Loving Peace

The United States of America – the world’s own dirty Harry – announced a peace conference that would be held in autumn. The hopes are not high, however, diplomacy seems to be alert and in preparation for a possible achievement. Of course this achievement will not be peace in the Middle East; this is no longer a strategic goal for the big players.

Ever since the conference was announced the judges are preoccupied in determining who is with peace, and who is blocking the course of peace. Of course Syria and Iran are the main suspects in the “against peace” case, while Israel is the peace loving one.

I find it hard for a human being blessed with a minimum of brain capacities not to see the paradox and the hypocrisy in the Western stance towards Israel, not to mention the blatantly arrogant Israeli one.

Since this peace conference had been announced Israel has committed every crime, gesture, and utterance that blocks any eventuality of peace in the Middle East. To cite just a few of these crimes and assaults we can start with the most obvious:

Israel did an air-raid against a Syrian target, regardless of the target this is an illicit act, that has no possible justification (the ridiculous accusation that the target was a nuclear facility the North Koreans are building is far fetched, especially that there was no radioactive contamination in the aftermath – any excuse, any, does not justify the attack). Israel declared that it will not discuss the Golan Heights in the peace conference, in other words it does not want to discuss peace with Syria (even though Syria is supposed to be the “other” party in any peace agreement), but of course Syria is to blame (for whatever reason, but then again who needs reasons, Syria is Arab so it is wrong). Yesterday Israel confiscated large areas of Palestinian land (the excuse is that it is for “military reasons”, of course “military” cannot explain its reasons because then it becomes “military secrets” – see the news about the American court’s refusal of dealing with the case of a man who was kidnapped in Europe, sent to a secret American prison in Afghanistan, tortured, held captive for more than 5 months, and then released because it turned out it was a mistake. The man sued the US government but the case was refused in the US because it might reveal State secrets about secret prisons, and therefore might affect national security. How does concealing a crime (secret prisons and torture) becomes a licit way to fight another – unlawfully I might add – will remain a mystery for me.). This confiscation divides the West Bank into two parts (so now the Palestine of the future will not consist of two divided parts – Gaza and the West Bank – but of three, maybe now Fateh and Hamas will have to find a third party to take over the third part, and thus form a third “legitimate” government). Israel, who accuses Palestinians and “non-moderate” Arabs of not respecting their commitments, had made a commitment to the US in 2005 that this project of large-scale settlements in the West Bank will be cancelled.

Nonetheless, and despite all these “unimportant” actions, Israel is the peace loving country in the Middle East, the “only democracy” in the Middle East (of course a racist democracy where the State is basically an army without uniform, building an Apartheid, killing civilians, and having the largest prison in the world in Gaza, but these are also unimportant details), and the innocent victim that is unable to defend itself because of aggressive neighbors such as Syria.

The problem is that saying Syria is worse is simply irrelevant.

Al-Jozo, a philosopher of the 21st century

The Mufti of Mount Lebanon, Sheikh Mohammad Ali al-Jozo presented a philosophical and analytical breakthrough. This man who is known for insightful analysis and shrewd vision has once again presented a challenge to modern political philosophy. Needless to say that the previous words are in the domain of irony if not sarcasm, however, when a religious authority steps on every logical foundation and allows itself to become a dysfunctional tool of regression, one no longer knows whether to laugh or to drawn in tears.

A translation of al-Jozo’s propositions could be the following: “referendums are a Syrian tradition that the regime uses in order to falsify the people’s will in choosing the President where there is no freedom and no democracy and no human dignity. (…) Referendum is a word that expresses the confiscation of the people’s will to choose the ruler they want, this is why we would hate it if this word would be used in Lebanon, for the sake of preserving the dignity of the Lebanese individual and his freedom. (…) The real allies of the United States are the Syrian and Iranian regimes, because Syria hasn’t shot a single bullet against Israel since it occupied the Golan, and Iran hasn’t fought a single war in defense of the Palestinian people. (…) If Syria did not commit the crimes in Lebanon then it is its allies in Lebanon who did.”

These fragments can certainly become basic materials for the study of argumentation. Teachers might find great uses of such a strategy of argumentation if not for its complete contradiction and irrelevance then for its ridiculous pretence of making sense. However, there is another deeper aspect to al-Jozo’s propositions, one that reflects an intellectual and epistemological current that is gaining ground around the world.

Let us start with the first theme: referendum. It is obvious that the Mufti (who, in Islam, is supposed to have analytical and hermeneutic skills that enable him to read and interpret Koranic texts) has no familiarity with political terms. In fact I would even say that he is unable to make the distinction between the notion of referendum in politics, and the actual use of it in specific time and place. When one says that “referendum is a word that expresses the confiscation of the people’s will to choose” one is defining referendum in exactly its opposite meaning. This alone should send the respectable mufti back to mufti school with emphasis on the study of the political structure in Islam but also republican systems. In fact if anything referendum is what empowers people and enables them, and them alone, to choose. In Lebanon however, the communitarian structure, or one should assign to it its real name, the racist structure, does not recognize people as having equal representation rights. To put it more lucidly, the right of the community is more important than the right of the individual. In this sense people must not have equal rights because there are more Shiites than there are Sunnis, and there are more Muslims than there are Christians, and since the individual is a priori seen as representing his/her community’s interests and not his/her own or his/her national interests, elections are seen as a flaw in the system and not as the source of power. In other words, elections are what unfortunately has to be formally held but essentially neutralized. The role of an election law in Lebanon is paradoxically not to assure the equal representation of people but exactly the opposite. A good electoral law is the one who prevents the equal representation of all people regardless of communities and preserves the conflicting interests of these communities. To put it more bluntly, electoral laws in Lebanon have the role to postpone – without preventing – civil wars, or organize them in an economically profitable pattern that can satisfy the interests of the ruling class in the prevalent community or communities. Here, one wonders about the human dignity and freedom of choice al-Jozo is talking about, and one wonders even more about the interests this cleric seeks to satisfy, since by definition the interest of the clerics in Lebanon are conflicting with those of the individual. In this sense the designation “people” refers less to the common people in Lebanon and more to the religious class al-Jozo belongs to.

The second proposition is “The real allies of the United States are the Syrian and Iranian regimes, because Syria hasn’t shot a single bullet against Israel since it occupied the Golan, and Iran hasn’t fought a single war in defense of the Palestinian people.” This insightful geopolitical analysis has in fact foundations which might surprise some. It could be said for instance that during the Cold War the United States and the Soviet Union were allies even though the term War designates animosities between the two opposing blocks. However, this statement expresses the mutual benefits that both conflicting parties reaped from this Cold War. In other words, both the United States and the Soviet Union depended on their opposing force in their political, economical and military expansion. But a common interest does not automatically engender alliance; in fact it is very common for opponents to have a common interest without being close to forming an alliance. Al-Jozo’s simplistic and naïve (not to judge the underlying reasons for this accusation at this point) geopolitical analysis reflects the real meaning and implications of this statement. Al-Jozo’s function as a Muslim cleric imposes on him some rhetorical presumptions. The fact that he is addressing Muslims for whom the United States and Israel are the intrinsic image of the Other, means that he must compete in his hostility towards this other with Syria and Iran who represent a different strategy of resistance (if al-Jozo’s strategy can qualify as resistance). Accusing the two countries which have assumed the role of open confrontation – at least political one – with Israel and the US of being in fact their allies is a weak attempt to show himself as the real force of resistance against these structural enemies. This discourse of fake resistance, or as Marx calls it “false consciousness”, is the cornerstone of an old strategy of the traditionalist Arab regimes namely what is now called the “moderates” (this is not a strategy the Arab regimes have a monopoly on, in fact many post-colonial regimes notably in Latin America used the same strategy towards the US). The starting point of this strategy is a complete subordination to the dominant power, in this case the US. The aim is the preservation of regimes that are unable to provide a real resistance or liberation from neither the neo-colonial domination nor a real development for their societies and economies. This aspect of the Arab relations to the dominant West is not recent; in fact it exists at least since the first post-colonial governments when the opposition between the revolutionary states (who overthrew their collaborationist and incompetent governments) and the traditionalist ones were fervent at the times of Abdel Nasser. The aim of these regimes, notably Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Iraq (until the revolution), was to oppose any force of liberation that might put in danger the interest of the ruling classes in their respective countries. In this sense if the choice is between preserving a limited power over their country that comes only with the country’s subjugation to the colonial powers, the plundering of its resources, and the blockage of its development on one hand, and a revolutionary liberation movement that can liberate these countries from foreign domination but also from local regimes on the other, then the choice was the preservation of the regimes on the expense of liberation. The same dynamics are present now. It is inconceivable to look at Saudi Arabia for instance as a force of resistance or liberation, or Jordan, or nowadays Egypt. If anything these are the locust of colonial hegemony in the Middle East and are an intrinsic and fundamental part of the structure of colonial domination along with Israel and other less influential countries. A strategic analysis that takes in consideration not only common interest but correlating strategies, show that the undeclared allies of Israel and (declared allies of) the US are the “moderate” Arab countries, namely Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait, and the Arab Emirates. Al-Jozo is of course part of this whole discourse of “moderation” whose main strategy is the “false consciousness” of being the enemy of Israel while in fact being agents of the colonizer.

Finally, al-Jozo’s third proposition, “if Syria did not commit the crimes in Lebanon then it is its allies in Lebanon who did”, is a relevant example of what post-modern justice is about. Like the concept of preventive warfare, preventive judgment takes place within the system of values which surpasses the fundamental axiom of modern judicial discourse: one is innocent until proven guilty. Needless to say, this undermines the whole structure of justice, regardless of one’s convictions and opinions. The Bush doctrine of preventive war found a great success within part of the Lebanese society, namely those, like al-Jozo, who are certain of Syria’s responsibility of the assassinations in Lebanon. The problem is not the conviction itself but the way it imposes itself as absolute truth and rejects any other conviction and any possibility of rational discussion. There is no need for logical discussion (despite the fact that material evidence do not exist), in fact there is an aggressive refusal of any form of discussion in a puritan, dogmatic manner; any other opinion is a participation in the crime and an act of blasphemy. This structure whereas power equals justice disregards all the foundations of freedom of speech and thought. One can no longer have a different opinion; the only possible “freedom” is the freedom to agree with the more powerful. Al-Jozo’s certainty does not even need to be accompanied with a logical analysis; the fact that he believes this is true is enough for this to be true. Truth is no longer a logical examination, a debatable notion that is never absolute; truth is a dogmatic, religious belief and any disagreement with this Truth is a blasphemous act that must be punished. The very act of skepticism which was at the basis of philosophical investigation is no longer tolerated. The paradox is that this dogmatism is part of the bigger discourse that promotes democracy, human rights, and freedom while at the same time destroying their theoretical and epistemological foundations. Al-Jozo in this perspective can be assimilated to the new discourse of values spreading all over the globe; he is a philosopher of the 21st century revolution of democratic fanaticism.

Power and ethics

How can one overcome the logical dilemma in the relation between power and the values it carries? Does power have the legitimacy to change rules, to twist logic, and to neglect consistency? If it does, isn’t it a “regression” towards the law of the jungle; towards anarchy?
Some people, especially in the “Democratic West” have the general tendency to avoid such ethical questions, or at least ask them from a different viewpoint. Such questions threaten their moral grounds and the very foundations of their society’s moral supremacy. In other words such questions reveal the real beneath the beautifully presented illusion of freedom and human rights. Once the cover is gone one cannot but observe the means by which this seemingly moral authority is exercised: force and domination.
There are very few, if any, fundamental differences between the way human societies functioned during the “pre-modern” times and the way they do in the present. In other words domination, power, force, and violence constantly shape the way people and societies interact. If anything, what changes is merely the way this force is exercised (not as in with violence or without; force and authority are always violent) and the moral grounds on which a discourse of power presents itself, the constituents which makes it discourse and not simply force.
Some of those who do believe in the goodness of man, and Liberal Democracy (as it is applied in the West) as the achievement of human societies throughout the ages (of course human societies here refer to Europe and its ramifications, as the monopoly of Justice, History, Science, and Evolution), often fall into denial when observing the atrocities this system had to commit in order to bring peace and freedom to their quarters. In other words they refuse to look at the “non-democratic” countries as being of their own making, as the cornerstones, the masterpieces of Human Rights and Democracy in the “West”. This is no accusation of corruption to leaders, or absolute evil to people and civilization, or injustice committed by misleading or mislead men in power; it simply is the natural course of things; it is an economical, strategic, and epistemological need.

What We need is a spectacle. Herds of uncivilized people screaming for freedom and democracy (in the way We understand them) as if these were the basis of their human nature, people who are summoning Our assistance to fulfill their dream of finally achieving the status of real men and women, of “westernized” primitives. This is the image needed to sustain the discourse of supremacy, to sustain Our colonial superiority. What the “West” expects from the “Iranian society” is this “normal”, “natural”, but “suppressed” outburst of real emotions when “all Iranians” will be Free to express their desire for a western way of life, their desire to become like Us. The implicit message of the Western discourse about Iran is that if Iranians were human beings (since the anti-racist political correctness imposes that they are) they must act like human beings, they must act like Us. If they were left to their real selves women would tear off their chadors, men would discover the wonders of homosexuality, and everyone will look towards the West with amazement and submission.
The underlying universalism of Human Rights and Liberal Democracy discourse denies any representation of Freedom and Rights which is different than its own representation of these concepts. Its overt tolerance for “multiculturalism” and “diversity” fundamentally denies this right to be different. Difference must be within the set values, it must be different within the set barriers of conformity to what we understand as “Good”. Within this framework anything that does not conform to these values becomes Evil, it becomes abnormal, an intrinsic and absolute otherness so perverse that it drowns itself consciously in the abyss of absolute destruction. This is the structural role of the image of the terrorist. The terrorist is not a “normal” human being subjected to similar passions, emotions, and hopes. The terrorist is a structurally different being: he represents the very otherness of Us. His violence must be gratuitous and inherent because it is directed to Us. His words must be silenced because he accuses Us of creating him. His words must be seen as absurd madness because they threaten the very foundations of Our moral superiority. The terrorist is a notion that is, ironically, the very opposite of the notion of human rights. In other words, the notion of terrorist specifically deprives a human being of its humanness; it justifies our exclusion of the terrorist from the “Human group”. In other words we are all humans and we all have claim to human rights except those We call terrorists, in other words except those who resist Our domination.

Liberation and Resistance

In his weekly article in the Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar, the Palestinian thinker and former member of the Knesset Azmi Bechara wrote about the need to establish a distinction between resistance movements and liberation movements. The issues in question in such an attempt are clearly, among others, the culture of colonialism and its current representation, the strategies of resistance, the processes of identity building in the context of a re-assertion of a dominant self that can represent itself independently from the dominant power, and the means through which one can achieve a self-representation which implies the role of media in its broad sense.

As Bechara remarks, the Arab region is bursting with movements of resistance against the growing patch of American colonialism. However, these scattered factions and randomly organized groups do not all qualify for the term liberation movements. In fact, one can go as far as saying that the large majority of these groups are far from having a liberation thought. The cliché in physics is that every action engenders a reaction. This reaction is initially an automatic one, a thoughtless physical reaction. Resistance in this case is the normal, natural reaction that defines the act of resisting the action exercised against the initial stagnation. It has no other goal than to resist; it exists by virtue of the action against which it is acting. A resistance can have different justifications, moral grounds, strategies, organizations, techniques, and so on, but as long as it is only a resistance it has no further project that the one of resistance and in this sense is dependent on the force it is resisting.

For a resistance to be called a liberation movement it has to have a further aim, one that goes beyond resistance. A liberation movement is one that has a project that starts once the resistance is accomplished, once it is no longer a resistance. In other words, it is a movement whose existence is not dependent on the force that is being fought; rather its main activity starts once this force is defeated, once resistance is accomplished. One can also express the difference in the following sentence: while resistance organizations take resistance as their aim, liberation movements see resistance as a means; and while a resistance movement is not necessarily one of liberation, a liberation movement is necessarily one of resistance.

Ever since the Arab world was subjected to direct colonialism there appeared a number of liberation movements, some were on a regional or Arab level, others stressed on local, provincial levels. Each of these projects was articulating and representing an identity of resistance for which liberation meant that it can finally represent and express itself as an independent identity. Needless to say all these projects of liberation have failed dramatically and very often, tragically. This failure includes both the Pan-Arab movement (Nasserism and Baath) as well as those country specific liberation movements. Not so recently, political historians and analysts of the Middle East have started noticing the rise of Islam as the new engine of liberation and resistance movements, while in earlier times ideals of cultural and ethnic nationalisms or leftists ideals of socialism and communism were predominant. In other words, some say that Islam has taken the place of former Arabist, leftist, or national movements of resistance as the bounding imagined identity and ideal of the resisting group. Islam has assumed the role of the dominated culture that seeks liberation and self representation. This of course does not imply that Islam constitutes an identity as such or that Islam defines a pre-existing group or a clearly articulated ideology of resistance. It simply means that different narratives of resistance are using different interpretations of Islam as the common factor that constitutes the group; however, all these narratives are using Islam as their main principle.

The paradox of Islam as resistance movement can be looked at in the shadow of the dominant power’s interests. The paradox appears when we consider that Islam as a resistant force constitutes a positive factor for the American colonialism while Islam as a liberation movement constitutes a threat. This sentence cannot be relevant if we do not look at the war against terrorism as the new pretext of colonialism. In other words, if there was no terrorism – or resistance – there would be no colonialism. The causality is here inverted, it is no longer the presence of the colonizer that engenders resistance, it is the very threat of this resistance that justifies the creation of its cause namely colonialism. This is certainly a historical fallacy, however it remains discursively relevant. In other words it is not to say that colonialism started as a reaction to terrorism – or resistance – since it had been continuously present for the last century, but that the discourse of the new American colonialism denies its previous presence in the region and inverts the cause and effect (by choosing a different starting point for the causal events in the region, and a different historical narrative). Thus the very name terrorism justifies the colonial narrative of history.

Terrorism is a thoughtless act, where the perpetrator lacks any sense of cause; it is an absurd and gratuitous act of evil (a return to the Ethical judgment, the dichotomy of Good and Evil). By using the term terrorism instead of resistance one can no longer ask why is this terrorist committing this crime (causal questioning), since by definition his only purpose is destruction; this is where the discourse of terrorism inverts the cause and effect of historical events and gives them a new meaning where colonialism becomes an act of self defense against a blind evil, making the very act of resistance (terrorism) a favorable act for the narrative of the colonizer. Any strategy of resistance must aim at getting out of this deadlock.

As long as resistance is in this context favorable for the dominant power, and liberation is not, the challenge of resistance movements in the “Islamic” world today is to establish liberation projects that can form a basis for a real independence. In other words it is to articulate an identity that opposes the gaze of the dominant power; an identity that does not constitute itself as the mirror image of the dominant other. Thus any liberation movement based on Islam has to interpret Islam in the best interest of the group in the present historical context and not as a mere reaction to its other.