THE MIDDLE EAST MEDIA RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Special Dispatch Series - No. 1618
June 12, 2007 No.1618
(Hat tip: Cynic)
Liberal Egyptian Author Kamal Gabriel on the Discourse of Violence in the Middle East
In a May 23, 2007 article titled “We Are Sowing Thorns” on the Elaph website, Egyptian liberal author Kamal Gabriel [1] decried what he termed “the psychology and the culture of violence and hatred” in the Palestinian territories and in the Middle East in general. He wrote that those who had encouraged this phenomenon had intended to use it against Israel and the West, but that once it took root it became impossible to control, and has led to domestic infighting in the Gaza Strip and in Iraq.
The following are excerpts: [2]
“The All-Against-All Infighting… [Has] Become the Mental and Psychological Makeup of the Palestinian People”
“What is going on now in the Gaza Strip, since Israel withdrew from it, is a clear example that exposes the faults of what we have done. The domestic infighting among brothers of the same homeland, wretched from the occupation and wretched from the yielding of their culture, is too great and too dangerous to be [just] the result of differences of opinion among the factions, or the absence of a strong central government, or even of what they call the weapons anarchy.
“It is definitely all of this. But the most dangerous thing about this, and that which the bilateral meetings between the sides, or meetings under the auspices of a third party… or even the folkloric Arab League summits have been unable to overcome, is that the all-against-all infighting and its basic code have become the mental and psychological makeup of the Palestinian people, as a natural result of the predominant discourse of hostility and incitement. [This discourse] has been adopted by Palestinians of all persuasions and in all the factions - religious, pan-Arab revolutionary, and leftist. It is a discourse whose aim was sowing hatred, having recourse to violence, and enjoying spilling blood.
“At first it was directed against the so-called the Israeli enemy, and it uprooted any possibility of or tendency towards rational mutual comprehension or of recourse to discussion, dialogue, and negotiation - what is known as peaceful resolution - and it raised the slogan of ‘clinging to the choice of resistance.’ But one clings to goals, not methods, and resistance (meaning armed resistance) cannot, psychologically and culturally, be the only choice for peoples to achieve their goals, without there being any alternative…
“Perhaps this is [an example of] the only [psychological] state in which the goal and the means are seen to become united in the choice of violence. This occurs when someone is overcome with the spirit of vengeance…
“The culture and psychology of violence has been able to take possession of the Palestinian people for two reasons. The first is that the discourse of violence had already managed to be the only one on the scene, which was emptied of any counter-discourse when the rational thinkers fled or were forced to keep out of sight - [either] out of desperation or in order to preserve the wellbeing of themselves and their families amidst the vast flood of feelings of violence that began to sweep away everything in its path.
“The second reason is that the predominant discourse of violence, most of which was formed by the religious discourse, was not the discourse of a means that attempts to achieve a goal - for instance, the liberation of the homeland - but rather was a discourse of violence and sacred killing in the name of jihad, which the literature of violence considered to be a duty that had been neglected and which needed to be carried out by every believer. [This was written,] for instance, in ‘Abd Al-Salam Farag’s book The Neglected Duty, which has been an authoritative source for the jurisprudence of jihad since the 1970s.”
“The Hatred was Transformed from Hatred of Zionism to Hatred of Jews, the Sons Of Apes and Pigs”
“This was translated into political language in the slogan that the Arab-Israeli struggle is an existential struggle, and not a struggle over borders, and its implementation in practice was the so-called martyrdom-seeking operations for killing Israeli civilians. The hatred was transformed from hatred of Zionism to hatred of Jews, the sons of apes and pigs.
“Perhaps no one has noticed - for where are we to find someone to notice, in the absence of reason and rationality? - that when you take an individual or a group away from the culture of using reason and peaceful dialogue, and replace it with the culture of violence and of killing those who are different, you cannot then afterwards control it and direct it to be used against one single side.
“This is what we said: It starts with the Zionist enemy who is occupying the Holy Land, and then the violence and the hatred spread dangerously, like fire, in the psyche of the one over which they have gained mastery. They consume everything around them - and the first thing they consume is the light of reason. The individual loses his natural balance, which is based on the balance between peaceful tendencies [that encourage] peace, and angry tendencies that incite to violence…
“Thus we observed, and gave our blessing to, the conflagrations of violence and hatred, and they extended from [being aimed at] the Zionist enemy to [being aimed at] anyone who befriended it or helped it - even if they helped us as well, and even if it was someone on whom we depended for medicine, food, and everything.
“Our violence and hatred extended to America, England, and the other Western countries, and there is a BBC journalist who is still a prisoner of our jihad-fighting organizations…”
“The Natural Consequence of… the Culture and Psychology of Violence… is the Fraternal Violence We See [Today]”
“The natural consequence of the rule of the culture and psychology of violence and its expansion is the fraternal violence we see [today], which has defied and will [continue to] defy all attempts to contain it - [violence among brothers] whom we all agree are miserable by any standard.
“The state of the Palestinian territories is perhaps the most critical in this respect… but we can give similar examples from all corners of what is called the greater Middle East - among them what is happening in Iraq among the Sunnis, the Shi’ites, and the Ba’thists as a result of the influence of the Ba’thist-Saddamist discourse…
“There are thousands of other examples, which seem at first sight less important and less acute in their level of violence, but that we assess as more serious because they indicate the expansion of the culture and psychology of violence and the rejection of discussion… This is among regular people in their daily lives…
“Violence naturally exists at all times and in every place. But we are in the midst of a striking growth in violence, not to say an increase at a catastrophic rate. In my estimation, this is the fruit that we are harvesting because we sowed thorns for over half a century.
“Thus, the crisis in the region is not the amount of disagreements in points of view or differences in interests [between ourselves] and our neighbors or the world. In both of these [cases], reason and dialogue can find solutions, whether comprehensive or partial, that are completely satisfactory, acceptable, or at least can be borne.
“Rather, the true crisis in the region is that the peoples of the region need psychological and cultural reeducation - which must necessarily be preceded by halting the discourse of violence, incitement, and hatred, in all its colors and classifications.
“But can this come about when the fires of hatred have already broken out [everywhere]?”
[1] See also MEMRI TV Clip No. 641, “Egyptian Liberal Kamal Gabriel…,” April 5, 2005, http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=641.
[2] www.elaph.com, May 23, 2007.
I wonder what the indicators are, if any, that this type of critical and self-critical thinking is gaining traction in the M.E.
For me, and regardless as to whether it’s counter-intuitive or not for others, both the Gaza and Iraq situations serve to demonstrate two critical aspects of the ME and global strategic situation, 1) Israel is part and parcel of the global war, the GWOT or war on Islamism and Jihadism or however it might be characterized. It no doubt has some of its own sui generis qualities, but it is fundamentally part and parcel of the broader conflict nonetheless, in part serving as a microcosm of things to come if the west fails to wake up sufficiently and 2) Iraq, despite mistakes and setbacks and profound human tragedies and sorrow that is all too real, was and remains a warranted effort.
Wishful thinking and self-deluded analyses that fail to grapple with the basics will provide short-term relief at best, followed by longer-term and more deeply seated problems.
Comment by Michael B — June 15, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
what you’ve got is 1938 all over again.
the uniqueness of the status of the jews in the world’s psyche tends to obscure the reality: if just israel weren’t there, we’d all be ok.
Comment by fp\http://fallofknowledgeandreason.blogspot.com/ — June 15, 2007 @ 7:24 pm
I think there’s plenty of self-criticism in certain areas of Arab culture. There are Syrian, Lebanese, Egyptian, Saudi, Iraqi reformers. The Emir of Qatar does business with Israel and defies people to criticize him for it. If you read the Middle Eastern blogs, even during the war with Lebanon people were talking to each other: there’s self-awareness and a grasp of the larger world.
But it seems limited (so far) to the elites, often educated here. Of course we miss a great deal by not being Arabic speakers but even reading the English language Arab dailies there’s a tendency to pass the buck.
Among Palestinians self-criticism is exceedingly rare from what I can tell, but there was this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/29/world/middleeast/29israel.html?ex=1314504000&en=d8e29a0173d61dee&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
This statement, from a Hamas spokesman, is amazing:
“Gaza is suffering under the yoke of anarchy and the swords of thugs,” Ghazi Hamad, a former Hamas newspaper editor and the spokesman for the current Hamas government, wrote in an article published Sunday in Al Ayyam, the Palestinian newspaper.
After so much optimism when Israelis pulled out of Gaza a year ago, he wrote, “life became a nightmare and an intolerable burden.”
If this has surfaced you can imagine that other Palestinians also see.
But it’s probably a relative handful and they don’t have the guns.
Still.
But considering the damage that’s already been done - the incitement - what will it take to undo it?
Comment by Sophia — June 16, 2007 @ 12:47 am
“Gaza is suffering under the yoke of anarchy and the swords of thugs,” Ghazi Hamad, a former Hamas newspaper editor and the spokesman for the current Hamas government, ..
The problem is that many have forgotten the context of the situation and appear shocked at what is taking place.
Now if only some people in power had paid more attention:
An overpowering reality
… then the American and Israeli delegations meet for breakfast.
Sharon begins by identifying with the suffering of the Palestinians, and speaks of the great opportunity that will befall them in Gaza after the Israeli withdrawal. Rice’s ears perk up; it’s not every day that you hear Sharon displaying such empathy. “There are only two problems,” says Sharon, turning his gaze to his left. “Dubi, how do you say ‘bloodthirsty’ in English?” Sharon’s adviser Dov Weissglas chokes on his avocado salad as an embarrassed silence fills the room. U.S. Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams translates the term. Now it’s Rice’s turn to choke on her salad. “There are only two problems,” repeats Sharon. “They’re bloodthirsty and treacherous.”
“All of them?” asks Rice.
“Yes,” the prime minister responds. “All of them.”
Comment by Cynic — June 16, 2007 @ 7:04 am
Ooops,
Before Eliyahu notices;
I left out the / to close the emphasis and the second paragraph was also italicised.
Comment by Cynic — June 16, 2007 @ 7:08 am
I’m aware there is self-criticism and self-awareness in at leasst some quarters, but when I referred to “traction” I was thinking of political traction in a form that was viable and not merely nascent or embryonic but likely to be stillbirthed. (What we see in Gaza, for example, is even worse, it reflects a “traction” in the wrong direction; Fatah doesn’t represent much, but Hamas, who did win in the election, is even worse since it is more in line with Islamicist praxis and ideology.)
————————–
And it might be noted that when Sharon referred to “bloodthirsty,” he wasn’t engaging in hyperbole, he was being evenhanded and descriptive. He was referring to a deepseated and primary cultural or socio-cultural problem, not merely the fact that all individuals, qua individuals, have at least a latent capacity for great moral failure, for sin, or however one cares to characterize it.
Comment by Michael B — June 16, 2007 @ 8:35 am