Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Saturday, July 29, 2006

Islands in Arabia

Patrick McGreevy writes from Beirut:



' Islands in Arabia

Sitting on my balcony staring down at the Sea Gate of the American University of Beirut, and to the Mediterranean beyond, I am in no danger. The bombs are in the distance. The fighting is in the south. In Tel Aviv, Israeli citizens are staring at the same sea, in perfect safety. The missiles are landing in Haifa and farther north. And those following this war from living rooms around the world are in utter cocoons of safety. Most of us are separated from the violence that under girds our world and its order. But are we safe from fear? And does our fear make us wish for an order more and more strongly under girded?

AUB, like the State of Israel, is an implantation on the Levant from the West. Israel’s unilateral attempt to disengage and repair behind its enormous wall, as if it were an island in a sea of Arabs, reminds me of New Orleans dreaming of safety behind its levees. But New Orleans is an artificial island that is actually below sea level. Is Israel below sea level as well? AUB has evolved in a very different direction with regard to its surroundings. Might the Israelis learn something from its experience?

The American missionaries who first arrived in the eastern Mediterranean in 1820 were inspired by the revivalism of the Second Great Awakening. As historian Ussama Makdisi puts it, they sought “to evangelize the world in order to facilitate the Second Coming of Christ.” They also saw themselves as representatives of the most enlightened, most advanced, most modern of civilizations—the truth of their religion being the centerpiece of this superiority. They founded schools because Christians needed to read the Bible. They introduced western medical practices and what later became the standard Arabic script. When they founded Syrian Protestant College in 1866 (later AUB), they hoped to attract students by teaching them about medicine, agriculture and the arts. The entire enterprise was a failure in terms of its goal of gaining converts: there were hardly any. But their inadvertent philanthropy had a profound impact. Many Arabs embraced the modern notions they learned at the college. In 1882, a huge controversy erupted when the Presbyterian Board of Trustees in the US forbade the teaching of the theory of evolution, and eventually dismissed two promising Arab scientists who had dared embrace modernity more thoroughly than the university’s trustees. As years passed, the university’s mission became increasingly secular and its faculty and administration increasingly Arab. In 1920, it changed its name to the American University of Beirut. John Munro, who has written a history of the university, suggests that the word “of” in its name became more and more representative of reality. The university played an important role in the revival of Arabic literature and Arab nationalism. Partly because of AUB, most Arabs held favorable views of the US, at least until the 1967 War. Even during the horrors of Lebanon’s long Civil War, all sides spared the AUB campus and hospital. The University has walls and gates, but its guards do not carry guns. Its walls serve to designate it as a particular place where students from all of the region’s religions and ethnic groups can openly debate and pursue knowledge. As AUB student Randy Nahle put it in his prize-winning Founders’ Day essay in 2004, the university provided “an open forum where Occidental and Oriental streams of thought could meet and debate and reshape each other.” When AUB’s Center for American Studies and Research that I direct decided to offer a course called “The Holocaust in American Literature and Culture” last semester, we were aware that, though our decision was not without controversy, AUB was a free and open space where even this topic could be approached in a scholarly way. Instead of remaining an isolated island, AUB has continued to evolve. If it is an American institution, it is not because it slavishly serves the agenda of any presidential administration, but because it openly embraces ideals that have motivated the most admired of US achievements.

Can Israel evolve and become a country “of” its region rather than an island “in” it? A country where people of all religions have absolute equality? A country with “liberty and justice for all”? If so, both Israel and its neighbors have a great deal to gain.

In the Levant, endless empires have come and gone. Living here naturally turns one’s mind to the long view. In July of 2006, the American University of Beirut may seem vulnerable and Israel invincible, which is more likely to exist in 500 years? Perhaps now is a time to think about these most basic issues. What kind of island is likely to persist: one with open gates, or one with high walls? One that is a meeting place of cultures, or one that strives for cultural purity?

Patrick McGreevy ''

8 Comments:

At 1:14 PM, Blogger Steve Muhlberger said...

I on the other hand, found this right to the point:

"n July of 2006, the American University of Beirut may seem vulnerable and Israel invincible, which is more likely to exist in 500 years?"

 
At 1:17 PM, Blogger James-Speaks said...

"In the Levant, endless empires have come and gone. Living here naturally turns one’s mind to the long view. In July of 2006, the American University of Beirut may seem vulnerable and Israel invincible, which is more likely to exist in 500 years? Perhaps now is a time to think about these most basic issues.

What kind of island is likely to persist: one with open gates, or one with high walls? One that is a meeting place of cultures, or one that strives for cultural purity?"


Which came out on top, Apple or Microsoft? The US or the USSR?

Why do we allow a racist ideology (Likud) to determine our future?

I see a fundamental problem with Israel. Fundamental here means basic, of composing a foundation, forming a principle which determnes all future decisions.

The fundamental problem with Israel is its delenda est goyim approach to all conflict. Never does Israel consider it has wronged the other party.

We see this attitude frequently in individuals. They go by the label personality disorder. The fault is always external, never internal.

Consequently, Israel never learns from its mistakes. Past errors (the atrocities in Lebanon, the atrocities in Jenin, the atrocities in Fallujah!) never render the insight necessary to allow smarter future behavior.

We see this flaw in individuals. They go by the name of sociopath.

What happens to such individuals? Sometimes they succeed. George Walker Bush is President of the United States, but only because of his supporters. I think Poppy helped.

What about others? Often, they succeed as well, but only until circumstances catch up with them. Ken Lay, ultimately a loser. Now a dead loser.

Israel is like Bush. Israel's "Poppy" is the United States of America.

The United States of America under Bush is like Ken Lay in that time before Enron imploded.

Enron is a good analogy; after some greed-based, poor decision making, while better options were still available, Enron entered a period where only bad options were available. Only bad options, which had led either to catastrophes in the short-term, or slightly less bad options, which led to catastrophes in the slight less short-term, were available.

After a period of bad, Douglas-Feith like, decision making, a bad future was guaranteed.

The US is now like Enron in the Middle East. Strangely, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz and, what the heck, Jonah Goldberg have a lot to do with that, but unlike Enron CEO/CFO,COO types, they do not have exposure to the consequences. Damn!

The US is now like Enron in the Middle East. The US Armed Forces are like all those Enron shareholders who were told to hold their stock. The US citizenry is like California, which suffered power outages so bad they elected a theatrical image to be governor.

There are no longer any good choices to be made in the Middle East. And yet, we send Conduhleezza Rice to negotiate with Klaus von Olmert. Why? What does she expect to gain from this trip except entries into her timesheet? A bit of authentic Jordan River Holy Water?

We have no good options in the MidEast. Any decision made now will have an unacceptable outcome. This is because we employed unacceptable, racist-based principles at the outset to please our Likud/Israeli masters. It is also because certain Arab and non-Arab Muslims have already accepted the downside of their circumstances and have been engaged in reality based planning for quite some time now. It is because these reality based Arab and non-Arab Muslims have outplayed us on our own chess board.

Perhaps we could use our vast and powerful entertainment industry, television, film and news, to introduce to the American people the idea that all people are created equal before the creator (John Shelby Spong definition at use here), and we intend to return to our founding principles and drag Israel, whatever is left after the post-Likudnik Exodus, kicking and screaming, scratching, biting, crying, moaning, sobbing and gnashing of teething, accusing of anti-semitisming etc. etc. barf barf woof woof, with us, back to the League of Humanity.

My apologies for that (Bob) Dylanesque excess just now. Time to mow the lawn.

About that wall:
Israel's Apartheid wall exists for no purpose other than to steal land from the indengenous Arabs who live there. The idea behind the wall is to blame the Arabs for being Arabs. Israel can either continue to deny reality and to quietly murder Arabs, or Israel can admit its failures and return the land. Either course of action has bad consequences.

Israel has no good options because Israel builds their wall (physical) and Israel builds their psychological defenses (The Light unto Nations, ergo delenda est goyim).

The US is out of good options because we bought into Israel's fantasy and then paid for it with the dollar (the concept), diplomatic prestige and our Constitution.

 
At 2:13 PM, Blogger Matt MacLean said...

"Even during the horrors of Lebanon’s long Civil War, all sides spared the AUB campus and hospital."

Regardless of how much one agrees with the rest of the article, this is one of those glaring errors that call into question the author's credibility. How can a serious student of Lebanese history forget the assassination of AUB President Malcolm Kerr in 1984?

 
At 2:40 PM, Blogger eurofrank said...

Dear Professor Cole

Thanks you for posting this great piece of writing.

The man is brave. The US embassy orderered all but essentials out this morning.

His point about people behind walls is well made. I sat in the immensely strong castle at Kerak and read the story of its fall to Salah al Din last summer.

I suspect there is a statute of limitations on guilt, and that the Shoah might soon cease to be a carte blanche for misbehaviour.

That is the kind of moment you find out how much you need friends.

 
At 5:17 PM, Blogger Chris said...

The article is certainly right in one regard - the key problem is the attitude of the Israeli public. Their collective view is that no country or group not friendly to Israel may hold offensive weapons like missiles or rockets that COULD threaten Israel. US neo-con's of course heartily express that view as well.

For example Saddam had long-range missiles and Scuds that COULD threaten Israel, so US neo-cons manufactured evidence of Iraqi WMD's to get Bush to attack Iraq. However now Syria apparently has Russian-made missiles that are much more powerful than anything Iran has provided to Hezbollah. Iran is of course alleged working on nuclear weapons.

However it is clearly not in the best interest of the US for Israel to attack Syria and eventually Iran because they COULD threaten Israel. It was not even in the best interest of the US for Israel to attack Hezbollah and Lebanon to supposedly "destroy" Hezbollah's missiles and rockets. It is therefore obvious that the attitudes of Israeli public are not in the best interest of the US.

THEREFORE the US Congress should immediately halt all Israel military or economic aid, or loans, that could be used for military offensive purposes. Also all military sales to Israel should be cash only. The US Congress should also appropriate substantial funds to help re-build Lebanon, although obviously the damage done by Israel's attack on Hezbollah and Lebanon can never be fully repaired.

 
At 5:22 PM, Blogger Michael Murry said...

Welcome to Castle "Green Zone" Israel. Every time I see pictures of the high blast walls surrounding Baghdad's besieged "Green Zone" and Israel's big new, American-taxpayer-subsidized wall grabbing off even more occupied Palestinian land, I think of those crumbling, decaying Crusader castle's that still dot the landscape of the Levant eight hundred years after their initial construction by invading European religious zealots.

It never ceases to amaze me how people who call themselves "Americans" -- people who have a Constitution that absolutely prohibits any collusion whatsoever between religion and the state -- can blindly support a racist Apartheid regime like Israel that seeks to construct itself precisely and completely on just such an anachronistic collusion. Indeed, the ahistoric attempt to create a nation/state in modern times based on the presupposition of a superior race and religion makes an ironic, gruesome mockery of not just Jewish Israel but Islamic Iran and Fundamentalist Christian America as well.

A world awash in nuclear weapons cannot afford territorial, tribal "governments" seeking to establish themselves on the basis of primitive, two-thousand-year-old monotheistic (my-way-or-the-highway) anthropomorphic cults. If Israel, Iran, or America -- just to take three of the most currently insane examples -- cannot ditch their respective belligerent animisms in favor of scientific democratic secularism with equal rights and responsibilities for all citizens then only their crumbling, decaying "Green Zone" castle walls -- in Baghdad, through the West Bank, and along the Rio Grande -- will remain in a century or two to mark their violent transient passage.

 
At 6:32 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

I wonder if the Arabs were given to "blow up discotheques or bomb apartment buildings" before Israel put up its walls on Palestinian lands...

It seems rather quaint how such flip comments come from a point of view wherein history started yesterday... What exactly did Israel do to endear itself to occupied Palestinian in West Bank and Gaza for twenty years (1967-1987) BEFORE Hamas started its armed campaign? What did Israel do to include Palestinian and larger Arab regional aspirations for the 20 years BEFORE 1967?

Oh yes, it colluded with France and Britain, the despised former rulers of the Middle East, to invade Egypt and seize the Suez Canal... What suicide bombings prompted that marvelous adventure?

Israel has always been a secular Jewish state, not a secular state that awards equal rights to all its citizens or residents… It has sought to remain an armed garrison imposed upon the Arab world, and in that it is providing nothing of the sort of progressive and mutually beneficial relations fostered by AUB.

 
At 11:59 PM, Blogger Jaraparilla said...

Might be timely to post this link to a previous Juan Cole post, reminding us that Bin Laden said he first conceived the idea of attacking US skyscrapers when the Israelis destroyed the "towers" of Beirut in 1982.

Also, one of the 9/11 hijackers, Ziad Jarrah, was a Lebanese Sunni who was 8 when the Israelis invaded his country, killing 18,000.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home