“Le Figaro” claims that Bin Laden was visiting Dubai as late as July 2001 to seek medical care for a kidney-related disease. It further reports that Bin Laden may have met with a local CIA operative during his stay. La CIA aurait rencontre Ben Laden en Juillet. I looked for this report elsewhere on American news outlets, but it hasn’t been picked up.
Interesting article by Edward Said in today’s Le Monde: Le choc de l’ignorance (the clash of ignorance):
“La these du choc des civilisations est un gadget comme ‘La Guerre des Mondes’, plus efficace pour renforcer un orgueil defensif que pour acceder a une comprehension critique de la stupefiante interdependance de notre epoque.
I am not sure if the article has already been published in English, but, essentially, this is Said’s answer to Samuel Huntington’s “The clash of civilizations.”
Huntington’s argument was that the world was now entering a new phase in which the primary sources of conflict will not be political or economic, but rather cultural, with the West on one side, and Islam on the other. That simplistic view found an astonishing resonance here in the US, and the article by Edward Said explores some of the reasons why this type of dichotomy is misguided.
Put briefly, this paradigm of the West vs. Islam is meant to be symbolic of the struggle between the “good guys” and the “bad guys.” It assumes that culture is a simple construct, not the complex, heterogeneous, and multi-faceted animal it really is. It further bases itself on the fact that the Western view is the superior one, and that any other dissenting views are flawed by definition.
Said also asks why it is that the terrorist attacks are not framed in their appropriate context–that they were the actions of a small number of extremists, cultists really, similar to actions by followers of Jim Jones in Guyana, or the Branch Davidians in the US, or Aum Shinri Yo in Japan. He answers that the point of this type of contextualization is to inflame people’s indignation, not educate them. He argues that this type of thinking muddies the issues, and in the end contributes to more ignorance (hence the title).
He goes on to talk about a few articles by Eqbal Ahmad, who had, two years ago, warned about the tendency in certain Muslim milieus to focus on religious jurisprudence and how this ends up stripping Islam of its humanity, esthetism, and exegesis. He mentions Heart of Darkness (one of my favorite books, by the way) and lauds Joseph Conrad for having seen, back at the turn of the 20th century, that civilization is a varnish that is quickly cracked in extreme situations. All of this is by way of saying that we are all interconnected, that it is useless, false, and downright dangerous to claim that we are One, and that there is Another.
Everywhere I turn, it seems people are tired of hearing about the war. I am not sure I want to allow myself to be tired of hearing about people being killed by the bombs we are dropping on Afghanistan.
Another terrifying sign that we are giving up due process in our mass search for culpability in others: Pakistani Held After September 11 Dies in Cell.
What I found particularly troubling is that, instead of addressing legitimate questions about why a man should die in custody, noone mentioned in the article, least of all the reporter, seems to be concerned that this was an incarcerated man, who was not charged with a crime (except for an INS violation, a violation which makes him the equal of 8 million other undocumented workers in this country), and who died while in custody. The majority of the article is devoted to whether or not he had anthrax and could have passed it on to others. The writer seems to be all too willing to accept the theory that this was a man who had a pre-existing heart condition. I have heard those types of theories before, but from despots who kept political prisoners in third world prisons. I had not expected The Washington Post to not be willing to question them.
Quote of the day:
Israel, as any other democratic country, is exerting its right to self-defence and the defence of its citizens.
That’s Ariel Sharon, in response to calls to immediately withdraw his forces from Palestinian territories. Several caveats should have been made to that statement, though. Democratic country, but with a shameful human-rights record, an apartheid-like approach to resources, and an institutionalized practice of torture, if that’s how he defines democracy. Plus, he doesn’t clarify how the other side is supposed to protect its citizens from tanks and bombs.
Sharon adds that:
[Israeli] forces would not pull out from six West Bank towns until the Palestinians had handed over those responsible for killing the Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavam Zeevi.
Ah…well then, we should all expect that he will soon hand over the murderers of the 12-year-old girl who was shot when Israeli tanks barreled in. Plus, Arafat already handed over 20 PFLP members, but that’s not enough.
The whole bloody mess makes me sick. Israelis and Palestinians should just keep a score card of whose turn it is to kill the other, so we can all keep track of this sinister affair.
Then: Iraq invades Kuwait. We declare it a war on Saddam, though not a war on the Iraqi people. We bomb Iraq and free Kuwait. We promise a Palestinian state. We impose sanctions which have so far cost the lives of half a million Iraqi people, mostly malnourished children (a “price worth paying”, according to Secretary of State Albright). We maintain a military presence in Saudi Arabia to protect oil reserves.
Now: Terrorists attack the US. We declare it a war on terrorism, though not a war on Islam. We bomb Afghanistan. We promise a Palestinian state. We will likely continue to treat Islam as being the root of this evil that is terrorism, and will impose sanctions on some Islamic countries. We will topple the Taliban and institute a government that is friendly to the military dictator in neighboring Pakistan, though probably repressive to its citizenry. We will maintain a military presence in Afghanistan to protect the pipelines that will carry oil from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea.
Same shit, different day.
In the last few days, several people have quoted Gandhi’s famous saying:
What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless whether mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?
It rings so true when you see this.
Remember when V.S. Naipaul used the September 11 tragedy to go on another one of his rants against Islam? Today, he won the Nobel literature prize. When I read the news, I immediately wondered whether the attacks had anything to do with the choice, considering some of the things he’s said about Islam.
I guess I was right. The Yahoo! article states:
Academy head Horace Engdahl conceded this year’s choice may might be seen as political in the wake of terror attacks in the United States and the American retaliation. “The present situation perhaps will make room for a more muted reaction,” he said. “I don’t think we will have violent protests from the Islamic countries and if they take the care to read his travel books from that part of the world they will realize that his view of Islam is a lot more nuanced. What he’s really attacking in Islam is a particular trait that it has in common with all cultures that conquerors bring along, that it tends to obliterate the preceding culture,” he said.
You know what? It’s hard for me to see nuance in something like this:
“There probably has been no imperialism like that of Islam and the Arabs.”
A lot of his work is about his travels in Muslim, but non-Arab countries. Or how about this gem:
“Islam has caused more damage to the national dignity and honour of non-Arab Moslems than any other calamity that may have affected them.”
Or this one:
“Hatred of non-Moslems is the pivot of Islamic existence”.
Excuse me while I go try and hate my family, friends, and neighbors, since that is the pivot around which my existence revolves.
I admit I’m having a very hard time dealing with the fact that myopic visions of Islam are rewarded with such a distinguished literary prize. But I’ll get over it.
Some links:
Three of Naipaul’s better-known books: Beyond Belief, A House for Mister Biswas, and Among the Believers.
You can read Edward Said on VS Naipaul’s Beyond Belief at this site.
Check out also Paul Theroux’s book on Naipaul: Sir Vidia’s Shadow: A Friendship Across Five Continents.
One of my fondest memories of my grandmother (llah irHemha) is of the breaks she used to take every afternoon, between noon and ‘asr prayers. She would retire to her bedroom, and listen to Voice of America until tea time. This was a woman who was practically illiterate, but who was sharp as a tack, and could provide you with a fine analysis of any of the day’s pressing political issues.
A few weeks ago, or what seems like very long ago now, I was having breakfast with Alex at our usual hangout when I came across an article in The Los Angeles Times about the VOA, and how they needed more funding to expand their Arabic service, but couldn’t get the money, how they needed to hire more people, etc.
It became very clear after 9/11 that one of the things we must do is both learn about other cultures and teach them about ours, which is where VOA comes in. Will they get the funding now?
