Periodically, I review what is going on in the Arab press that is available in English, on line. I know that understanding Arabic would be far preferable, but sadly, have little affinity for languages and will have to leave it to others to read and interpret what our friends and enemies in the Arab world have to say in their native tongue. I rely on MEMRI for what they can offer and people like USAF_Linguist who occasionally comments here on his experience watching al Jazeera TV, in Arabic. My primary English language sources are Asharq Alawsat, which calls itself "the leading Arabic International Daily, and Al-Ahram weekly, published in Cairo since 1875.
[The major story of the day is the horrendous disaster unfolding in Northern Pakistan. An earthquake of 7.6 or 7.7 is likely to be devastatingly destructive anywhere it strikes, but once again, is becomes clear that the best way to safe guard people's lives is through wealth creation and transparency in governance. The economic status of the people of the region is almost certainly the most important predictor of survival in an earthquake (as well as hurricanes, epidemics, and all sorts of natural disasters.) Wealthy societies can afford to demand, and pay for, the highest quality construction materials and techniques. Further, wealthy societies can afford to monitor for things like the bird flu, and stockpile Tamiflu, create vaccines, etc. For a good many years now, it has been a poorly publicized fact that the number one risk factor for HIV infection in the world is not homosexual activity, but in fact, is poverty.]
What struck my attention in my perusal of the Arabic press today was the juxtaposition of two stories that were remarkable in their disconnect from each other; it was clear that both stories could not be accurate reflections of reality.
Reporter Rana Feghali wrote a story, Fear of the Other & the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, describing the "Fear of the Other Conference" at SOAS, School of Oriental and African Studies, in London on September 23, 2005. Here is a description of the aim of the conference:
Organized by the Faculty for Israeli-Palestinian Peace UK, which is part of an international network that spans Palestine, Israel, the United States, and Europe, the conference sought to address “the role of racism in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, especially attitudes and practices that are anti-Arab, anti-Islamic, and anti-Semitic, and ways of overcoming them,” according to a statement distributed to participants.
While there was some lip service devoted to a discussion of anti-Semitism, the bulk of the conference was a disquisition on the ideas of Edward Said:
In his keynote address, Palestinian political activist and member of the Israel Knesset since 1996, Azmi Bishara discussed, “Anti-Semitism and Orientalism in Modernity”, examining each term and drawing a general picture of how Orientalism came into existence and its socio-political significance.
Orientalism, as Edward Said brilliantly exposed it in his book of the same name, was “a European method and an attempt to classify and categorize the Orient as the Other, an image in contrast to Europe.”
Defined by Bishara as “a political movement against Jews”, anti-Semitism emerged from the 18 th century Enlightenment period and the corresponding fervor to classify the world into races and hierarchies, and to categorize people according to groups inspired by Biology and Darwinism.
This, Bishara continued, included both the Arabs and the Jews in the “Orientalist project”. Both Jews living in Europe, and Muslims in the Arab world were considered the other. “The first were the internal other, as they were physically present in Europe. However, Islam was the external other and the only tangible threat to European domination which also looked different,” he added.
Therefore, according to Bishara's argument, the common roots of Orientalism and Anti-Semitism meant that contrary to widespread ideas, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict was not a war between civilizations. Instead, in agreement with Said, he rejected “the essentializing premise” of Samuel Huntington in his book, 'The Clash of Civilizations' as “dangerous and stupid”.
Instead of an “unending, implacable, irremediable” conflict between two fixed social groups, as Huntington suggested, Bishara argued that the war was a civil war. Islam, Christianity, and Judaism he said, were part of the same civilization. Each saw the others in mirrors and displayed a pathological hatred and fear.” It was not difference that created conflict but similarity.
Bishara argued that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict was a civil war, a confrontation between groups who belong to the same civilization, which explains its cruel violent nature.
In practice the conference was much more concerned with anti-Muslim racism in the West than anti-Semitism in Palestine:
On the following panels, speakers from around the world, including John Strawson, who teaches Law at the University of East London, Samir El Youssef, a Palestinian writer living in London, and Sami Chakribati, the Director of Liberty, a human rights organization, explored the more practical effects of racist attitudes. Included in their discussions were anti-Arab and anti-Islamic beliefs and the possible avenues that can be taken to counteract such sentiments in order to achieve a just and peaceful resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
In the aftermath of September 11 attacks and the London bombings, the resulting anti-Muslim backlash has raised fears that the fabric of British and Western societies and their emphasis on respect of the other were in danger.
It is always entertaining to see academics discussing faraway situations from the parochial perspective of their back yards.
Another panelist Sharif Nashashibi commented that :
... "racism is based on a single ignorant belief and is related to power."
Returning to a theme explored by Bishara, Nashashibi argued, “no inherent opposition existed between Islam and Judaism or between the Palestinian and Israeli”.
....
He concluded that, if personal animosity could be overcome, a political solution would be found. His optimistic vision, however, did not examine inter-communal differences or address power disparities.
Another panelist attempted to address the distinction between criticism of Israel's behavior, and overt anti-Semitism which it so often resembles:
Continuing to demystify racism in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Daniel Dor, differentiated between legitimate criticism of the occupation and bigoted racism.
After all, Israel is still flaunting UN resolutions, building illegal settlements and a wall of separation, as well as killing Palestinians.
Dor, a professor at the department of Communication at Tel Aviv University, differentiated between two dominant types of language used in the conflict from both sides: a guilt-oriented language and a solution-oriented language.
Essentially, Dor would like everyone to look to the future for solutions, which seems to be excellent advice, but the sense of the article is that all the prescriptions are directed at the Israeli side and the West in general. What is conspicuously missing throughout the report of the conference is any recognition that the parties in the Palestinian territory have not even settled on the first step of the process, which, not coincidentally, is the subject of the second article I have in mind, but which will have to wait until later for review.
Recent Comments