Common Sense, Old School Style

Thanks to Gregory for sending me a link to a commentary article in the most recent edition of Yemen Times, one of the two English-language papers in the country. The article, by Hassan al-Haifi, is written partly in response to Christopher Hitchen's recent slate column on the death toll of the putrid notion of the "Arab Street." The idea of the Arab street, horridly racist in its undertones (and, frequently, overtones) is that the entirety of the Arab world, from the western shores of Africa to hard up on the Iraqi border with Persian Iran, thinks and speaks with one voice. That's why we heard about the Street rising up due to American-led occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. The notion has curiously not been dispelled by virtue of being proven consistently false. But, you know, so what? It is a good soundbite.

Hassan al-Haifi believes in it, though, very strongly. When I was living in Yemen reading his column was one of the highlights (beside, of course, the qat). For al-Haifi, everything in the world was a direct result of an insidious American-Zionist plot against Muslims- specifically Arab Muslims. I mean, everything. He denounced the bombings in Madrid (this is the one-year anniversary: we must not forget that horror), but still managed to twist it into another rant at neo-conservative and evangelical Israeli-lovers. It was impressive. A good drinking game would have been to do a shot every time he wrote "Israeli plot," "American-Zionist," "Evangelical," "neo-conservative" and any variation. If you could make it through an entire column without seeing two or three newspapers in front of you, you might not actually be human.

I am not picking on al-Haifi merely because he is an easy target- just the opposite. He is a gifted writer, very talented in English (and, one imagines, Arabic). From what I read he has the best grasp of English of any writer in Yemen. He is also skilled at making his arguments appear logical, even when they are 180 degrees removed from that state. And this is still not just an attack on him- he is important to read because he captures all of the flop-sweated conspiratorial nightmare gibberish of the old Arab nationalist myths in each of his columns, refusing to believe anything that doesn't fit his original thesis.

His recent column on Lebanon is a perfect example. He takes great pride in inverting "conventional wisdom" about Lebanon by saying the West is wrong, and the true will of the people is for Syria (basing it on the recent counter-demonstrations). This is, of course, merely a grasping attempt at putting the counter-wisdom back in place, but he spins it as if it is a revelation. I am going to quote one section of the article, which I think perfectly encapsulates the thinking of al-Haifi and his ilk- both in and out of the Arab world.

"On Tuesday, the 8th of March, 1.6 million Lebanese gathered together, in a magnificent display of civilized mass behavior and expression of political views and told the world, 'Lebanon is ours, and it is we who decide what Lebanon should and should not do'. If American thinks that by sending an envoy (aided by a French envoy for décor) to arrange for some relatively insignificant minor displays of public will and expression, they can dictate to Lebanon how its future should be laid out, they have fallen into the mistaken belief, no doubt sold by the Israelis, that the political scene in the region is in the hands of a few neo-conservative strategists in Washington and their Israeli mentors. Lebanon, on Tuesday, told the world that the future of Lebanon is in the hands of the Lebanese and it is the Lebanese who decide the fate of Lebanon."

How hard to choose where to begin! It would be too easy to pick on the numbers- most estimates were in the 500,000 mark, supplemented heavily by plain-clothed Syrian soldiers and Syrian civilians living in Lebanon. And a civilized display of political disposition is usually not enforced by men with guns. Ah, but: whatever. Let usneither quibble nor sweat the small stuff. It has been argued on this page that it would be absurd to think that there wasn't genuine emotion in the counter-protests. Let's move on.

It is more than demonstrably wrong- it is willfully misleading- to say that the anti-Syrian demonstrations were arranged by an American envoy and his decorous French counter-part. Al-Haifi furthers belittles the genuine feeling of the Lebanese by dismissing their brave movement as "relatively insignificant." He can't believe this; he is too smart. The problem is that it doesn't fit his worldview, his antiquated notion of Arab solidarity, his hatred of the West and everything it involves.

More than that, though, is his wierd insistence that Hezbollah keeping Syria in is a way of expressing national interest. He ignores, or is mentally incapable of processing, the theiving nature of the occupation. Why? Because it reflects poorly on an Arab state. It betrays the wagon-circling mentality of the intellectually corrupt old guard of Arab thinkers.

Al-Haifi is hard man with whom to argue. It is easy to point out the shortcomings in his thinking, but he is relentless and, like all lazy conspiracy theorists, works in unassaible intellectual circumnavigations, spinning you around and around, not letting you seee the one-step-remove he has from reality. It is this kind of thinking, this obnoxious rhetoric, that was on display at the pro-Syrian rally. It is this kind of thinking that marks the old guard.

For al-Haifi, and others, including many in America, it is not genuinely "Arab" unless it involves men with guns braying wildly against the west. This is demeaning in the extreme. For men like him, being an Arab is a collection of political beliefs- and if you don't feel that way you are not a true Arab. This is an idea that should revolt anyone's sensibilities. See, they are not "insignificant" because of numbers (though that is what he hopes for you to believe), and he completely discounts the incredible courage it took to stand out there- they are insignificant because they don't fit, they don't work, they don't jive with what he believes an Arab to think. They are just a few "bad apples," to use a term much in vogue around here.

He has no time for Lebanon except as to how it fits in the scheme of the greater Arab world (does this sound familiar? Against whom have we heard this accusation leveled?). Lebanon is just a pawn, and he doesn't want it to disturb his united front. Thus, when he says it is up for Lebanon to decide its future, he really means Lebanon better decide correctly. It is the bully mentality of the old-school Arab regimes and the intellectual class that protects them- a front being challenged by brave voices in the Arab world who have risen up through the muck to challenge this crapulent mentality.

The rest of the section is laughable, feverish conspiracy. The finest line is that America has fallen into a mistaken belief "no doubt sold to them by the Israelis." Anyone who says "no doubt" without any backup or caveats is a charlatan and a third-rate carnival huckster. But al-Haifi has to there, lest he break his contract and go three paragraphs without bringing up the Jewish threat.

He is right, though, that America cannot dictate to Lebanon what it should do. But he is wrong to think that a collective Arab will, as expressed by him and a few others with the same mind, should be able to do so. America needs to help Lebanon by keeping constant pressure on Syria, and let people do the rest. Lebanon can ignore the dismissive garbage being hurled their way by the old guard. The sometimes gorgeous, sometimes dingy streets and boulevards of Lebanon are the only streets in the Arab world that should matter to them. Lebanon, with Iraq, can go a long way in getting rid of that degrading and dehumanizing capital "S."

By the way, the name of al-Haifi's column cannot be improved upon: "Common Sense."

Hezbollah

There are times when they make it so easy. The New York Times headline on the pro-Syrian rallies taking place today in Lebanon talk of how they seem to dwarf the crowds that were anti-Syrian. This is most likely true, from everything I had read, and, as stated below, it would be foolish to imagine that everyone there had been coerced.

So, then: for whom should we root? Instinctively, you go with the anti-Syrian contingency, attractive youths and passionate older folk rallying against a looting, violent foreign occupation bolstered by a cruel security apparatus. But based on numbers at a rally, you maybe start to think the bulk of Lebanese are perhaps in favor of Syria.

Numbers are tricky, but it would be a tad disingenuous to say that large rallies in favor of freedom are important but rallies against it are not. So we have to kind of ignore numbers, because as inspiring as people power is, it has to be about more than just raw numbers. After all, Yanukoyvich, the corrupt Ukrainian "winner" of the first round, also had a lot of people supporting him.

The blogger Caveman in Beirut makes this distinction between the two rallies, starting with today's official rally.

"The demonstrations are huge, almost impressively so, but they are boring. They are boring because they are not about those who are attending. They are about the windbags speaking to them, and they are about the antiquated message being forced down their throats. The opposition protests seem to focus more on the participants than on the speakers - hence, the operative phrase "people power." Hezbollah and Syria cannot bring themselves to understand "people power" because they cannot control it, and the essence of both their societies, if anything, seems to be about control. So, boredom wins over violence - at least we can be happy about that. Either way, the people lose."

Now, again, that is a little unfair to the people at the rallies, many if not most of whom probably do care about and believe in what the speakers are saying. But there is a different dynamic. When theocratic militiamen and dull representatives of a foreign dinosaur government gather, their speeches, no matter how "fiery" always resort to the same tired rhetoric, sloppy lingo, and worn-out catchphrases. There is no real spark, because they are hanging onto the past. Antiquated message indeed.

Beside, and this is a crucial point: a democracy is not a majoritarian system. It simply cannot be. A democracy is about protecting rights, and Syrian occupation is entirely antithetical to that idea. Like I said at the top: sometimes they make it easy. In order to turn this dilemma into a no-brainer, I will turn to Hezbollah's leader, Shiek Hassan Nasrallah (as quoted in the Times).
"'You are wrong in your calculations in Lebanon. Lebanon will not be divided,' Mr. Nasrallah said, aiming his words at the Bush administration. 'Lebanon is not Somalia; Lebanon is not Ukraine; Lebanon is not Georgia,' he added."

What a wonderful way to put it; with such grace does he betray his intentions! I confess to not understanding the Somalia part- perhaps a call against US intervention? But that didn't work out very well. Perhaps the Sheik was just following the Rule of Three- things always sound better in three, and he wanted to avoid mentioning interventions in Bosnia or Kosovo where the US saved Muslim societies from the forces of ethnic and religious fascism.

But Ukraine and Georgia! What he meant to say is "we won't let Lebanon become Ukraine or Georgia, despite what people in this country want!" There is conspiratorial gibberish about the US forcing those revolutions, and there is no doubt that the US pulled for a winner and worked behind the scenes (Saaklishavi and Yuschenko both have western backgrounds). That perhaps is what the Sheik wanted the crowd to hear. But that isn't what he really meant.

What he meant is that he fully intended to use whatever it takes to keep the status quo alive in Lebanon, to suppress the joyous, spontaneous, genuine and peaceful calls for its demise. These are what we saw in those former Soviet states, and what is growing in Lebanon. It is real, no matter how many problems it faces.

For that reason, one has to root passionately for their success. An argument can be made for Lebanon being a key domino in the democratization of the Middle East, or a step toward the dismantling of the brutal, obstructionist Syrian government, or any of these. And they are all good arguments, and good reasons to cheer on the Lebanese oppositionists. But let us not get caught in strategy- people demanding their rights, standing up to a calcified and corrupt system, is a great good unto itself. Standing up to self-proclaimed holy warriors is a great good.

The people are risking a lot to be there. No, Lebanon is not Georgia nor is it Ukraine. But it can become a country like those. Struggling, in difficult straits, but with hope. The fear is that democracy can lead to destabilization- and perhaps the Sheik's grim warnings about Somalia will be seen as prescient. But let us not forget who is tearing Somalia apart- warlords, radical Islamic fighters, and cruel and corrupt politicians. Though the ranks of the opposition are surely dotted with crooks and opportunists and ten-percenters, it is the pro-Syrian rallies that are being organized by kin of the Somalia vandals. This one, then, is a no-brainer. The forces of stagnation are too dumb to even lie about what they want, and for that, we have to tip our hats and thank them for sparing us the energy.

Ahh...the IRA

We'll move (very briefly) to Ireland, my ancestral homeland, birthplace of Wilde, of Joyce, of Beckett, of Guiness- and, sadly, of Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams, as well as another bitter legacy of English partition politics (Palestine, the sub-Continent, Cyprus: the list is long and wearying). Through this, it is the home of the IRA, a dirty little terrorist group whose list of crimes extend far beyond the political. It was once an organization of fighters for freedom, but now they just fight their own little inter-nicene squabbles and their petty mafia wars (this paragraph would, by the way, get me banned from my favorite local pub, Fast Eddie's, but I feel fairly safe in posting it). The Economist has a story about their criminal ways this week. It is Premium Content on the web, but one can go to the library and peruse it. Good article.

Anyway, the reason they come up is because of the recent murder, by IRA members, of Robert McCartney in Belfast. The murder was nothing short of criminal, lacking even the veneer of political motivations (which would have been largely irrelevant anyway). The IRA leadership has come out strongly against this, as you might imagine. But they revealed themselves for the thuggish opportunists they are.

According to the BBC, IRA leadership met with McCartney's family and offered to have his killers shot. The family rejected it, cautioning that they prefered to go through, you know, the courts. THe IRA can't even pretend to want to operate within the confines of the law. This would be laughable, perhaps in the tradition of Wilde, were they not dead serious. A quote about this: "The offer to shoot those responsible for the murder of Robert McCartney confirms again that terrorism is the only stock and trade of Sinn Fein/IRA." This comes from the right Rev. Ian Paisley, Protestant leader and just as reprehensible a character as anyone the IRA has ever produced.

There is much talk about the cycle of violence in Ireland, but it is just as important to recognize the circle of stupidity that overwhelms the leadership. The Economist rated Ireland as the best place in the world to live earlier this year, but that is only the South. The North is getting better, but until this brand of leadership, and the leaders, finally, finally, dies, there isn't much chance of getting out of this depressing cycle.

Bussed-in Backlash

The backlash begins. In Lebanon, Syria and Hezbollah are both claiming to have organized a rally that brought huge throngs to Beirut to show their clamorous support for Syria. A few people on this site have posted comments that suggested this would happen. A few quick thoughts on this.

1- The story makes clear that Hezbollah security men are patrolling the sidelines, keeping people in order. And some of Across the Bayside's contacts in Lebanon report Hezbollah trying to force people to the rally. This is a pretty common tactic- using force to swell up the numbers. Milosevic, Kuchma, Saddam and other dictators and tyrants would always resort to this when popular protests seemed overwhelming. That said- it would be a mistake to think that the people in the pro-Establishment protests are were all led there by the barrel of a gun. There is obviously large support for Hezbollah in the Shi'ite community, who see the party as the guarantor of their status.

There is coercion and pressure in this rally, far more than in the popular anti-Establishment ones, but it is dangerous to dismiss it as mere puppetry by the Syrians. Balancing Lebanon's independence with the need to keep stability, which means making sure the Shi'ites aren't marginalized, is going to be the real trick of this revolution.

2- More on Hezbollah. Since "driving" the Israeli's out of Southern Lebanon during that hopeful first half of 2000, the Party of God has tried to gain more temporal powers, establishing themselves as a genuine political party, albeit with more machine guys and guys in hoods patrolling the streets. This is a big test for them. They don't want to be seen as recidivists, banging the drum for an atavistic and unpopular occupying force. In some ways the seeds of their dilemma were self-sown: it was after Israel's departure that many in Lebanon began to grumble about the other occupation. Hezbollah was a source of national pride when they ended Israel's occupation, but if they are seen now as the waterboys for Syria's ongoing humiliation of Lebanon, it is hard to see how they can come out ahead without regressing back into violence- an option no one wants to see played out.

3- Just a minor note: such a contrast in the pictures. This may sound petty and shallow and too, I don't know, American-centric, but I really don't care. Which rally is more pleasing to the eye? The pro-Syrian one, where women have their heads covered and are clad in shapeless black gowns, or the anti-Syrian ones where women where dressed in nice clothes, faces painted, riding on the shoulders of men, even dressing in a revealing manner? I think we all know the answer to this.

This isn't just because many Lebanese women happen to be beautiful. I am sure there were many babes at the Ukrainian rallies as well, though it was hard to tell because the temperature was (on average) 800 degrees below zero. Here the aesthetic and political merge. We can get into a long discussion about how some women choose to be veiled, or someone can bring up that obsession with material culture (Gucci bags, high heels) are also a form of bondage, or whatever. There might be cases to be made for either point, though I personally would tire of them quickly.

A picture that was in the BBC, and is now on the cover of the Weekly Standard shows a strikingly beautiful Lebanese girl, her nation's flag painted on each of her cheeks and carrying a flag in her other hand, brushing a long, loose lock of hair off her face. There is something deeply moving in the picture. There is a feeling of freedom there. This next connection is going to sound absurd, but bear with me, and don't forget the role that rock music had in Vaclev Havel's Velvet Revolution. Whenever I see that picture, I think of the McCoy's "Hang on Sloopy," which has what I consider to be the finest lyric in the history of rock (and I am exaggerating only slightly).

After the musical breakdown, a simple beat comes in, and the singer croons "Sloopy let your hair down girl, let in hang down on me." Ahh- such simple and transcendent beauty. See how the metaphorical ("relax, let your hair down, be happy") melts into a picture of physical intimacy- "let it hang down on me." It is a moment for the unnamed Lebanese girl- her hair falls down, a moment of unguarded emotion, trying to free herself from the stultifying impotence of Syrian occupation. It is only a moment, a snapshot, but revolutions are made of such moments. Her hair, her beauty, her strength, are part of the physical shock troops of Lebanese freedom. Bashar al-Asad, on the other hand, looks like an undertaker, stiff and dull, with the waxy complexion of a human bat (his father looks like the man who kept the undertaker in business). Such a contrast!

Is this shallow? I don't think so. An appreciation of desire, of conscious longing, of being able to express our wants through words and actions- this is what makes us human. This is what dictators try to suppress, especially theocratic thugs (both here and abroad). Because she lets herself be beautiful, be unguarded, be expressive, the unnamed Lebanese woman is to me the symbol of the movement.