"Dubai Lit Fest" celebrates 5th annual book blast

-->

Dubai Lit Fest (Mar 7-9) –rough notes

The fifth edition of the Emirate Airlines International Literature Festival (whh I’ll call the Dubai Lit Fest for short) with its clever “Villain Vs Hero” motif was far too complex and multi-faceted to sum up in a few simple sentences. There was more of everything, more books, more publishing categories, more genres and subgenres, more events, more workshops etc. More nationalities and more people stuffing the rooms and aisles of the Intercon annex where the Fest is held. With as many as a half-dozen things going on at the same time from 9 to 9, the single spectator was hard-pressed figuring out what was going on and how best to spend his time. Yes, more of everything except a few minor amenities.

It all challenged one’s attention to the point of Hamletian indecision or, worse, nervous exhaustion. Meanwhile one's body--due to the lack of anything resembling a comfortable place to sip coffee, browse and schmooze--suffered more banal pains.

But what about the old charge against the Lit Fest that it emphasizes trash at the expense of quality literature? Is there any truth to this scurrilous rumor? Unfortunately, in my opinion, there is more than a smidgen. The clear stars of the show, as revealed by size of venue, audience numbers, and book stack dimensions (not to mention program cover font size) were the Archers, Rankins, Deavers, La Plantes et al. These giants of pulp fiction with their thunderous mobs of fans may have overshadowed the quality literature scene- but did not crowd it out altogether.

The Nigerian novelist-poet (and Booker Prize winner) Ben Okri was probably the most celebrated literary writer there and was featured in several sessions (that I didn’t see). A writer I knew of from a select literary magazine was there, Geoff Dyer, with an odd ball reputation (Yoga for People who can’t be bothered to Do it), but sadly got a small audience for a very droll session on his opposition to genre. A well –regarded young British novelist Chris Cleave, who writes on sports themes, made his second appearance. One enthusiastic fan gave him high praise (she was his wife).

Besides these we found many other types of literary, sub literary and non literary activities in nonfiction, (history), self-help, cooking (Italian, French, Asian & Lebanese), children’s books (as always splendidly represented), not to mention too many workshops (writing poetry, drawing, screen-writing etc). One major type that wasn’t present in force was original travel writing (only the copycat Steps of Thesiger).

News, newsmen & newswomen were very popular at the fete – The controversial American anchor man Dan Rather was there (touting his My Life in the News) talking to Nik Gowing, Abdel Bari Atwan and “Mrs Moneypenny” in the Breakfast News session and several others. Rather seemed to have plenty of compatriot fans who lined up to get a signature and something we rarely saw from the legendary newsman during his years on TV- a smile. His iconic voice, as I can attest, is entirely intact. [It occurred to me later, that Rather, with his checkered career may have been the perfect example of the Fest’s hero-villain theme.]

The international aspect of the fete was accentuated. Judging by appearances the DubLit Fest has always been mainly a British show – and if this is the case – more power to British publishers and authors for taking advantage of the opportunity. But where were the giants such as Barnes, Boyd, McEwan, Thubron and company? It would also have been good to see more major Yankee literary talent on display (e. g. Roth, DeLillo, McCarthy, Theroux etc.). Next in order are Arab and Arab Gulf writers & publishers followed by Indians and a sprinkling of French and other European countries. Overall, I’d say the fest had a more cosmopolitan character than in the past.

My favorite session on Thursday was the evening event “The English Language –Villain or Hero?” It was a lively, energetic and wit-sparking discussion of the dilemmas caused by the all-conquering English language, which has become for all practical purposes a world language. Leslie McLoughlin, a Harvard professor & well-known translator of Arabic moderated the session (his just published “Confessions of a Translator” was the subject of another session). The two major speakers were our own Abdulla Dabbagh, representing the literary critical point of view and Eugene Rogan, professor of history at Oxford and author of the recently published (and best-selling)“The Arabs – A History.”

Dabbagh, former chair of English Dept at UAEU and a widely published literary comparatist, described how “English has imposed itself on the world,” starting with this region in which Arabic and Arabic language studies are suffering but put the dominance of English in a “wider perspective.” He went through the history of world languages finding that at one point Arabic, French and Latin had all served this purpose. He also detailed the multiple attempts by scholars to invent a “universal language” that would serve the whole world. None of these, he commented, has ever truly caught on. In the meantime, English has continued to grow to the point where it would be hard to find a competitor.

Dabbagh described how once when Sigmund Freud came to the UN to give a speech, he spoke in German. Nowadays, he said, this would be unimaginable.

[Dabbagh also participated in two other events – the Lost in Translation?” discussion with four other speakers which dealt with the specific problems of putting Arab writers and texts into English and “Shakespeare and the Arab World,” a discussion with Dr Yousef Aydabi about the Bard’s debt to Middle Eastern ideas.]

The historian Eugene Rogan also described English as a villain “that threatens every language in the world.” “The beast is out,” he warned. He described how recently traveling to Ireland – where the official language is the charming Gaelic tongue – he heard none of this lilting language but only English. (Someone has calculated that as many as 500 languages are disappearing from the world every year).

As English becomes the required second language, Rogan warned, “the need to learn other languages will be reduced to nil.” As a result, those of us confined to English will “miss others’ views of ourselves… we won’t have a clue about how the rest of the world thinks.”

None of the experts however felt that English would become some kind of Orwellian monster (such as the evil shrinking dictionary in Orwell’s frightening 1984) that would exert dictatorial control over language or people. On the contrary, the ability of English to absorb and create new vocabulary (8,500 words per year on average) is probably one of its greatest strengths.

McLoughlin concluded with the point that he did not feel the rise and conquest of English as a linguistic phenomenon was identical to the aggressive political motivation identified by Edward Said as “Orientalism.”

A lively Q & A followed but as usual had to be cut short due to time constraints.

(second thoughts as I left the session were as follows: those “conquered by English” often get unexpected benefits; first as we see in India and the Philippines where sects and island have created mutually incomprehensible dialects – bridged by the lingua franca of English – and (in the case of the Philippines) an employable skill; second advantage is bilingualism considered to be improve the brain’s learning powers, and lastly a tactical advantage of the bilingual over the monolingual in competitive situations.)

In a excellent and well-attended session the next day, the American historian Eugene Rogan who teaches modern Arab history at Oxford, discussed his widely praised The Arabs – A History (Penguin, dhs 85) with a moderator whose name I can’t recall. Rogan described his youth growing up in the Middle East in family of professionals. Learning Arabic at an early age, Rogan immersed himself in the culture and languages of the region, especially Egypt and Lebanon. He described how in doing the research for this volume --which emphasizes the modern period -- he interviewed as many living witnesses as possible to accurately portray the point of view of the region. His purpose was to make history newsworthy and fresh, and judging by the critical praise he received, it seems he succeeded. On style, the historian explained how his editor helped him transform his academic style to a more readable style for the general reader that allowed a more personal point of view. “She taught me how to use strong topic sentences for each paragraph,” Rogan said, and maintain a personal tone throughout a long story. This volume has also been updated to reflect the events of the Arab Spring, which Rogan calls the “Revolutions of 2011.”

I ducked in briefly on one of Jeffrey Archer’s many sessions –to see what the pulp phenomenon {and the Lit Fest’s true headliner) looked like. I expected to be disgusted and was in fact turned off by the man, by his style and content alike. He recounted in broadly comic strokes the fate of his first novel (Kane & Abel), getting laughs for the tale of how his first interview on US TV flopped, but I kept hearing numbers in his speech patterns which always reverted to “millions” or “thousands” or “minutes.”

A man with a quick mind but with nothing in it, I mused.

Archer responded to Antony Horowitz’s questions about his work habits, and where he gets his characters from; the villains come from the political scene, he explained, and the strong women from his mother and Margaret Thatcher, his political mentor.

Ducking out just as quickly as I’d ducked in, breathing sighs of disgust and relief. But it inspired a refresher course in negative vocabulary: grossly insipid, jejunely trite?

Korky Paul must be one of the most deservedly popular figures at the Lit Fest – his delightful children’s series Winnie The Witch that he illustrates for the stories of co-author Valerie Stevens are some of the finest beginning books for kids I know. I didn’t go to any of his sessions, but saw him frequently out in the hall finishing his mural for the 5 year celebration of the festival. The middle-aged Brit was friendly and eager to hear his books were well liked. Later, seeing the long lines of 5-6 year-olds waiting to greet him at the signing desk, I realized what joy his books must give that readership. [I have to admit, I like them quite a bit too!]

William Dalrymple always seems to be a big draw at the Lit fest with his India themed travel and history writing. This year he presented and read passages from his new history of the British defeat in Afghanistan (“Return of a King”). A resident of India and heir of one of the participants in the disastrous campaign, Dalrymple had a vivid, well-researched tale to tell of British folly in a country still giving grief to its would-be invaders. Accompanied by beautiful period illustrations, the author just barely managed to finish recounting the suspenseful epic which left one survivor out of 18,000.

The annual Orwell lecture was delivered by the Indian diplomat and litterateur Shashi Tharoor. Recently considered for the position of UN Secretary General, Tharoor is also the author of numerous novels such as the satirical The Great Indian Novel. Dressed in a tie-less Nehru-style suit, Tharoor was eloquent, witty and charming –winning over his large audience with an optimistic vision of the contemporary world that relegated Orwell’s main worries about individual freedom and the threats of tyranny to the background.

Tharoor didn’t completely dismiss totalitarian threats (Islamism for example can be seen in that light) in the contemporary world but generally painted a rosy picture in which, yes, social media and the Internet have loosened up controls over expression.

Tharoor cited India’s multicultural society with its traditions of tolerance as an example of how countries can overcome binary thinking, in which Muslims, Hindus and Christians generally live peacefully side by side; he also feels India’s rich culture and history help Indians maintain their identity and resist the pressures of globalization and cultural colonization.

Thanks to these factors, India doesn’t have to fear globalization. “We will never be ‘cocacolonialized,’” he quipped.

In the brief Q & A session, Tharoor revealed he was a cricket fan --  and the last question dealt with cricket. A bit ironic in a lecture that supposedly dealt with Orwell?

As he was rushed out by handlers, I elbowed a quick query: “Sir,” I asked, “while it’s true that in this country, we do not live in extreme Orwellian repression such as [that of] Big Brother… still the conditions of human rights & freedom of expression are far from perfect…” As Tharoor was disappearing into the wing, I insisted, “Sir, couldn’t you say something about that?” Tharoor replied as he retreated: “I can’t because I work for the government!”

Reeling in shock, I wandered back to the signing desk area trying to comprehend.

An idea formed in my befuddled mind, and I got in line. When the line of fans finally dwindled to me, I asked with as friendly a smile as I could muster, “Sir, with all due respect, if you are someone who can’t speak his mind, should you be the one giving the Orwell Lecture?”

The elegant, youthful-looking diplomat looked up at me with just as friendly a smile, and spreading his hands in the classic  “Helpless” position he said, “I would be very happy to talk about that under different circumstances.”

When I told this story to another book maven, a UK citizen working in Saudi Arabia, he said, “The Orwell Lecture has never really worked all that well at this event, has it?”

When I told it to Geoff Dyer, he quipped, “You’re a dangerous person. We should call security.”

A more serious criticism--it would be nice to have a few more amenities such as a sitdown coffee shop for browsing and schmoozing.  Yes, they have one for “friends of the Lit Fest” but it would be nice to have one for the hoi polloi as well. Also I wonder if the organizers of the Lit Fest view book fans as entirely spiritual beings with few biological needs such as for food and drink and with legs and spines so solid as to never need a chair or seat to rest on. The price of dhs 60 is not exorbitant but a bigger student discount would be neat.

A special thank you to “Kelly” in the press section who kindly gave me press credentials so I could attend so many of these sessions.

Drones memo comment Reedited Read this one.

-->

Comment sent to NYT forum on Jan 7 article “Congress to See Memo Backing drone Attacks against Americans”

I’ve felt ambivalent about the drones for a long time, refused to condemn the one that killed Anwar Al Aleki  – and was once asked by a co-patriot debater how I’d feel if Obama sent a drone missile at me, an American citizen living abroad. I replied that I didn’t expect he’d aim one at me since I had come abroad simply to do a humble university job and not join an organization that was at war with the US and had a long history of massacres against Americans. As far as I’m concerned if you join such an organization whose aims are to destroy the US, attack its interests and kill its citizens, you can’t count on your citizenship to protect you. Al Awleki obviously gave up his citizenship with its rights & privileges when he joined al Queda, the organization behind 9/11 and with which our government was officially at war. Plus Awleki's string of misdeeds, fatwas issued against American cartoonists and suspected involvement in even more dangerous plots, justified force (Farouk said that Awleki sent him). Yes, it would have been better to arrest and put the man on trial, but in Yemen, from everything I could tell, this was clearly impractical. I’ve read that al Queda’s goal in starting a war with the US was to lure American soldiers into the desert and mountains where Bin Laden thought they could be easily slaughtered. Viewed in this perspective, the drones are probably the better alternative though still morally dubious with all the "collateral" deaths. Nevertheless, that the issue is being debated publicly shows that the US gov’t is still accountable to its people and the world (esp. Pakistan & Yemen); hopefully, the secrecy charge will no longer apply, and the moral, political and military issues will get finally an airing. Actually, this incident reassures me about the basic integrity of our system despite its many failures, especially in foreign policy. Perhaps after deliberation the drone program will be cut back, cancelled or better regulated. The drones certainly are a horrible evil but the evil that gave rise to them has to be fully gauged as well. (Of course you may dismiss these views as the ramblings of an expatriate badly out of touch with opinion in the USA!).

Glenn Greenwald's Guardian Op Ed "Racism Drives the War on Terror" reprinted here in the Gulf News (31March '13) opinion section, is an impassioned but (I feel) misguided attack on the US rationale for targeting and killing Anwar Al Awleki last year (by a drone strike in Yemen). Greenwald takes a high moralistic tone in his argument that the reason Americans approved of the killing of Awleki but --as shown in a poll -- did not approve in general of the idea of assassinating American citizens abroad-- can only be ascribed to racism against Arabs and Muslims. Assuming the statistics & poll are correct, his assumption still seems unverified and unverifiable. Awleki stood out as an especially dangerous fanatic, and the decision to kill him was not trivially based on racism. First, Awleki belonged to and headed an especially virulent branch of Al Quede, an organization at war with the US; anyone who joins it can't be expected to be protected by their citizenship. As a declared enemy in wartime, he had to expect retaliation. Not only that, Awlaki was involved in or certainly connected to several murderous plots in the US: the most dastardly of these the Christmas 2011 attempt to bomb a passenger plane in Detroit by the Nigerian "underpants bomber" (name: Farouk somebody) was provably sent by Awlaki; Col Nidal Hasan's murderous outburst at Ford Hood killing 13 (he had corresponded with Awkeki) is suspicious at least. The (failed) Times Sq bomber may not have had a clear connection to Awlaki (this case still up in the air it seems). However, people forget that Awleki also threatened with death fatwas several American cartoonists, first the creators of South Park then a cartoonist in Seattle who defended them in a satirical harmless way. I don't like to say her name because she had to go underground and assume a new identity. To me this latter case is far from insignificant (though entirely forgotten now) because it revived the earliest Muslim assault on the whole world's civil liberties perpetrated by the Ayatollah Khomeini when he condemned Salman Rushdie to death. These are the common sense reasons -- and not any kind of racism-- why I approved of the drone attack that killed Awlaki, and I imagine most Americans felt the same. Why wait for a successful repeat of 9/11 or a Rushdie sequel to neutralize this dangerous man? It's certainly too bad his son suffered the same fate, but the father was clearly the more guilty of his son's death by putting him in harm's way.

Documentation: 
From My Northwest: "The FBI warned Norris [the cartoonist] they considered the threat by Anwar al-Awlaki, who has ties to the failed Times Square bombing attempt, serious."

Kurdistan Calling: the Turkish-Kurdish Conflict

BLOOD AND BELIEF:

The PKK and the Kurdish Fight for Independence

By ALIZA MARCUS

New York University, $35.00 cloth, ISBN 978-0-8147-5711 6

2006

[originally published in The Bloomsbury Review]

For Americans, the Kurds may be simply one more “faraway people about whom we know little” and couldn’t care less. It is quite likely though that the “world’s largest stateless people,” as the author calls them, will, as the years go by, become a lot better known to us through the Iraq War. Whether we like it or not, we are involved in the destinies of this mysterious group whose calamity of being stateless no one can explain quickly and whose claim for statehood no one besides the Kurds seems to support with any vigor. For these reasons, reliable information about the no-longer-obscure Kurds and their problems should be a valuable commodity, especially to those who care about the implications of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Hence the value now of Alisa Marcus’ Blood and Belief: The PKK and the Kurdish Fight for Independence.

Submerged as the Kurds are in the politics of four different countries (Turkey, Iraq, Syria, and Iran) and with Iraq undergoing violent transformation, Kurdish claims to our attention are indirect, depending on how they affect other issues that are more mainstream. The most notorious incident involving Kurds, of course, was Saddam Hussein’s massacre of thousands of Kurdish villagers by poison gas at Halabja in 1988. This event loomed large for Americans only when it was used to stir up support for the second Iraq War.

Still, many wonder: Is an independent Kurdish state (“Kurdistan”) desirable or possible? And will the Kurdish ministate in Iraq with its proclaimed capital city Kirkuk turn into such an entity? The problem with Marcus’ book is that if this is the only book you read about the Kurdish situation, you still will not have answers to these important questions. Nor does she provide much historical or cultural background of the Kurds before the outbreak of the events she describes. (Indeed this omission may be because this topic is as complex as present-day Kurdish politics.) Many readers would no doubt like to have, in an introduction to the subject, more than the storyline of one political party. The author’s self-imposed limitation to the PKK (or Kurdistan Workers’ Party), could make her vulnerable to the charge of bias.

Except in the most formal sense, however, this suspicion of bias is not justified. The picture of the PKK that emerges from @2Blood and Belief@1, though not particularly attractive, is that of a dedicated guerrilla group, which despite its blemishes has forged a kind of legitimacy in the face of official Turkish resistance to what are widely seen as justified Kurdish grievances—and as the only Kurdish group to pose an effective counterforce to the Turkish state. The PKK has also has a nonmilitary wing in the form of a series of legal political parties with representatives in parliament, but these have been subjected to repression and censorship at all stages.

In this account, the Turkish government is seen as not in control of the Turkish military, which calls the shots in its position as the guardian of the “secular state” and is deeply hostile to any non-Turkish configuration. The Turkish political establishment as a whole seems strangely blind to the most basic Kurdish demands for cultural autonomy (such as speaking and teaching the Kurdish language) and recognition of Kurdish identity. Its simplistic view is that “all people living in Turkey are Turks.”

According to Marcus, the problem is that Turkey, although it has made many gestures toward reform and recognition of Kurdish demands (Kurdish language broadcasts, for example) has in fact permitted very little real progress, and that mainly to appease European critics who could block Turkey’s entrance into the EU.

The story goes something like this: The PKK, starting in the early 1970s as a Marxist revolutionary party, grew enormously for about a decade nourished by real grievances, popular support in the Turkish southeast, and the government’s military blunders. Then in the mid 1990s, a new right-wing government in Ankara counterattacked the guerrillas effectively, and in a massive violation of human rights, evacuated some 2,000 villages in the Kurdish southeast along with an estimated 1 million Kurdish inhabitants. The PKK declined for the next decade, and, according to the author, never recovered its original strength--but wasn’t eliminated either. Marcus also details the bizarre career of the PKK’s personality-cult-afflicted leader Abdullah Ocalan who led the PKK from a base in Syria until expelled and captured by Turkish agents in 1999. Though he renounced his PKK ideals, and was imprisoned for life, he has maintained a tight and, yes, Svengali-like control of the group.

The main shock one gets from this book is the dubious nature of Turkey’s supposedly democratic political process in hock to a powerful military, which in the end has a lot more blood on its hands than do those of its tenacious opponents. One wonders how the Kemalist doctrines of a modern secular republic ever became so narrow in scope and so atavistically monocultural. One also feels gloomy about Turkey’s prospects for entry into the EU.

Marcus’ dispassionate recounting of events is impressive in its factual, documented style and avoidance of partisan shrillness. While never condoning any of the PKK’s excesses, she points out its one achievement: to have “put the Kurdish problem on the agenda in Turkey and in front of the world.”

Now with the success of the Kurds in northern Iraq as the focus of Kurdish ambitions, you would think there would be more options for Turkish Kurds and the PKK, which is still their chief political representative. But of course, the usual double-edged sword is in place: The U.S. intervention that benefits the Iraqi Kurds hinders the cause of their brethren just across the border (or close to it).

To the extent that the U.S. espouses self-determination and multiculturalism, it should do more to support these peoples. Yet the U.S. to appease Turkey is obliged to regard the PKK as a “terrorist” group, as is the EU. So Turkey’s Kurds may have to envy the lot of their Iraqi brothers a while longer.

Americans, whether opponents of the Iraq War or neo-isolationists, need to consider that one of the war’s outstanding successes is the creation of the Kurdish ministate.

I doubt, however, we’ll hear much in the coming months from our presidential candidates on this issue.

REVIEWER: James H. Dalglish

UAEU Drama Unit Produces Topical Play on Syria

OBEY II: The Ides of March: A Production by the Fundamentals of Drama & Stagecraft Class written and directed by Dr. James Mirrione. 13 June, 2012, Crescent Building Auditorium,  UAEU 

The Drama Unit rolled out its latest production OBEY II: The Ideas of March on an unpropitious night of pre-finals angst and pre-summer hints of increased thermonuclear activity to come that discouraged any effort, let alone the epic energies unleashed by this multi-media Arab-English hybrid of a play. At the end of the brief theatrical work (only 45 minutes) portraying Syria’s current miseries both cast and audience emerged moved and invigorated.

As we entered the theater venue, we were handed a small, empty (and puzzling) envelope whose purpose would be shatteringly clear at the end. The warm up tunes from a powerful sound system included Buffalo Springfield’s 60’s anthem Field Day for the Heat. A good choice I thought.

Obey II threw at the audience an expertly combined flurry of events and impressions accompanied by a heavy rock beat and effective lighting that bathed scenes of Syrian anguish in appropriately garish tints; on double side screens, newsreels from Syria (demonstrators and atrocities from the country in question) unrolled while stage center featured a series of skits depicting the tragedy of one Syrian boy who is arrested for sedition, tortured and killed (based on an actual character Hamzan Ali Alkhateeb).

Rather than trying crudely to mime this tragedy, Mirrione & students took a symbolic approach. Hamzan’s crime is drawing a picture of a Pegasus (a winged horse), which is condemned by the angry tyrant (Basil Muir) as a thought crime. The back projected image (drawn by the actor Fatima Kindi who played Hamzan) becomes a symbol of human freedom. To make sure we get the connection, documentary photos of the boy are seen on the sides.

In one of the best vignettes (modeled on the Greek chorus of chant and reply), we witness the Syrians ”waking up” to the necessity of contesting their freedom as each emerges from the crowd and recounts her personal tragedy usually of family loss by dictatorial violence. A spectator Mona Al Hamed later told me she had been moved by this scene and cried. A satirical touch occurs in an “eye test” ordered by the tyrant in which, from the scrambled test letters, the subjects all read “O...B....E....Y!”

The last scene however tops all by a simple yet powerful device. The Narrator (played by Norah Tamimi) tells us she is going to read out the names of all the children killed in the conflict and asks the audience to pull out the envelope given at the door. She then reads the list of all of the names of children killed in the conflict. By means of this well-planned strategem, everyone in the audience is drawn into the public act of condemnation the play has worked so hard to achieve. We spectators were as impressed by the humanity of the gesture as its ingenuity.

(The name on mine was Mahmud Swaid and I still feel badly for not reading it out – maybe this will expunge my guilt!)

Last year’s pioneering OBEY was based on the 14 days that it took to dislodge a former Egyptian president from office; the strong plot line was that of the (now legendary) Tunisian vegetable vendor Mohamed Bouazizi, whose suicide gave the story instant recognition and impacted powerfully all who saw it. The Syrian conflict on the other hand offers daily atrocities but no such legends. Mirrione and students as if aware of this, chose a mixture of indirect, symbolic and chorale forms of expression.

The nervous rhythm of the production came out of the deep theater culture of James Mirrione whose work is rooted in Greek drama, Brecht and a dash of 60’s street theater. And not to forget Shakespeare. The decision to add (readings from) Julius Caesar to the mix, was probably his as well, and is the only dubious part of the play, which in my opinion distracted from the central point. He defended his choice by pointing out that the young boy subject of the play had been killed on March 15, the “Ides of March” of the subtitle. A strictly aesthetic critique of the play however would miss the point. This was a community effort with a social message.

This was revealed most clearly in a brief chat with the cast after the play. Their faces glowing from praise by their director, who congratulated them as “the true authors of the play” and for their outstanding work, not only on that evenings work but in “planting the seeds for the future of the arts” at the university, they all expressed satisfaction in participating in something truly significant.

“I learned what it’s really like for people in another country who we see only in the news...” said one (Nouf). Fatima al Kindi who played The Boy described her research into his actual life and death. Norah al Tamimi (the Narrator) said that for her the message of the play was “to show people who are living in a safe country how other people are suffering to have their own rights.”

The production was also amazing in terms of uniting cross-campus-energies -- first of course those of the enthusiastic, hardworking cast of 20, but one also needs to add (and congratulate) the strong poster design (Jake Gilson) and campaign, the professional sound and lights technical team, part-time actors from English Basil Muir & Graeme Tennent and, finally, major input by the “Organizers” an official university group dedicated to making things happen on campus. As we know, the permissions required to get people and events on and off campus are truly awesome. -JD

BENGHAZI attack: all you can do is Scream

-->
On the Benghazi attack in September. This nasty episode didn't die away quickly and ultimately affected Susan Rice's career. It was a damn confusing event -- as is much that happens in this region -- but the desire for a neutral investigation that might have illuminated this disaster got obscured in political acrimony. The most disturbing ripple from the murderous riot is that weapons handed out by the US thru Qatar might have been used by the Islamist terrorists involved. Still puzzling--what was the connection between the "Muslim's Innocence" riots and this obviously 9/11 themed & planned attack?

The spectacle of enraged Muslims demonstrating? Protesting? Rioting? about another supposed offence against Islam, this time in response to a shoddy video produced in the US (but not in any way representative of any official point of view) in dozens of nations in this region, punctures the theory that Islamist extremism is a response to exploitative or misguided American foreign policy. The movie has nothing to do with the US government (even less so in the case of Germany!) yet the riots go on; it was not released by a major studio nor even seen by anyone publicly for heavens's sakes. The murder of a respected American diplomat Christopher Stevens--who supported the overthrow of Gaddafi--is particularly inexplicable and reprehensible in this perspective. Nor should Hillary have pandered to the rioters by claiming to have been “disgusted” by the video --but stated simply & firmly that street violence in Tunis, Cairo etc can never determine individual freedoms in the US. The fact is we have separation of church and state in the US – and this is a point no American official made. The only logical conclusion to draw from the behavior of irate Muslims in full cry is that we (Westerners and other free spirits) must submit to the totalitarian (extremist) Islamic demand--in short become Muslims. This group in effect rejects a pluralistic world, and it is that world that Hillary & Barack should defend publicly. Neither Hillary nor Barach nor Jay Carney made the slightest effort to explain the nature of the relations of a constitutional government with a democratic society. By failing to do this forthrightly and clearly, they appeared weak ideologically & opened themselves up to a Romney attack, but the latter’s blast was nothing but hasty opportunism. Rather than waste time trying to calm the irrational hysteria of these so easily provoked (and manipulated) mobs, we might do better to rescue one of the few truely secular Arab states in the region, Syria (the Syrians’ modernity is seen in their unconditional rejection of Basher). What we see here once again is the pathological displacement in much anti-US hysteria – that is, the use of the US as a handy whipping boy—that we see in many authoritarian societies (such as most of these are) where people cannot really dissent or protest unless they displace their anger onto the convenient US target. Anyone who has lived more than a few months in the region quickly catches on to the maneuver. Finally, why did no responsible person in one of these nominally democratic societies try at least via the media to speak reason to the rioters and educate them to the norms of the open democratic society they (hopefully) desire -- in which the claims of one religion cannot preempt civil law and civility.

Last Debate on Syria Betw. JB and Jalglish

Last Debate between JB and Jalglish (I’m done). Facebook’s format is not suitable for the kind of verbal jousting and polemic that has cropped up between JB and me. So I decided to use my blog –while reformatting for a dialogic style. –Keuka lake, NY, September 6, 12

Jamil: "bla, pontificating my left foot .... & basically, we just simply disagree ...

Jalglish: Yes, disagree but not so simply…I am essentially anti-totalitarian whereas you appear to be a cultural relativist but a strange cynical one with no positive beliefs. I do have such beliefs such as that tyranny is wrong, and it is my business to oppose it since as somebody said (I misquote) “wherever there are men living in slavery I am not free.”

i think that all systems & governments are basically set up to oppress & exploit their respective subjects & democracy is as much a joke as communism, since most people are ignorant & like Nietzsche warned, don't get trapped into being part of the herd, but be careful about appearing different than the herd ....

Here’s where you start  out with a half baked but half way coherent thought – all governments stink – a sort of anarchist, Bahkuninist sentiment – then seguing into elitist disdain for the unwashed… total incoherence.

as to your Chinese expertise, forgive any slight on that, but you do seem to somewhat express what sounds like old cold war us vs. them rhetoric...

in what? And you cite no examples? If I’m concerned about Chinese aggression in the PR this makes me cold war era? Or is that China has never emerged from the cold war???And if this is the case why is that politically correct ideologues such as yourself never criticize the Middle Kingdom?

my position is that all governments are corrupt, its only a matter of degree difference..

this again is a boring truism. it's better to be an old fashioned liberal like myself. At least you have something to fight for.

 & China has never known anything but totalitarian state system in the past 4000 years

While blithly pontificating, Jamil, this bit on China shows how ignorant you actually are – there was a Chinese Republic under Sun Yat Sen who was a democrat! Hey where’s you history? I studied China in depth while I lived there and for many years after. I’m not so easily brushed aside.

... so whatever they do is their business, not that or the US or UK, etc ..

sure, what they do is their business of course no one would dream of interfering with what is truly domestic matters – but if China is in fact the “interferer” then what? We may have some responsibilities, especially if old allies and friends ask us for help. The US is already involved in the Pacific and has responsibilities which so far it has handled carefully & well.

Jamil: I'm not a pacifist, but do not support military adventurism & Syria is nobody's business but their own & their neighbors ... sorry, but i don't live in that neighborhood ... so it's none of my business, nor of any Americans

JD Sorry but I submit on the other hand that wherever a civilian population is oppressed and deprived of other rights by an unwanted unelected government then it may be my business to support the rebellion – other wise I’m in contradiction with my principles that all people want and deserve freedom. (JJ Rousseau, Le Contrat Social).

...compost happens & the people get the government they deserve, so if Obama loses this election, the the American people have just screwed themselves ... ciao ...

This propagandistic onslaught is almost incomprehensible –an impasto of clichés & slogans standing in for thought, lacking clarity or originality, again verging on total incoherence, almost impossible to disentangle and probably not worth the effort … you contradict yourself by implying that Obama would be the better choice – so at the heart of your cynicism is just another disappointed liberal. Instead of honestly supporting Obama which you can’t due to your doctrinaire assumption– you pose as the world weary cynic --while other people unpretentiously work for Obama knowing that he won’t work miracles but that his adminstn will deliver a thicker slice of that basic bread we all need – remember Orwell’s wise saw about “a half loaf is better than no bread at all.”

let's take literature next time & forget politics, its your idealistic interventionism on behalf of some abstract human rights to which i respond, as in the case of Syria, its just a mess & getting messier & bloodier & will keep going in that direction even well after Baseer is gone ... & can't no outside power do anything to make things better as its gone too far ... all losers, no winners ... that's civil war, whatever the country"

This last bit is typical of Jamil’s lack of concern for real people – to him human rights are an abstraction; also remarkable is his forced, almost hysterical pessimism behind which you sense his fear that his predictions won’t come true.

The greatest proof of his disenfranchisement from street reality and casual suffering is his amazing failure to mention the immediate historical context of the Syria revolution – The Arab Spring. This is the basic denial/blind spot behind all JBs comments on Syria – for some bizarre perverse reason he wants to deny Syria a positive outcome modeled on the revolutions in sister countries. This kind soul seems to be very afraid they might break free of Basher.

I wonder why this no doubt brilliant, creative and imaginative mind doesn’t occupy itself with something else? Why does he bother to attack me I wonder? How have I lucked out? Literature? fine with me, because I don’t find Jamil’s political ideas very interesting – they are mainly an assemblage of slogans and commonplaces with a big blank space for the changed and changing political reality in the Middle East. There is also a surprising amount of disdain for the “common” people in his musings– an almost Ayn Randian hauteur. Sadly, our discussions don’t and won’t progress – so I’m hoping he’ll call it quits, declare a truce and I can get back to real life.

Salient Sallies in NYT Syria Blog Aug 29, 2012

 

Some comments from NYT discussion of "Syrian Rebels Get Arms..." Aug 29th

I like BR's comment with its terse ironic summary of the situation which in a way made mine unnecessary -- but you know how it is in the heat of battle, people fire off simultaneous shots. Similarly the email of Dan Stackhouse on Syria could come directly from my mind! I feel so grateful I always want to contact him directly. Now I regret penning under "Ex Expat " ---! No more friends & others. I'm ceasing being incognito.

And hey my comment was honored by a "PICK"!  First time!
yr struggling far flung correspondent
Ex - Ex Expat (James)

• ttBR
• Times Square

Flag

I don't understand these comments.

Have some of you heard of the Arab Spring? Tunisia? Libya? Egypt? Yemen?

This is not the hand of Israel. This is not the hand of Turkey, Russia, China, the USA, the West, etc.

This is the hand of the Syrian people. Who no longer want to live under an authoritarian regime.

Stand with the Syrian people. Or get lost in paranoid delusional thinking about the world you live in.

• Aug. 29, 2012 at 1:00 a.m.

It's funny. In the ME for nearly two years, political revolutions have been taking place; the Arab man in the street dared to speak out, to say no to a series of dictators - Ben Ali, Mubarek, Qadaffi and the Yemeni guy -- now a similar logic is working itself out in Syria whose tyrant has decided to to resist - many NY Times readers seem to be perversely ignorant of this context which creates the overwhelming assumption that the Syrian despot will have to go too. The other thing that puzzles me about so many of these correspondents is their thoughtless parroting of the Basher line -- the use of the Basher's label "terrorists" hints at the source of this point of view. Anyone who condemns “terrorists” without condemning the state terror of Basher’s army and secret police is mindless or worse. Any rational person would be suspicious of a man who blocks the press, doesn't allow free reporting or free speech but is nevertheless clearly seen to be a blood thirsty tyrant. Those decrying "fascism" in the rebels also have it clearly wrong; the fascist is the absolute tyrant Big Brother Basher. Let's help the courageous worthy rebels ovethrow him and make this a better world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/29/world/middleeast/syrian-rebels-get-arms-from-a-diverse-network-of-sources.html?comments#comments