unveiled" one, saying the unveiled one was better because reason reigned, rather than religion.
Her book caused a thunderstorm in Syria and Lebanon. It was the most outrageous assault on traditional Islam, coming from Zayn al-Din, who was a Druze. The book went into a second edition within two months, and was translated into several languages. Great men from Islam, including the muftis of Beirut and Damascus, wrote against her, arguing that she did not have the authority to speak on Islam and dismiss the veil as un-Islamic. Nobody, however, accused her of treason or blasphemy. They accused her of bad vision resulting from bad Islamic education.
Some clerics banned her book. Some, however, such as the Syrian scholar Mohammad Kurd Ali, actually embraced it, buying 20 copies for the Arab Language Assembly and writing a favorable review.
But despite the uproar, which lasted for two years, the Syrians and the Muslim establishments did not let the issue get out of hand. They did not lead street demonstrations for weeks, as if the Muslim world had no other concern than Nazira Zayn al-Din. Zayn al-Din was still free to roam the streets of Syria and Lebanon, without being harassed or killed by those who hated her views. The leaders of Islam in 1927-30 were by far too busy to occupy themselves, and the Muslim community at large, with the ideas of a 20-year-old girl. They had to attend to their mosques, run their charity organizations, answer theological questions, cater to Muslim education, lead political issues, and fight the French.
Why, then, have the leaders of today's world abandoned every problem in the Muslim world to concentrate on the silly cartoons published in a Danish newspaper? Or to inject life into the statements of Manuel II, or the book, "Jewel of Medina"? Yes, the cartoons were very wrong and very insulting. So is a distorted picture of Aisha. And yes, the pope committed a grand error by repeating what the Byzantine emperor had said. But as well, Muslims should have shown solidarity on other more important issues, such as Israel's digging beneath the al-Aqsa Mosque, invading Beirut in 1982, bombing Ramallah, massacring innocents in Jenin and Rafah, and building the Separation Barrier. More recently they should have united on the destruction of Lebanon in 2006.
The death of Palestinians is certainly more important to Muslims (or should be) than what an obscure Danish newspaper publishes, or the views of an until-now-unknown script by a forgotten Byzantine emperor, or an obsecure Mrs Jones. I am not saying that one should ignore the cartoons, novel, and the pope, but rather that one should only give them the attention they deserve, with no exaggerations, and concentrate on more concrete issues relating to the Arab and Muslim worlds.
The Prophet is one of the greatest names in history. He is too great to be affected by these ugly cartoons or the remarks of the pope. To quote Lawrence of Arabia, it is time for us to stop acting like a small people, a silly people, and start living up to our duties before history and mankind. After all, we in the Muslim world have not contributed anything to human progress in the past 500 years. We should write and promote our history, then concentrate on science, arts, literature, and freedom of the mind. We should learn to talk to, rather than demonstrate against, those who think and act differently, and those who wrong us.
]]>
Syrian Population Rides Political Tidestag:newsweek.washingtonpost.com,2008:/postglobal/sami_moubayed//381.404452008-09-15T14:34:22Z2008-09-15T16:36:31ZFor many years, Syria suffered from major depopulation, when people were forced to leave due to political upheavals.Sami MoubayedCurrent Discussion: Australia is suffering from a drought of men - about 100,000 of them, most of whom have gone overseas to travel and work. China has the opposite problem - a shortage of women. Which is the more worrisome problem? Should we be worrying about a "depopulation bomb?"
When Syria declared its independence in 1946, an optimistic Prime Minister Jamil Mardam Bey famously declared:
"Syria has been subjected to more trial since the armistice (in 1918) than any other Near Eastern country. All is not lost, however, there is room for hope. The territory we have been left with, greater than the area covered by Belgium, Holland, and Switzerland put together, is a vast playing field for our young people and for their entrepreneurial spirit. The Syrian soil is fertile, we produce cereals, cotton, fruit. We have oil. Our artisans are some of the most ingenious in the world. Our people are sober, tough, resigned and hard-working. Syrians are found all over the world, and everywhere they occupy important positions. The past and the future are ours. We have every reason to believe that Syria will survive."
Mardam Bey never imagined that Syrians would start flocking out of Syria in large numbers as a result of the never-ending coups and counter-coups that shocked Damascus starting in 1949, and climaxed with the ill-fated Syrian-Egyptian Union of 1958. The only logical thing for an optimist like him was for Syrians to learn, live, work, and die in Syria. He never imagined that one day, during his life-time, major depopulation would start in Damascus. ]]>
Sixty-years later, in a 2006 meeting of a council made up of businessmen from Syria and the United Arab Emirates, a leading figure in economics from the UAE addressed his Syrian guests saying, "You ask us for advice on how to build your economy when our entire nation was built with Syrian hands! You need the advice of nobody, dear Syrians."
The UAE official was speaking of the thousands of Syrians who had emmigrated from Syria to the Gulf, seeking better jobs in the 1970s and 1980s. There is no doubt how important those workers were in creating the modern success stories of the UAE, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, Yemen, and from the 1940s onwards, Saudi Arabia.
For many years, Syria suffered from major depopulation, when its best and brightest were forced to pack up and leave due to political upheavals taking place at home. In addition to the two world wars, Syrians stormed out of Syria during the Syrian Revolt of 1925, under Gamal Abdul-Nasser's United Arab Republic (UAR), during the early Baath years and throughout the difficult 1980s. Nasser was responsible for the police state created in Syria, and the destructive socialism that ruined the Syrian economy. He was responsible for the destruction of the civil, Westernized, and educated Syrian middle and upper class. He was responsible for land redistribution, nationalization of schools and banks, confiscation of property, martial law and arbitrary arrests. He was the first person ever to order the Syrian Post Office to conduct espionage on correspondence between Syrians and the outside world. He was the first person to monitor phone calls in Syria. Promising Syrian businessmen were forced to leave Syria to evade his socialist dragnet. They ended up establishing businesses and opening banks in Lebanon and throughout the Arab World, depriving Syria of their industrial, banking, and commercial services.
The situation changed after 2000 when many Syrians working or studying abroad, myself included, decided to return home to take part in nation-building. Reform was in the air, promised by a young president -- only 34 at the time -- who knew what problems Syrians were facing and what it took to get them to return. One of the reasons why a Ministry of Expatriate Affairs was created in 2002 was to reverse -- or control -- depopulation of Syria. According to the ministry, there are 18 million Syrians living in the Diaspora. Many of them are second and third generation Syrians. There are 700,000 Syrians in the United States and 18,000 Syrians working as practicing doctors in Germany. One wonders whether it would be better to get these Syrians to return home, or make the best out of them by keeping them at their respectable jobs in Europe and the U.S. The depopulation reversal of 2000 was aided by the horrific 9/11 attacks in 2001, which made many Syrians come back to Syria, no longer feeling comfortable or safe in the United States. Today, seven years later, I can safely look back at the situation. Briefly, depopulation was in fact reversed and thousands packed up and returned to Damascus. Bankers found employment at the private banks that mushroomed throughout Syria. Academics found jobs at the eight private universities that started in Syria. Young Syrians, trained in IT or finance, for example, came back to get lucrative jobs in the Syrian private sector.
The trend came to a grinding halt in 2005, when the future of Syria seemed in doubt, thanks to a stand-off with the United States after the assassination of Lebanon's former Prime Minister Rafiq al-Harriri. The Syrian Accountability Act had scared away investors, meaning less money for ordinary Syrians, and a troubled relationship with Saudi Arabia put the brakes on Saudi money streaming into Syria. There was talk of war with Israel and regime-change in Syria, triggered by the Bush Administration. Depopulation started all over again, seemingly bringing the Syrians back to square one. All the hope that led so many bankers, academics, and young professionals to return home in 2000 vanished into thin air. George W. Bush was certainly worse than Gamal Abdul-Nasser.
Thing started changing again recently. The Syrians feel that President Bush, who they blame for turmoil of the years 2003-2008, has begun his long march into history. Many Syrians are unhappy with the slow pace of reforms since 2000. Some blame the government for biting off more than it could chew. Others claim that had it not been for regional turmoil, and the standoff with the United States, the state of reforms in Syria, would have been different. It all boils down to Syria's threat perception. When Syria thinks of threats, it looks towards countries like Russia or Iran. When it thinks of opportunities, economic reform, and change, it heads towards countries like Turkey, France, and Qatar. Only when the threat perception really changes, and when the Syrian government feels at ease, will it embark on a serious reform campaign. Only then will Syrians pack up and start coming back to live and work in Syria, thereby reversing depopulation.
Bush's Mideast Dishonortag:newsweek.washingtonpost.com,2008:/postglobal/sami_moubayed//381.398492008-07-14T14:53:17Z2008-07-15T09:32:01ZI don’t think Bush needs to strengthen his legacy. It has already been deeply engraved in the history of the Middle East. George W. Bush has in fact ruined the Middle East. Sami MoubayedCurrent Discussion: The G-8 summit is Bush's last hurrah as a world leader. What's one thing he can do to strengthen his legacy?
I don’t think Bush needs to strengthen his legacy. It has already been deeply engraved in the history of the Middle East. George W. Bush has in fact ruined the Middle East.
No words can describe my anger at what the United States has tolerated or promoted in the Middle East under the Bush White House. The list is long: the war on Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Haditha, Falluja, Mosul, the war on Lebanon, Qana, and not to forget, the circus in Palestine, the killing in Jenin, and the siege in Gaza, topped with the elimination of Yasser Arafat, a democratically elected leader. These images have always reminded me of Sept. 11, 2001. The blood of these children—in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq—is no less valuable than that of Americans killed at the Twin Towers. Many Americans have been sending me “hate mail” recently, saying that the Bush Administration has been good to the Arabs and is trying to bring peace, security, and democracy to the Middle East. Sorry to tell them that this White House will be remembered for Abu Ghraib. It will be remembered for the atrocities in Gaza. It will be remembered for Qana.
]]>
Yediot Aharanot, Bush’s Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice once said, "I first visited Israel in 2000. I felt I was returning home, despite the fact that this was a place I have never visited. I have a deep affinity with Israel. I have always admired the history of the state of Israel and the hardness and determination of the people that founded it."
No remark could have a worse effect on the inhabitants of the Middle East. Rice wrote her doctoral dissertation on the Cold War era and the USSR, and although she has a prestigious background in academia, she sadly has not read her Middle East history correctly. To the Arab street she is trying to appeal to today, the "founders" that she admires in Israel are nothing but invaders who realized early on that in order to survive they must uproot, kill and terrorize the Arabs and Palestinians.
Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency's colonial department, said in 1940, "We shall not achieve our goal if the Arabs are in this small country. There is no other way [other] than to transfer the Arabs from here to neighboring countries - all of them! Not one village, not one tribe should be left."
In 1948, there were 475 villages in Palestine, 385 of which were bulldozed to the ground by Israel.
In 1938, the "founder" Ben Gurion told the World Council of Poale Zion, "The boundaries of Zionist aspirations include southern Lebanon, southern Syria, today's trans-Jordan, all of the West Bank and Sinai." Ten years later, as premier of Israel, he said, "Our aim is to smash Lebanon, trans-Jordan and Syria. We shall establish a Christian state [in Lebanon], and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate trans-Jordan, then Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria and Sinai." (Taken from “Ben Gurion: A Biography,” written in 1986 by Michael Bar Zohar). These words have had more of an impact on Arabs, even those who are moderate and Westernized, than the democratic promises of Rice.
As an African-American who grew up inspired by the American Revolution against colonialism, and as someone who has read, if not memorized the Bill of Rights of the U.S. constitution, how can Rice admire a people uprooting, terrorizing and "smashing" another people?
This is a question asked all over the Middle East, shedding a lot of doubt on Rice's credibility when talking about democratizing the Arab World, and the support she has from her President. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the trinity that holds the U.S. together and defines its democracy, yet it has not been applied by the U.S.—Bush’s America—when dealing with the Middle East.
To make things clear to readers: I am not opposed to peace with Israel nor am I anti-Semite. One of my closest friends during childhood and young adulthood had a Damascene Jewish mother. She was a remarkable lady. I am someone who sees no difference between Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, and Baha’is. All of them have the right to live in peace and security. When Arafat signed Oslo in 1993, I was one of those who strongly supported him. I still think it was the bravest decision he ever took in his life. Oslo was ruined not because of Arafat but because of the outbreak of the intifada on Sept. 28, 2000. The outbreak of violence started after Ariel Sharon's provocation in visiting the al-Aqsa Mosque. A circle of violence started after that, and all hell broke loose in the Middle East after Sept. 11, 2001. Give me a peace-wanting government in the United States and I will support Syrian-Israeli, or Palestinian-Israeli peace talks. One of my favorite quotes was made by Yitzhak Rabin in 1993, during the signing of Oslo. He said, "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; A time to kill, and a time to heal; A time to weep, and a time to laugh; A time to love, and a time to hate; A time for war, and a time for peace."
That was 15 years ago. These administrations, thanks to Bush, Olmert, and Rice, have spread nothing but destruction, setting Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine—and now possibly Iran—ablaze. That is their legacy. They have not surpassed “a time to hate, and a time for war.” They kept us at a “time to kill and a time to die” never bringing us a “time to heal, a time to laugh, a time to love, and a time for peace.”
]]>
Wanted: Inspiring Syrian Heroestag:newsweek.washingtonpost.com,2008:/postglobal/sami_moubayed//381.394832008-06-19T15:34:06Z2008-06-19T15:53:44ZYoung Syrians want leaders who attract investment and jobs, not those who preach revolution.Sami MoubayedCurrent Discussion:A new poll finds widespread mistrust of world leaders. Are trustworthy national leaders a thing of the past? If not, who's an exception?
I have always been interested in ‘role models.’ Whenever I conduct a personal interview with famous Syrians, I always wrap up with one question, “Who are your inspirational figures; who are your role models in life?” A role model by definition can be a friend or a family member, a living celebrity, or a long-gone iconic figure. I have gotten a colorful variety of answers over the years.
I once administered a survey to my students, three different classes in two consecutive semesters. These were well-to-do Syrians, students at the Faculty of International Relations, born in the mid- to late 1980s. I then administered expanded the same survey to include Syrians of a different age group and different social strata. One question was, “Who is your inspirational figure in life?” This was shortly after last summer’s war in Lebanon and I expected them to say, “Hasan Nasrallah.” So it was a surprise to me when over 60% came out with “None! We don’t have any inspirational figures in our life.” Their parents’ generation would have probably replied, “Gamal Abdul-Nasser.” These young people, however, did not have motivating figures to look up to—nobody to view as a role model. That was a sad reality.
]]>
need heroes!”
]]>
Syria's Misguided Optimismtag:newsweek.washingtonpost.com,2008:/postglobal/sami_moubayed//381.392622008-05-23T19:23:01Z2008-05-23T19:23:48ZYoung nations—like young people—sometimes do crazy things. The Syrian Republic was 28 years old when the Golan Heights were occupied in 1967. Young, passionate, spirited—and foolish—it dragged itself, and everybody around it, into a imbalanced war with Israel. The rest...Sami Moubayed
Young nations—like young people—sometimes do crazy things. The Syrian Republic was 28 years old when the Golan Heights were occupied in 1967. Young, passionate, spirited—and foolish—it dragged itself, and everybody around it, into a imbalanced war with Israel. The rest is history. Six days later, Israel occupied the Golan Heights, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, and Jerusalem. Today, 41 years later, the scar and its permanent distortion of the Arab psyche remain strongly imprinted in the Syrian, Jordanian, and Egyptian mindsets.
The Syrians did go to war in 1948 or 1967 for the Golan Heights. They went to war for Palestine. Many long years have since passed, and four generations have grown up, hearing of the Golan. We still speak nostalgically about it—certain that it is going to be restored at some point in our lifetime, through a peace process that was started at Madrid after the Gulf War. We have written thousands of poems, authored hundreds of books, produced dozens of documentaries, and named endless projects, factories, and monuments, after the Golan. This week, hopes were raised, for the first time in years, that the Golan was on its way to being restored to Syria. Damascus, Tel Aviv, and Ankara announced, within an interval of no more than five minutes, that peace talks were underway between Syria and Israel, under patronage of the Turks.
Perhaps I am a pessimist, but I have seen this scene, and heart this rhetoric, far too often since 1990. Last June 2007, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert appeared on the Saudi al-Arabiyya TV, and appealed directly to President Bashar al-Assad, saying “Bashar Al Assad, you know that I am ready for direct talks with you. I am ready to sit with you and talk about peace, not war.” The Syrian President responded in July, claiming that Syria was ready for talks, based on UNSCR 242 (land-for-peace) and restoration of land up to the June 4, 1967 border. By September 2007, instead of talking peace, the Israelis sent four warplanes into Syria and bombed a military site, claiming (six months later) that it was being used for nuclear technology by the Syrians and North Koreans.
Last April 2008, Israel conducted the largest military maneuver in its history, on the border with Syria. The Syrians called in their reserves. Then the Israelis do nothing and rather, claim that they are still, ready for peace with the Syrians.
The indirect talks between Syria and Israel, via Turkey, are not new. Nor are they a prelude to any peace treaty—so long as George W. Bush is in the White House. They have managed to lift spirits, however, coming hours after warring Lebanese factions announced that they had reached an agreement in Doha on May 22, 2008.
There was optimism in the air in Damascus.
No more talk of summer war in the Middle East, which has haunted Syrian lives since 2006.
No more dangers of another sectarian outburst—at least for now—in neighboring Lebanon. The Syrians were pleased that Beirut—the traditional haven for all Syrians—was now back to normal and they could go there again, for education, medication, shopping, pleasure, and to see family and friends.
Peace would mean many things, as far as the Syrians are concerned. No more emergency laws that have been in-place since 1963. Nor more forced conscription into the Syrian Army for a draft that lasts up to 24-months. No more limited investment in Syria, and thus, much more job opportunities.
Parts of the puzzle suddenly seemed to fall into place. One year ago, US Speaker Nancy Pelosi came to Damascus, carrying a message from Olmert. Last month, ex-US President Jimmy Carter visited Syria and said that, "about 85% of the differences between Israel and Syria have already been resolved, including borders, water rights, the establishment of a security zone, and on the presence of international forces. It was just a "matter of reconvening the talks and concluding an agreement." Then comes a statement from the Syrians, saying that they were discussing peace with the Israelis, through Turkey. The Turks confirmed. And then, so did the Israelis.
To many this seemed like the romantic exchange of goodwill gestures between Israel and Anwar Sadat on the eve of his historical visit to occupied Jerusalem in 1977. What made it easier for Sadat is that at the time, Likud was in power, headed by the reliable Menachem Begin. Although one of the Arabs' worst enemies, whose name graced the massacre of Deir Yassin in 1948, Begin was a leader. The Israelis knew that he was patriotic to the bone and would not question his intentions in peace with Egypt. He was not flirting with Sadat because he wanted peace. On the contrary, he wanted to drown the efforts of the then recently elected US president Jimmy Carter to broker peace between Israel and Yasser Arafat.
Begin would have dealt with the devil rather than the Palestine Liberation Organization. He took the initiative, sending messages to Sadat, via Romania, Iran and Morocco, calling for a bilateral peace that would drown all of Carter's ambitions for the Middle East. At the end of the day, however, there was also a reliable president in Washington DC, who although not informed on the talks, immediately supported them.
Olmert is not Begin and George W. Bush is not Carter. Begin could do things and get away with them - like relinquish the Sinai Peninsula. Now, however, even before talks started, Israeli MPs were outraged with their defeated prime minister making a move towards Syria.
Yuval Steinitz of Likud was quoted in Haaretz saying, "Olmert's readiness to withdraw from the Golan represents an unprecedented political and national abandon."
Additionally, the Turks are not the United States and they cannot deliver peace in the Middle East. They can however, play the role of a mediator. If any real deal were to materialize, it would need American blessing. At this stage, and in what remains of the Bush administration, the Americans are simply un-interested in a Syrian-Israeli peace. That is a fact. They believe that the Syrians are interested in a 'peace process' rather than a 'peace deal' to end the US-led isolation imposed on Syria since 2003.
Bush made it clear, five years ago, when he said "Syria just has to wait" before it sits down to talk peace with the Israelis. That changed when progress on the Palestinian-Israeli track started going nowhere after Annapolis. Olmert, desperate for some kind of a success story to wash out his 2006 adventure in Lebanon, might have decided to switch tracks between Mahmoud Abbas and Syria. Although the Americans do not endorse such a move, they have repeatedly affirmed that they will not oppose it.
American neutrality is equal to American passiveness. This simply can never see the light without a determined US administration. That’s why the entire fuss over what this latest ‘breakthrough’ means for Syria and Israel is out of place. These are just stepping stones—much needed nevertheless—for whomever wins the upcoming US elections.
Too Late to Talk Peace With Hamastag:newsweek.washingtonpost.com,2008:/postglobal/sami_moubayed//381.387592008-04-01T14:32:14Z2008-04-02T12:36:32Z2005 would have been good, 2006 would have been perfect. But not anymore. It's too late to include Hamas in Middle East peace talks. They're no longer interested. Sami Moubayed
"Vice President Dick Cheney said last week that Hamas is doing all it can to torpedo the Mideast peace process -- but Ephraim Halevy, former head of Mossad, thinks it's time to include the Islamist group in peace talks. Who's right?" This is the question posted to panelists by PostGlobal.
I think that it is now too late to talk peace with Hamas. 2005 would have been good. 2006 would have been perfect. But not anymore. Not in 2007-2008.
One reason is that Hamas is no longer interested. When elected with a sweeping majority, the Gaza-based Hamas leadership was dying for international recognition -- not as guerrilla warriors but as statesmen. The same thing had happened back in 1974 to Yasser Arafat, where he went to the United Nations to market himself as both a peacemaker and war-maker, raising the famous, "I come to you carrying an olive branch and a freedom fighter's gun. Don't let the olive branch fall from my hand."
Arafat never believed that sentence, not for a single moment. This is what he needed to say, however, to restore bits and pieces of Palestine. Arafat was fighting for a just cause, and sick and tired of being treated like an A-class terrorist by the international community. He knew he could never destroy Israel and return to the Palestine of 1948. He raised this slogan right after the War of 1967 to legitimize himself in the eyes of ordinary Palestinians, and then to negotiate something more reasonable with Israel. He couldn't do the latter without war medals: He needed to show the Israelis that the Palestinians existed, were under his leadership, and were willing to go to dramatic means to get themselves heard outside their own borders.
This is the period that produced the Karameh Battle of 1969, the Dawson Airfield hijackings of 1970, the Munich massacre of 1972, and the war of attrition through South Lebanon. Arafat succeeded in attaining getting recognition for the Palestinians and went on to the UN in 1974, but was unable to come across as a peacemaker until after the Madrid Peace Conference (to which he was not invited because of his support for Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War).
Much of the Arafat story applies to Hamas. When Arafat signed the Oslo Peace Accords in 1993, many criticized his wisdom. But nobody in the Palestinian street questioned his nationalism. Nobody said that he was a traitor -- and with time, people accepted what Arafat had done out of helplessness rather than conviction. He would famously tell his aides, "See this hand? (while waving his right hand)...Only this hand can sign peace with the Israelis!" That became all the more clear after his death in 2004. Nobody in the Palestinian street had the legitimacy of Yasser Arafat except Hamas. They had fought, suffered, led, and preached the most for Palestine since their inception in the late 1980s.
Abu Mazen (current President Mahmud Abbas) had absolutely no war medals to boast of, just his signature on the much hated Oslo Accords. The same applied to then Prime Minister Ahmad Qurai (Abu Alaa) and other Fatah celebrities like Saeb Erekat, Nabil Shaath, and Yasser Abd Rabbo. The only Fatah heavyweights who had the legitimacy to talk and sign peace then get away with it were Marwan Barghouti (who was in jail) and Farouk Qaddumi (Abu al-Lutf), who was in exile in Tunis.
Hamas's leaders on the other hand were uncorrupted. They had an unblemished record (even finer than Arafat's when he went to Oslo). They had plenty of war medals.
At the time, there was the possibility of progress because Israel had its own heavyweight, Ariel Sharon, who also had plenty of war medals. Both he and Hamas had enough legitimacy to sign peace. Things changed when Sharon was incapacitated and replaced by Ehud Olmert, who made things all the more difficult by going to war-and not winning-in Lebanon in 2006.
Meanwhile, rather than engage with Hamas, the international community, headed by the US, isolated the Islamic movement. They failed to see that had Hamas signed or even talked peace back in 2006, then it would have produced a Palestinian resistance movement with no resistance. Earlier parties like the PFLP and DFLP are now history. Islamic Jihad is nowhere as influential or organized as Hamas. Fatah is ruined without Arafat.
All of this topped with a Hamas talking peace -- and thereby relinquishing its arms -- would have been in Israel's best interest. Government office for Hamas brought along with it responsibility to bring security and better services to the Palestinians. Government office also brought with it restrictions on what the ruling party could or could not do. It could no longer fire missiles into Israel. And for the first 10 months of Hamas's tenure, indeed not a single Hamas attack took place on the Jewish state.
The international community failed to realize that there were two schools within the Hamas command. One was headed by Prime Minister Ismail Haniyya. This pragmatic school wanted to do what was needed to get a state up and running. If it meant recognizing the Israelis, then so be it. Haniyya realized that Hamas won the elections because it promised better security, better jobs, and higher wages. He promised to end the occupation, combat unemployment, offer better education, and pay higher wages in the civil service. He could do none of that while the Palestinians were in a state of war with Israel. He had too much luggage on his shoulders however, given his background and ideology, to come out and say, "I come to you carrying an olive branch and a freedom fighter's gun." The Israelis and the Americans should have searched for a honorable formula for him to talk peace -- or make peace -- with maximal face-saving. He was willing to do so long as the Palestinian street did not perceive him as having said, "Uncle!"
On the other hand, there exists another school in Hamas, not based in Gaza, that calls for radicalization and refusal to recognize the Israelis. This school is headed by leaders like Khaled Meshaal. Haniyya lives in Gaza and realizes because of daily interaction how difficult it is for ordinary Palestinians. Meshaal lives far away -- in the comfort of Damascus and Doha -- making his understanding of the Palestinian street somewhat limited. Meshaal was not interested in running a state. He had a resistance to lead and wanted Hamas to concentrate on what it knew how to do best: waging war on Israel. Anything short of that would only divert the Islamic group's attention and waste its resources.
Israel should have favored people like Haniyya. Instead it preferred to deal with people like Meshaal, who justify hard-line policies. The Olmert government does not want peace with the Palestinians. But if they get a Palestinian prime minister who talks of nothing but peace every single day, this makes it difficult for them to turn a blind eye to him. Dealing with somebody like Meshaal is easier, more secure, and more familiar for the IDF.
After what happened in Gaza in 2007, nobody in Hamas can or would talk of a peace settlement with Israel. In addition to being no longer interested, they simply would be unable to push through with such a deal in the Palestinian street. Having been unable to provide jobs, food, or security, to their constituency, they no longer had the Arafat-like legitimacy that they enjoyed in 2005-2006.
Damascus Needs Lovers tag:newsweek.washingtonpost.com,2008:/postglobal/sami_moubayed//381.382472008-02-14T14:13:46Z2008-02-14T18:29:11ZSyria’s capital has few good role models for how to love.Sami MoubayedCurrent Discussion:For Valentine’s Day, this question: What is the future of love?
There are 12 marriages per 1,000 citizens every month in Damascus, according to official statistics. Yet the Syrian capital also has a staggering 40% divorce rate. That means that out of every 1,000 people who get married, 400 of them then get divorced. The divorce rate is much lower in outside Damascus, in Latakia (9%), Aleppo (8%), Hama (7%) and Raqqa (3%). This shows that the Damascenes are the first ‘to fall in love’ and the first to get an early divorce.
Why is that?
My argument always has been that Damascus is a city that does not celebrate real love, or lovers, despite the grand commercial celebrations we have copied—with zero understanding—from the West on Valentine’s Day. It champions a variety of other ideals, like chivalry, nationalism, Arabism, and entrepreneurship—but not love. At a grassroots level, and with few notable exceptions, people do not get married because ‘they are in love.’ They do it to settle down—because it is expected by family and society—or as some people say, only to have children. That argument, I believe, does the institution of marriage—and love—a great injustice. It dwarfs both and reduces marriage to a robotic sexual activity with one clear and defined objective: making babies.
]]>
When young men decide to marry, they do it the traditional way: visiting homes of potential brides to chose from a wide array of women who are on public display like merchandise waiting to be purchased. It all depends on the customer. Sometimes the richest sell out immediately. Sometimes the cheapest. Sometimes the most attractive on the supermarket shelves. After going through a long pre-set checklist (good family, compatible social milieu, status of mother and father and sometimes even grandfather, and certain characteristics like whether a woman is veiled or not), the customer/suitor makes his decision. It is based on suitability or prestige—not love.
Then the couple literally train to start loving each other—or make it look as if they are in love. They often put on grand public performances, which vary from childish giggling and public hugs to constant show-ups in society to prove to the world—and themselves—that they are now ‘united.’ They act like lovers to compensate for having ‘fallen in love’ in such a doctored and fake manner. This often results in divorce, and sometimes in scandalous adultery, which is tolerated (depending on family name or personal fortune) in upper-new elite Damascus. Or at best, it leads to a shallow relationship—hollowed out completely from emotion—that mirrors a lifestyle common since the days of the Ottoman Empire. Love for that matter does not guarantee a long or healthy marriage. But it certainly is a much-needed ingredient for success.
We have very few ‘success stories’ for lovers in Damascus. Society does not encourage love. Religion does not encourage love. It is considered wrong and immoral in most cases for a young woman to be involved in pre-martial emotional relationships—certainly not sexual ones. In movies, songs, and TV series, lovers are often depicted committing a very challenging and impossible act that confronts society, religion, family, and moral values.
What are our love stories in Damascus? Apart from ancient ones (which are abundant) like Antar & Abla, Qays & Layla, and Mouawiyya (the Umayyad Caliph) and Maysoun, we have very few famous modern cases to study. One that immediately comes to mind is that of Prince Hasan al-Atrash, the leader of the Arab Mountain who defied social norms in the 1930s and married the singer Asmahan. He did it although it was frowned upon for someone of his socio-political stature to marry an artist who appeared on film in romantic musicals. He did it simply because he loved Asmahan, regardless of what her career was.
Another obvious example is Nizar Qabbani, who spent his entire career defending women, love, and lovers, encouraging Damascenes to free their minds and break established norms, where in his own words “a woman is whipped a thousand times for falling in love.” A third example is former Prime Minister Khaled al-Azm, who wanted to become president in 1955. Members of the Azm family and friends advised him that his wife—whom he loved dearly—would be an obstacle to his victory since would be unfit to become First Lady, given her public drinking and gambling habits. A friend, Fouad Mahasin, advised him to divorce her or lose the elections. The next day they brought an Islamic judge to divorce the Prime Minister. Azm offered him coffee, then tea, then more coffee, before bidding him farewell. He refused to abandon his beloved even if it meant giving up his life-long dream of becoming president. As a result he was defeated in the elections.
Whereas in the West, there is an abundance of inspiring love stories. We’ve got King Edward VIII, who abdicated the throne of England in 1936 to marry the woman he loved. He had to choose between committing himself to an American who was twice-divorced or the throne of his ancestors. Without hesitation, he chose Wallis Simpson. We have Prince Rene of Monaco, who also defied family tradition and in 1956 married an American—this time, the legendary Hollywood actress Grace Kelly. We have got Juan and Eva Peron, Elvis and Priscilla Presley, Gibran Khalil Gibran and May Ziadeh, and John Lennon and Yoko Ono—the avant-garde artist whose love for Lennon broke up The Beatles. We have Adolph Hitler and his mistress (some say last-minute wife) Eva Brown, who committed suicide with him at a bunker in Berlin towards the end of World War II. We have the passionate love letters of Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt, two men who, despite their reputation as world leaders, never shied—not for a moment—from making their emotions public towards their beloveds. Were they scrutinized for it? On the contrary, it endeared them to the masses in both Great Britain and the United States. When asked about the secrets of good leadership, Churchill confidently said: “Find your sweetheart. Fall in love.”
Syrian society is not like that, and nor is Arab society in general. Nearly ninety years ago, the British colonel T.E. Lawrence addressed an Arab Bedouin leader during World War I, saying that if the Arabs did not mend their ways they would forever remain “a little people, a silly people.” That is the product of a society without love. Human progress becomes minimal and so does social, moral, and intellectual development. Damascus needs more love to survive. It needs more lovers. As Nizar once said: “If love does not exist (in Damascus), then we must create it.”
The S-Word: Syrianismtag:newsweek.washingtonpost.com,2008:/postglobal/sami_moubayed//381.373362008-01-14T15:31:53Z2008-01-14T16:59:41ZIt’s high time we Syrians stood up for ourselves.Sami MoubayedCurrent Discussion: Australians are voting online for a "Word of the Year" from a list of new words to be included in the dictionary: among the frontrunners, "Chindia", "globesity," and "password fatigue." Create your favorite new word of the year that tells us something about trends in your country.
If it were up to me, I would promote the word “Syrianism!”
Some people, however, cannot even pronounce it—let alone promote it.
This word—the S-Word—runs contradictory to popular rhetoric in Damascus that dates back to 1916. For years, Syrians have been studying the elementary and high school curriculum of the veteran academic Sati al-Husari, an Arab nationalist who introduced the theme: Arabism First! For years “Syrianism” was taboo in Syria.
]]>
Generations have grown up preaching the grand ideas of Arabism. It started from King Faysal right after World War II. It was then handed down to Shukri al-Quwatli and his generation of nationalists in the 1940s and 1950s. On the first independence day in 1946, he famously said that he won’t let any flag fly higher than the Syrian Flag except one—the Flag of Arabism. He did just that in 1958 and sacrificed “Syrianism” for “Arabism First.” He gave Syria to President Gamal Abdul-Nasser of Egypt, never imagining the nightmare that would come next. During the union years (1958-1961) celebrations were canceled on Syrian Independence Day. Instead, the Syrians had to celebrate the July 23 Revolution in Egypt as their National Day. Damascus was no longer capital of Syria—its central administration and all decision-making shifted to Cairo. Embassies no longer operated in the capital of the Umayyads. Arabism First proved catastrophic—and brought down Nasser’s Republic in 1961.
Nasser—the Godfather of Arabism—created a police state in Syria. He was responsible for terminating political party life in Syria, confrontation with the Western world, and the destructive socialism that ruined the Syrian economy. He was responsible for the destruction of the civil, Westernized, and educated Syrian middle and upper-class. He was responsible for land redistribution, nationalization of schools and banks, confiscation of property, martial law and arbitrary arrests. He was the first person ever to order the Syrian Post Office to conduct espionage on correspondences between Syrians and the outside world.
He was the first person to monitor phone calls in Syria. He was responsible for the large-scale immigration that took place in 1958-1961, when promising Syrian businessmen were forced to leave Syria to evade his socialist dragnet. They ended up establishing businesses and opening banks in Lebanon and throughout the Arab World, depriving Syria of their industrial, banking, and commercial services. He was responsible for that ugly Soviet hallmark that was imposed on Syria. Nasser was responsible for the fiasco of 1967. He was responsible for dreams—only dreams, which turned out to be nothing but illusions. All of that suffering—after all—was for the sake of Arabism First! When unfulfilled, they left us in grand disappointment. The United Arab Republic like the Third Reich of Adolph Hitler, promised to endure 100-years, but came down with thunder due to the police state created by Nasser. Union, great and symbolic as it was for Nasser’s Egypt and for Arab nationalists around the world, was actually catastrophic for Syria. Then came a series of events that showed us how fragile Arabism actually was: the war of 1967, Camp David in 1978, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, the occupation of Kuwait, the Gulf War of 1991, and finally, the occupation of Iraq.
I belong to a generation of Syrians who returned to Syria at will—wanting to take part in nation-building, many years after the break-up of the United Arab Republic. I personally did not return out of a passion for Arabism. I returned because I loved Syria. Had Syria been located in Europe—or the Far East—it would have been even better, as far as I am concerned. Just so Arab readers won’t get me wrong—I started out as an Arab nationalist. I adored Gamal Abdul-Nasser. I still have tremendous respect for the man—he was a legend that one cannot but respect, despite his faults vis-à-vis Syria. He was an honest man who loved his people, worked sincerely for them, but had a terrible vision. He was an illusioned man—and that is not good when one plans on leading the Arab World.
So many illusions have got me shedding serious doubt about Arabism—where it took us, and where it will lead in the 21st Century. A popular saying that if one is in his 20s and doesn’t believe in socialism, then he has no heart—and if one reaches his 30s and still believes in socialism, he has no mind! That applies to me, when it comes to Arabism. I am still very much committed to certain Arab countries, however, with whom I can affiliate—like Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Palestine. But these nations do not shape my identity—and nor do I identify myself as “Syrian Arab.” I am Syrian. Period. I preach Syrian nationalism—the S Word.
Syrians should re-read their history. Essentially, the West never cared for the well-being of Arabs, and certainly not for the well-being of Syrians. With a few notable exceptions (Egypt and Lebanon in the 1940s and 1950s, Iraq in the 1970s, and Saudi Arabia for most of the 20th century), the Arabs also never really cared for the welfare of Syria. For the most part, it was the other way around. We cared—obsessed with Arabism first—by what was happening in Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt—and Algeria. Why did the French colonize Syria in 1920? Because they saw a lot of potential in this small Middle East country that they wanted to exploit, and did, by tearing it apart into smaller states. Why did the Americans launch the first coup d'etat of the Arab world in 1949 in Damascus? Because they realized that the Syrians, government and public alike, were a hard-headed and stubborn people who would not fulfill U.S. interests in the Middle East. Why did the Arabs stand by and watch while all of this was happening—and they are doing it again today in 2005-2008—because they fear the Syrians. In as much as they respect them, need them, and value their contributions, they are uncomfortable with Syria. They have always been uncomfortable with Syria. Why did the Americans try to launch two coups in Syria in the 1950s? Why did the entire Arab World (excluding Egypt) say ‘yes’ to U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower? Again, because the Syrians were acting too independently from U.S. interests in the Arab world and cozying up to the Soviet Union.
This is the reality of Syria's history with the Western and Arab world. Syrians, under global scrutiny today because of the anti-Syrian media campaign, are actually a proud people who never wanted their lives or actions to be dictated by a Western power, be it London, Paris, Washington Moscow, or any of the Arab World. They tried it once with Cairo and will never repeat it again.
I am a stranger in what I am saying, by the way. The majority of Syrians are Arab nationalists to the bone. Arab nationalism—after all—was born in Damascus. Contrary to what the West believes, this nationalism was not created by the Ba'athists when they came to power in 1963. It existed under Shukri al-Quwatli in the 1940s, under Adib al-Shishakli in the 1950s, and under the early Ba'athists in the 1960s. President Hafez al-Assad was a dedicated Arab nationalist. It is part of Syria's national identity. The Americans cannot expect to change that overnight. The issues on which the U.S. government has been haranguing Syria since 2003 happen to be the issues where there is a consensus between the street and government, and these issues mainly concern Lebanon, Palestine and the Iraqi resistance.
Syrians are not like that. Actually, because they are not like that they are being made to pay a price for their nationalism, which currently stands as a mixture of Syrianism and Arabism. This is the mood that prevails in Damascus today. This "cold war" with America is not about Rafiq al-Harriri. It is not about Bashar Assad. It is not about supporting or opposing Iraq. It is about the stubborn and arrogant people of Syria.
Syria has rejected every U.S. ‘roadmap’ for the Middle East from Harry Truman to George W. Bush. No country in the Arab world, not even Egypt or Iraq, carries the rejectionist brand like Syria. This is a common denominator that unites all Syrians, government and opposition, men and women, young and old, secular and religious. It is the only thing all Syrians have agreed on since 1948. They may disagree on religious issues, reforms, politics, ideologies, but not on Israel and the U.S. Today, more than 50 years into the Arab-Israeli conflict, Syria is the only country, apart from the Palestinians themselves, which is still overwhelmingly Arab nationalist. This does not apply to Libya, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Sudan or Lebanon. It no longer applies to Jordan, Egypt and Iraq.
Syria is a small country—with a big brand.
Good Christians, and Orientalists to the Bonetag:newsweek.washingtonpost.com,2007:/postglobal/sami_moubayed//381.371702007-12-24T16:04:47Z2007-12-24T16:07:00ZChristmas celebrations in Syria don’t mean westernization – after all, Christmas came from the East.Sami Moubayed
The Question: Is Christmas a bigger event in your country than it was ten years ago? Is this a sign of Westernization or just commercialization?
I come from a particular country that is non-Christian, but where Christmas has been—and hopefully forever will be—a national holiday, celebrated freely by Christians and respected universally by Syrian Muslims. Bigger celebrations of Christmas—in my book—do not mean Westernization. Christmas came from over here after all, from the East.
]]>
I would like to repeat a story—familiar to many of my Syrian readers—that undoubtedly must be retold today, given my American audience. A few years ago, I had the good fortune of meeting the Hollywood actor Sean Connery at the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate in Damascus while he was visiting His Beatitude Patriarch Ignatius IV Hazim, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and all the East. Connery asked the Patriarch about the Christian community in Syria, and whether any prominent Christian had ever reached a senior government post in Syria’s modern history. The list was a long one, longer than what Connery expected.
The first name that automatically comes to the mind of any Syrian is the late Faris al-Khury, who became minister, prime minister, and speaker of parliament in Syria in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. He helped co-found the Syrian University, translated its curriculum from Ottoman Turkish into Arabic, became Dean of the Faculty of Law, co-founded and headed the Lawyer’s Syndicate, founded the Syrian Ministry of Finance, and co-wrote the Syrian Constitution. He co-headed both the anti-Ottoman and anti-French nationalist movements in Syria. He was a poet, a writer, a mathematician, an academic, an attorney, and a first-class nationalist. When Faris Bey headed Syria’s delegation to the founding conference of the United Nations in 1945, a U.S. diplomat remarked, after Khury delivered his eloquent speech: “It is impossible for a country with men like these to be occupied!”
To best illustrate the religious co-existence that existed during Khury’s era, one must remember that when Khury became prime minister in 1945, there was no Ministry of Awkaf, religious endowments, in Syria. Its duties were handled by the Prime Minister’s Office. A parliamentary bloc opposed to Khury’s National Bloc in Parliament opposed his appointment, saying that it was absurd for a Christian to administer the affairs of the Muslim community in Syria. Surprisingly, the Muslim bloc, headed by Sheikh Abd al-Hamid al-Tabba, vetoed the refusal, saying: “We, the Muslim bloc in Parliament, entrust Faris Bey al-Khury with our Awkaf more so than we entrust ourselves.”
Khury was a Christian who had memorized the Holy Quran, and imposed himself through knowledge and charisma on all Syrians – Muslims, Christians, or Jews. Before being anything else, he was a dedicated Syrian nationalist who loved Syria and the Syrians for all that they stood for, and often repeated that the Syrians will not die and no authority should allow them to die or be insulted. He had unbelievable faith in the people of Syria.
It was widespread humor among Syrians saying that had Khury’s name been “Huri” or “Juri” (denoting a playful change with the Arabic transliteration of his name) he certainly would have been elected president.
A small trivia story that many people do not know is that a Christian named Sa’id Ishak did in fact assume presidential duties in Syria, for a very short transition period in December 1951, after the resignation of President Hashim al-Atasi and his replacement with the military regime of General Adib al-Shishakli.
Other famed Christian Syrians who wrote Syria’s modern history include Tawfiq Shamiyya and Mikhael Ilyan, two several-time ministers and deputies in the 1930s and 1940s; Hrant Manolian, better known as Hrant Bey, the courageous Armenian officer who headed and modernized the Syrian gendarmerie after Syria achieved independence from France in 1946; Hanna Malek, the Attorney General of Syria in the 1950s; Michel Aflaq, the founder of the Baath Party; and General Yusuf Shakkur, the Chief-of-Staff during the Arab-Israeli War of 1973.
Of course, there are also giants in the field of literature, diplomacy, and arts. One name that immediately comes to mind is Dr Constantine Zurayk, the president of Damascus University and philosopher of Arab nationalism, who headed the American University of Beirut (AUB) and almost single-handedly revolutionized higher education in Syria. Syrians also have the journalist Habib Kahaleh of the famed "al-Mudhik al-Mubki" (That Which Makes You Laugh and Cry), the novelists Hanna Mina and Colette Khury (who is currently presidential advisor on cultural affairs), the philosopher Dr Antune Makdasi, and the diplomat and academic, Dr George Toemeh.
These people were not appointed by accident, nor did they achieve prominence because they were Christians. They happened to be good and able Syrians, with talent, experience, skill, and character. They were Syrian nationalists.
These men and women gave Syria abundantly with no reservations, and took nothing in return except pride in being good Syrians. I have befriended Syrian Christians and am proud to have been educated by them since childhood. I know them well. They are highly patriotic, sober, hard-working, honest and law-abiding citizens who are good with languages, clean, knowledgeable, and generally well-educated. As far as my encounters with them go, they are very good citizens – and although Westernized in dress, speech, and indulgences, these people are all Oriental to the bone. Not surprisingly, they are the Christians of the East.
As the Syrians celebrate Christmas this year, it is safe to hail the Christian community of Syria, and remind them that we stand united against Islamic fundamentalism and those who work to breach the harmony that has existed between us, for thousands of years. Such fundamentalists are many. Only if they prevail would we be prevented from celebrating Christmas in Damascus.
The greatest symbol of this harmony was the historic visit made by the late Pope John Paul II to Syria in 2001. Driving his popemobile through the narrow streets of old Damascus, he waved to the assembled crowds that were chanting, "We love you, John Paul II." They were a combination of Muslims and Christians.
Earlier, at a mass held at a football stadium in Damascus, he addressed the thousands assembled in French, saying: "In this holy land, Christians, Muslims and Jews are called to work together with confidence and boldness and to work to bring about without delay the day when the legal rights of all peoples are respected and they can live in peace and mutual understanding.”
He went to the Qunaytra village, the principal town in the Golan Heights, occupied by Israel in 1967, and said: "We pray to you for the peoples of the Middle East. Help them to break down the walls of hostility and division and to build together a world of justice and solidarity. Lord, you create new heavens and a new earth. To you we entrust the young people of these lands."
Probably most striking in the Pope's speech, which is remembered by the Syrians today, are these remarks: "In a special way we pray for the leaders of this noble land of Syria. Grant them wisdom, farsightedness and perseverance; may they never yield to discouragement in their challenging task of building the lasting peace for which their people yearn."
That is exactly what we Syrians need: to write off 2007, and welcome 2008 with “wisdom, farsightedness, and perseverance.” John Paul II signed off in Quntaytra with the same words that the Middle Easterners, and Syrians in particular, bid him farewell in 2005: "Salam! Salam! Salam! Amen!”
So, yes – the Syrians are showing bigger celebrations on Christmas, because they are returning to their roots, not because they are becoming Westernized.
The Annapolis SummitAnnapolis Has No Legitimacy Without Syriatag:newsweek.washingtonpost.com,2007:/postglobal/sami_moubayed//381.368242007-11-26T19:36:18Z2007-11-27T01:31:56ZThe U.S. can’t talk Mideast peace without Syria, but Syrians worry that Annapolis is just more of the same posturing.Sami Moubayed
Syria finally decided on November 25 to attend the U.S. peace conference in Annapolis. This came only after the U.S. incorporated the Golan Heights issue into the conference agenda, after Syrian protests that it would not attend unless the occupied Heights were on the conference table. Had Syria not chosen to attend, the conference would have been doomed to fail. The reason is simple: the Americans cannot talk peace in the Middle East without Syria.
Not much has changed in terms of Syrian demands towards the Middle East peace process since Madrid, 1991. I’ll first detail the story here at length, because I believe it to be a prelude to what will happen at Annapolis on November 27.
On March 6, 1991, after the liberation of Kuwait, President George Bush Sr. gave his famed victory speech, saying: “We must do all that we can to close the gap between the Israelis and the Palestinians.” The Syrians believed him and showed enthusiasm towards what came to be known as the Madrid Peace Conference. The Israelis, led at the time by Yitzhak Shamir, did not. They were distracted by an international conference, co-sponsored by the U.S.S.R., which would bring them face-to-face with all of the Arab countries.
Seven days later, Bush sent his Secretary of State James Baker to meet President Hafez al-Assad in Damascus. Before the meeting, U.S. Ambassador to Syria Edward Djerjian advised, “Nobody can predict how long this meeting’s going to last. So be careful how much you drink. Assad will not leave the room. If you drink too much, the forces of nature will overcome you!”
After the meeting, Baker told the U.S. President, “Assad gave me the clear impression that he is serious about pursuing peace, but that he will be a tough nut to crack!” Assad told his American guest: “A peace conference should not be convened just once and then disappear. The conference should be re-convened whenever necessary.” Assad insisted that the U.N. co-sponsor the event, but Baker replied, “Mr. President, the Israelis will not accept the United Nations—they hate the United Nations.” Baker promised a U.S. guarantee to get the Israelis to withdraw from the Golan. The Syrians went along with that—and the rest is history.
Foreign Minister Farouk al-Shara went to Madrid and called on Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights, the West Bank, Gaza, and South Lebanon. Shamir—uninterested—replied with a thundering speech, accusing Syria of being a state sponsor of terrorism. Shara was furious. He took out a newspaper clipping (given to Walid Moualim by a member of the Lebanese delegation), dated 1948, with a picture of the young Shamir under the bold words WANTED. Shara said, “I will just show you, if I may, an old photograph of Mr. Shamir. Why was this picture distributed? Because he was WANTED. He helped, as I recall, in the assassination of Count Bernadotte, the U.N. mediator in Palestine in 1948. He kills peace-makers!”
I believe Annapolis will follow a similar pattern. The Syrians did not want to create a problem at the conference but the Israelis, uninterested in peace, intimidated them to such an extent that they set aside their prepared speech and resort to the famed WANTED one. True, the Syrians will be represented at Annapolis by Deputy Foreign Minister Faysal Miqdad, but they are very skeptical about what the Americans have to offer. Ehud Olmert is as uncomfortable with the conference as Shamir was in 1991. This time it is not Shara at Annapolis, but his trusted protégé, Dr Miqdad, a seasoned Syrian statesman who served as his country’s ambassador to the U.N. in 2003-2006.
The real difference, however, is that unlike President Bush Sr., this U.S. administration is not interested in a better Middle East. The Syrians have not forgotten that less than three months ago, the Israelis violated Syrian airspace on September 6, 2007. They claimed to have targeted a Syrian radar post, with help of the United States.
Shortly after the international community condemned the strike, Ehud Olmert said he was ready to start unconditional peace talks with the Syrians. He had made the same offer back on July 11, 2007, on the Saudi channel al-Arabiyya, saying: "I am ready to sit with you and talk about peace, not war. I will be happy if I could make peace with Syria. I do not want to wage war against Syria." This proposal was echoed by President Shimon Peres on September 18, who added, "We are ready for dialogue with Damascus."
In the wake of the air incursion, Israel also transferred troops out of the Golan Heights to the Negev to defuse rising tensions on the border. Hours before the Israeli planes crossed the Syrian border, Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign-policy chief, delivered a message from Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak that troop deployment on the border with Syria would be reduced to prevent war, insisting that Israel was not interested in war with the Syrians. It became clear to the Syrians on September 6 that Solana had been tricked by the Israelis, who were lying about their intentions vis-à-vis provocation with Syria.
In a speech in July 2007, before the attack, President Bashar al-Assad re-emphasized his country's willingness for peace, reminding that the basis of any Syrian cooperation would be the borderline of June 4, 1967. He also asked for guarantees, saying that from experience in the 1990s, Syria does not trust the Israelis. "We did not trust them before the 1990s and now distrust them further." Assad asked for something similar to the agreement reached with the late Israeli leader Yitzhak Rabin, which promised to restore the Golan Heights in full to Syria.
With September 6 in the back of their minds, the Syrians are also aware that Olmert is in a difficult position because of the less-than-satisfying results of the Israeli war with Lebanon in July-August 2006. In that war - unlike any other in Israel's history since 1948 - none of the Jewish state's objectives was met. Israel said they were invading Lebanon to rescue two Israeli soldiers whom Hezbollah had abducted. Today, more than a year later, the two soldiers remain in Hezbollah captivity. Israel said it would crush the Lebanese military group, but Hezbollah remains alive and kicking and, according both to its own reports and to those of Western observers, has managed to rearm itself with an arsenal larger than the one it possessed before the war.
Olmert understands all of these difficult realities, and so does the Israeli public, which holds him and his team accountable for the ill-fated Lebanon adventure. With such a defeat on his record, the Israeli prime minister cannot possibly talk peace with the Syrians - or with anyone else. He needs to obtain his war medals to "right the wrongs" done to his image in Lebanon. Only after waging a war - and either winning or not losing it - can Olmert project himself as a peacemaker. That was the prevailing mood in Damascus this summer.
U.S. President George W. Bush vetoed peace with Syria in the aftermath of the occupation of Iraq in 2003: "Syria has to wait," he said, until all other pending issues are solved in the Middle East. That was seconded by both prime minister Ariel Sharon and his successor, Ehud Olmert, neither of whom was interested in talks with the Syrians.
This lack of interest continued until 2006. Then Israel suddenly seemed to change course with regard to Syria. Public opinion in Israel shifted. Many believe that only Syria can secure Israel's border with Lebanon. Making peace with the Syrians, the Israelis now believed, seemed all the more logical since it automatically would mean a calm front with Hezbollah.
Early this year, the Israeli daily Ha'aretz said secret talks had taken place in Europe between Israelis and a private Syrian citizen. In April, U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to Damascus with a message to Assad from Olmert. The Israeli press went into a frenzy revisiting the Syrian-Israeli peace track. The "Syria story" made headlines in the Israeli press, and quotes from Syrian newspapers began appearing in leading Israeli dailies to monitor Syria's readiness for peace.
One reason for this about-face was domestic pressure on the Israeli prime minister. His Kadima-Labor cabinet seemed on the verge of collapse. The Winograd Report on the summer war nearly destroyed his career, because its findings implicated some of his top officials in wrongdoings during the Lebanon war of 2006. The premier needed to divert Israeli attention - fast - to steal the limelight from former prime minister Ehud Barak, who was making a political comeback in Israel.
The Syrians were, and still are, unimpressed by the Israeli conditions for peace, which included halting Syria's cooperation with Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran.
All of these recent events help explain why the Syrians are worried as they head off to Annapolis. Countries interested in peace don’t go around flying into their neighbor’s airspace without permission, especially when the two countries are in a state of war. They don’t fire missiles into other countries’ territory. The last time I checked, this was called ‘war-making’ rather than ‘peace-making.’ But despite all that, the Syrians have been committed to peace since Madrid and are willing to try Annapolis. But it’s doubtful that Annapolis will lead to a breakthrough, with George W. Bush in the White House, and Ehud Olmert in power in Tel Aviv.