Democracy . . . the Joke Is On You
Jihad El Khazen Al-Hayat - 26/09/05//
Before the end of last month, I read an article on the internet entitled “Shame on Mona,” and since I know many women by that name, I was intrigued. I then found out the article was on Mona Eltahawy. I know of her but don’t know her personally.
The article was published on the MENA News site, one of the most active sites concerned with Arab affairs and very prolific. It discussed an article by Mona in The Washington Post, entitled “Common Enemy in Gaza: Religious Zealotry.”
The article says that “Mona’s latest musings today do just what her promoters want of course - - a nice Westernized female Arab equating the Israeli settlers with the Palestinian resistance, lumped all together without nuance or distinction…”
After the internet article clearly explains the difference between the Hamas Movement’s resistance and the racist Israeli occupation, it continues, saying, “Shame, shame Mona.” Then it blames The Washington Post because “at such a crucial moment in history the major newspaper in the modern-day imperial capital lacks the honesty and decency to go to credible Palestinian writers and academics who could honestly put the whole situation in serious historical perspective.”
When I went back to Mona Eltahawy’s article in the Post, I found that it talked about religious extremism on both the Palestinian and Israeli sides, and how they feed each other, which is correct. However, I reject what she said afterward about Hamas; I always oppose suicide operations, but the terrorism practiced by the Israeli government on occupied land, and the biggest terrorist in the Middle East today is Ariel Sharon, while Hamas is a national liberation movement.
However, today’s column is not on Hamas, or Sharon, or Mona Eltahawy; it’s on the freedom of speech and each person’s write to express his or her opinion without being accused of treason.
I wasn’t born yesterday. I know there are people who engage in begging by using their pens; there are people who turn their backs on their family and country. There are the well-known types of writers who are unmasked, losing their credibility as well. The most dangerous of all these types are those who suck up to officials in the country in person, then write things that please the US administration, building relationships with the extremists of the latter group in the hopes of securing role if the project to “democratize” a country ends with the fall of its regime.
In the West, there are think tanks and newspapers that deal with Arab writers and academics because they know their opinions beforehand, and find them suitable to their ends. Perhaps Mona Eltahawy is invited to conferences and is a columnist because her “westernized” opinions are well-known.
However, I will assume that she is speaking based on her personal convictions, and if so, then she has the right to say what she thinks. I completely support this right of hers, even though I disagree with her opinions.
I don’t think people should be accused of this or that just because their opinions differ from ours, and we can’t dig into people’s minds and hearts – we can accept or reject an opinion and not go beyond this to make unsubstantiated accusations.
There are writers who have totally sold themselves out and become virtual foreign agents. One of them became exhausted quite early and the requirements of such “dignity” were too much for him; in the end his affiliation was revealed, whether in terms of his past or present. He only represents himself and his own views. I was in a television interview with one of them once. The person began his answer to each question with: “President George W Bush says” . . . until I lost it, and raised my voice, which rarely happens; he had become a US spokesman without being asked.
Meanwhile, there are leftist and right-wing writers because this is their personal conviction. Whether the readers are of the former or latter camp, they have the right to read and make their decision. But they shouldn’t impose their opinions on others and if unable to, accuse people of treason.
Of course, there are many Arabs who believe in democracy and practice it as if they’re from Scandinavia, despite their dark complexion. However, the usual model of Arab democracy is that one remains democratic when others agree with his opinion. If there is a dispute, democracy is forgotten and hostility immediately emerges.
We had a colleague of this latter type with us at the American University of Beirut; I attended a session between him with a group of students who were opposed to his group. In the end, he got up and slapped a colleague who had worn him down. We got angry at our friend for his behavior, and he responded, “What did I do? I tried to convince him through democratic means, but it didn’t work.”
Such is democracy. They say in the West that democracy is a system of rule in which jackasses elect foxes, which is better than our system, where wolves are elected. Lebanon remains the most democratic Arab country, although its system is the following: an opposition says that the government is corrupt, and the opposition brings down the government and takes its place, and says that the new opposition, which was formerly the government, is corrupt.
In any case, I prefer democracy, as socialism makes you poorer, dictatorship kills, but democracy is just a case of “the joke is on you.” Since I’ve lived in London longer than in Beirut, and my democracy is a western one, I welcome what Mona Eltahawy writes, disagree with her, welcome the right, the left and what’s in between, hope that accusations aren’t made haphazardly, and warn against the “single model” school of thought. My warning concerns the political aspirations of this model, and not what’s been written, since I’ve seen how the foreign agents and unbalanced types have taken power in Iraq, and in what way. There are people like them in every country, waiting to hop on the tanks of the occupation and ride to power.
http://www.j-khazen.blogspot.com
|
