Interview with Ahron Bregman: Israel, Syria, and the Elusive Peace

July 16, 2008 – 7:28 am

Ahron Bregman teaches in the War Studies Department at King’s College, London. He specializes in the Arab-Israeli conflict and is the author of several books, including Israel’s Wars: A History Since 1947.

Jonathan Mok: What do you think about the confirmation from Olmert’s office regarding peace negotiations between Israel and Syria? Do you believe that the peace talks only repeated themselves on the issues such as Golan Heights and other matters you discussed in your book Elusive Peace: How the Holy Land Defeated America?

Ahron Bregman: Peace negotiations between Israel and Syria continue with the help of Turkey. But it is done at a bureaucratic level and I don’t expect these talks to produce the big breakthrough. A breakthrough could only happen when the top leaders meet and tackle the one, most important, sticking point which is the Syrian demand to have access to the Sea of Galilee and that the future border will run along the water line.

As the lake provides Israel with some 30-35 per cent of her fresh water needs, the Israelis insist on a strip of land, particularly along the north-east section of the Sea of Galilee to remain under their sovereignty which will effectively mean no Syrian access to the precious water. Of course there are other issues to be discussed between Syria and Israel, notably the latter demand that Syria cuts off her links with Iran; but the issue of the border and access to the water is still the most important one. For such a breakthrough both sides will need strong and determined leaders. At the moment, however, on the Israeli side, we have a Prime Minister who is up to his eyes with problems – mainly allegations of apparent corruption. He is thus in no position to take big decisions. Peace with Syria will have to wait.

Jonathan: Shaul Mofaz, the current Israeli Minister of Transportation, warned against the possible strike against Iran. He further warned that the attack would be inevitable. Do you agree that his views represent general positions senior IDF officials have taken, considering that Mofaz once served Minister of Defense?

Ahron: Mofaz’s statements should be regarded in the context of his political campaign to replace Olmert as leader of Kadima and perhaps as the Prime Minister of Israel. Having said that, it would be difficult for Israel to tolerate a nuclear Iran and it will probably try to exert pressure on the international community to curtail Iran’s nuclear ambitions. As for an Israeli military strike on Iran – giving his domestic problems, it will be very difficult indeed for Prime Minister Olmert to take such a momentous decision.

Jonathan: If Israel decides to launch attacks, in your estimation, can the Jewish state stand the retaliation from Iran? While Iran has the larger landmass and population, it is believed that Israel has more nuclear weapons than Iran in terms of the number of missiles per population, no? Jimmy Carter claimed that Israel has 160 nuclear missiles. Even Olmert implicitly admitted the existence of the nuclear programme.

Ahron: Yes, Israel will be able to cope with a conventional retaliation. It will hurt, it will be painful and bloody, but the lesson of history is that conventional missile attack has only a limited effect on populations. As for Jimmy Carter’s statement about Israel being a nuclear power - this is quite an extraordinary statement coming from a former President of the United States and, no doubt, will do much to strengthen the belief that Israel is indeed a nuclear power.

Jonathan: I would like to turn to the Israeli politics. Do you believe that the politics and military have become twin-sisters? If so, why you think the military-political complex happened? Why does the public accept a military man, like Sharon or Rubin, to be their leaders?

Ahron:It has always been the case in Israel that former Generals turned politicians. The reason for that is quite simple: Israel’s most acute problems are security and Israelis tend to believe that only leaders with military background could properly deal with such problem. The unsuccessful 2006 war in Lebanon, where both the Prime Minister and his Defence Ministers lacked military experience seems to confirm the need to have the military man at the top. In due course, when Israel lives in peace with her neighbours, we might see more civilians at the helm.

Jonathan: Finally, living in London and teaching at a British university, do you see increasing anti-Semitism on campus, as Melanie Philips of Daily Mail argued in her book, Londonistan: How Britain is Creating a Terror State Within? Some organizations such as American Jewish Committee and Anti-Defamation League accuse the Teachers’ Union of launching anti-Israeli actions by boycotting Israeli institutions. What is your opinion of cutting off ties with universities such as Haifa and Bar-Ilan?

Ahron: In fact, I detect the opposite trend whereby governments are moving closer to Israel – perhaps the best example being France, but other European governments as well. Look for instance at how European leaders wanted to rub shoulders with Israeli ministers during Israel’s 60th anniversary.

The reason for that seems to be the rise of the Right in Europe and the growing concern – even fear - of Islamic extremism which ironically leads to some strengthening of the Israeli position in the Middle East. Regarding boycotting Israeli academic institutions – it is wrong and it will cause damage to freedom of expression which is at the heart of the academia. The occupation is bad – even evil – but boycotting academic institutions is just not the right method of fighting it.

By Jonathan Mok | Posted in Current Affairs, europe, middle east, politics | Comments (0)

Mirror of the Arab World: A Review

July 10, 2008 – 4:20 pm

This is a review of Mirror of the Arab World: Lebanon in Conflict by Sandra Mackey. W. W. Norton. 2008.

For more, please see Jonathan Mok’s interview with the author.

Why has the curse of assassination and war stuck to fates of Lebanon’s people? Why have the other Arab states recently intervened in the political deadlocks, resulting in the appointment of General Suleiman as the president? Why is Hezbollah is considered a terrorist organization, despite enjoying a wide popularity among the poor? Well, if you are interested in Lebanon, Sandra Mackey may very well be a great guide.

Instead of providing a journalistic account such as Thomas Friedman’s From Beirut to Jerusalem, Sandra Mackey, a veteran journalist, opts to offer a timely collection of facts so that her readers may gain more insight into Lebanon’s affairs.

The book attempts answers to questions such as “Why did the civil war take place?” “Why dp olitical and religious conflicts seem to have no end in Lebanon?”, and “Why have the United States, France, various Arab states, Israel and Iran have all been interested in meddling in the affairs of Lebanon?”

Mackey reveals the bare bones of an international religious conflict, wherein Lebanon’s people seek support from their brothers and sisters abroad, and foreign countries are too happy to “help.”

Who should be blamed? Mackey’s writing on this subject is elusive. But the elusiveness is compelling, because rather than adhere to media stereotypes, Mackey ultimately shows how everyone is responsible for the chaos in the country.

While Mackey doesn’t offer any immediate solutions to the religious strife in Lebanon, she illustrates the essential ingredients of a successful democratic society: a common identity and a secular institution recognized by everyone. The lack of common values, the precedence of religious and family interests over public welfare, the meddling of foreign powers which have been tried to impose their versions of Lebanon on its populace are presently preventing Lebanon from achieving such success.

Mackey’s work may not be comforting, but it is comprehensive, and it’s narrative, to borrow from the title, mirrors the general progress of conflict across the Middle East and beyond.

By Jonathan Mok | Posted in Arts & Literature, book reviews, middle east | Comments (0)

The Trouble in Lebanon: Interview with Sandra Mackey

June 26, 2008 – 9:28 am

Sandra Mackey is an award-winning author on Middle Eastern politics and culture. Her latest book is entitled Mirror Of the Arab World: Lebanon In Conflict (W.W. Norton, 2008).

Jonathan: What is it about Lebanon that made it a subject of study for you?

Sandra: In a time of unprecedented demand for oil and escalating tensions from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean, Westerners desperately need help in learning how to think about a region that is so vital to their interests and security. Mirror of the Arab World: Lebanon in Conflict, is an exercise to give order and bring clarity to the many complexities of the bridge between Europe and Asia that is defined by Arab culture. Lebanon serves as a tool. Despite its many unique characteristics, Lebanon is the most open of Arab societies and its history since the end of World War II includes the challenges every Arab country, in varying degrees, has and is now facing.

Jonathan: In your book, you suggested that clans and religions have long controlled the Lebanon’s political system. The most unique aspect of the system, from the National Pact of 1943, is the appointment of a Maronite Christian as the president, a Sunni Muslim as the prime minister, and a Shia Muslim as the speaker of the parliament. Do you consider this special arrangement a cause for the instability of the country? It is widely believed that the system has repeatedly resulted in political deadlock with the long struggle of electing the new president after Émile Lahoud being the latest example.

Sandra: The National Pact of 1943 created a path to independence acceptable to all the competing groups in Lebanon. It came out of a political culture rooted in family, clan, tribe, religion and sect. While the National Pact was enormously important in that it enabled the Lebanese to bind their rival communities into a functioning government, it failed to create an overarching sense of national identity strong enough to override tge “tribal” attitudes of most Lebanese. Although varying significantly from one to the other, every Arab country faces the same problem – creating a sense of common identity and a recognition of the common good strong enough to turn fragile states into genuine nations.

Jonathan: What do you think about the recent appointment of Michel Suleiman as the new president after the compromise in Doha? Will the appointment only provide short-term stability?

Sandra: The recent appointment of Michel Suleiman is a case in point of the enduring flaws of the National Pact. After six months in which the office remained vacant, the Lebanese finally came together on the choice of a president who must be a Maronite Christian. But they did not resolve the central problem of the Lebanese state – institutionalized sectarianism. Until the Lebanese replace a system that distributes political and economic power on the basis if the census of 1932 with one that represents both current demographics and political realities, Lebanon is not going to be stable.

Jonathan: Returning to your book, you argued that the United States, under the Reagan administration, tried to create its own version of Lebanon. What influence did the the Christian Right in the United States have in shaping the American policy on Lebanon at that time? I remember that Pat Robertson set up METV in South Lebanon to broadcast Christian television programs in 1980s.

Sandra: Lebanon is not only the victim of its own internal tensions it is also the victim of outside powers pursuing their own interests on the soil of Lebanon. The civil war of 1975-1990 would have killed many fewer people and inflicted much less damage if it had not been for the presence of Syria, Israel, the Palestinians, the United States, and Iran that used Lebanon as a field on which to wage proxy wars against each other.

The error of the Reagan administration in intervening in Lebanon the way in which it did illustrates how little the United States understands the Arab world and how much American policy is driven by the needs and desires of Israel. A powerful segment of the Israeli lobby in American politics is right wing Christians who see the state of Israel as God’s Biblical promise to the Jews and the restoration of the Jews to Jerusalem as necessary to the second coming of Christ. This theology, which most American Christians reject, has nonetheless profoundly influenced American policy for the entire Arab world since right wing Christians organized themselves into a political machine in the late 1970’s.

But more than theology, the American view of the region is shrouded in ignorance on the part of the government and the electorate. Again this is why Lebanon provides such a good model for looking at the region. The United States blundered into Lebanon in 1982 with no understanding of the realities of the conflict. In 2003, Washington committed an even more serious error in judgment by invading Iraq with no comprehension of the complications that would follow the fall of Saddam Hussein. American interests have paid a terrible price for both of these mistakes. Ironically, cosmopolitan Lebanon on the Western edge of the Arab world and brutalized Iraq at its eastern edge are currently the two most similar countries in the region in their internal dynamics – communalism, Sunni-Shia tensions, and foreign interference.

Jonathan: It appears that Hizbollah has wide political support beyond the Shi’a and Druze. What, in your opinion, makes this party popular in the country? Is it related to the success of Hassan Nasrallah in delivering his promises of improving the welfare of the poor and needy?

Sandra: Hezbollah’s popularity beyond the confines of its own Shia base is due, in my opinion, to three major factors. The organization has addressed the needs of the non-elites of the society – those ignored by government for too many decades; resistance to Israel; and a charismatic leader with impressive political skills. In these first two factors is again how Lebanon reflects the whole region. The non-elites across the Arab world are stirring. But in a drought of secular ideology, they have no where to go to achieve redress of their legitimate grievances. This explains the persistent power of politicized Islam.

In Lebanon, Islam packaged as politics is labeled Hezbollah. Among the Sunnis, it carries the banners of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. At its farthest edge, militant Islam is stamped with the brand name of al Qaeda by a whole collection of dissent groups demanding political and economic enfranchisement or cultural affirmation. Westerners need to understand these socio-economic aspects of militant Islam. Until they do, the eradication of acts of terrorism will fail.

Jonathan: Finally, in your afterword, you lamented the misunderstandings between the East and West on. Can you talk about your feelings on the issue?

Sandra: Unless you travel both sides of the street as I do, it is difficult to become alarmed about the bitterness, resentment, and fear with which Westerners and Arabs regard each other. It is only when you actually live with the reality of the perceptions, misunderstandings, and genuine grievances one holds for the other that it is possible to grasp just how close both the Arabs and the West are to falling into a chasm of conflict destructive to both.

To make the situation even more perilous, those who are beating the drums of war against the despised Other are the militants of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Consumed by the demands of their own identities, the militants of all three religions thrust forward armed with cultural certitude. Watching the confrontation, one can only recall the observation of the Syrian poet Osama bin al Munqidh who wrote at the time of the Crusades that the Arab Middle East was perceived in terms of three unequal parts: Muslim, Christian, and Jew. To him, the truth was very different.

In his eyes, the Middle East was divided into only two parts: those who believe and those who think. Today it is the believers who are gaining dominance over the thinkers. Unless the thinkers mobilize themselves, the believers could well collide in Lebanon.

By Jonathan Mok | Posted in books, islam, middle east, politics | Comments (1)

Chasing The Flame: A Review

June 18, 2008 – 11:54 am

This is a review of Chasing the Flame: Sergio Vieira de Mello and the Fight to Save the World by Samantha Power. Allen Lane, 2008.

Most United Nations officials do not make for engrossing literary subjects. Samantha Power, however, has found an exception. The Yale-educated Harvard Law Professor was previously awarded the Pulitzer Prize in 2003 for her work “A problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide”. She recently served as a foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama, but resigned after suggesting that Hilary Clinton is a “Monster”.

Power’s latest book is about Sergio Viera de Mello, the Special Representative of the UN Secretary General in Iraq, who died tragically in 2003.

One hardly expects a book devoted to a UN official to be an engrossing read. However, Power does a brilliant job, crafting a compelling biography. Not only does she show the witty and romantic side of Vieira de Mello, but she fully illustrates Mello’s experiences when it comes to the reconstruction of war-torn countries, painting a detailed picture of both success and failure.

This book illustrates the clash of pragmatism and principles. Power highlights the complexities of Vieira de Mello’s career and personal growth: he was both an idealist and someone who sat down at a dinner table with the Khmer Rouge if he thought it practical.

Vieira de Mello’s life makes for a mesmerizing narrative. A life-long philosophy student, he got out of the ivory tower and took on the world. He was also a bureaucrat who freely exhibited basic human kindness and charm. And finally, a man who worked toward peace - and died as the result of a suicide bombing.

One can hope that Barack Obama will read Samantha Power’s excellent biography of this excellent, if complicated, figure. There are many lessons to be learned from the life, and death, of Sergio Vieira de Mello.

By Jonathan Mok | Posted in book reviews, middle east, politics, terrorism | Comments (0)

1948: A Review

June 13, 2008 – 11:25 am

This is a review of 1948: The First Arab-Israeli War by Benny Morris. Yale University Press. 2008.

In 1980’s, a group of Israeli historians including Tom Segev of Haaretz (a daily Israeli newspaper), Avi Shlaim of Oxford University, and Ilan Pappe of University of Exeter opened up the debate regarding mainstream interpretation of the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Major arguments from the new historians included:

That the British government tried to stop the establishment of an independent Palestinian State
That the refugees were forced to leave their homes
That Zionists had both greater manpower and more weapons
That Arabs were divided as to whether they should work to eradicate the Jewish state
And that Israel should be held responsible for the failure of peace talks

Among the prominent new historians is Benny Morris of the Ben-Gurion University in Negev. He has been the most controversial member of the camp, due to his justifying the expulsion of Arabs during the war in 1948.

Benny Morris

If Morris’ latest book represents a political position, it is right to suggest that he is no longer aligned to the left. One of the examples of Morris’s sympathy for the right is his justification of Deir Yassir massacre. The massacre, he believes, was necessary for accelerating the exodus of Palestinians in order to give space to the Jewish state.

Still, the book brings good insights. The most surprising discovery would be the Czech support for the just-born Jewish state. The Czech republic, in an ironic twist, shipped the guns and bullets left over from the Nazis to Tel Aviv and Haifa.

Morris is right to claim that Christian Arabs were unlike their Muslim neighbors in resisting the establishment of the Jewish state. His point is confirmed by the Maronite alliance with Israel during Lebanon’s civil war. The collaboration is both aided and complicated by the Maronites’ belief on the re-establishment of the Jewish state as the realization of Biblical prophecy.

The title may focuses on the year 1948, but the content goes beyond this. I was intrigued by the books description of the negative image the United Nations has among many Israelis. While it is widely argued that the hatred of the United Nations came about as the result of the United Nations equating Zionism to racism in 1974, Morris adds a new dimension to the situation.

The major cause behind the animosity, he claims, is more detailed. The unfinished business of Greater Israel and the UN’S reluctance in supporting the partition have also played a role.

The book also talks about possibly the most explosive issue arising from the war: Jewish refugees from Arab states. Here, Morris appears at his most pessimistic. He claims that the return of Palestinian refugees will also raise the question of the return of Jewish refugees who fled their homes during the war, reducing the chance of success of the peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine to zero for as long as the Palestinian Authority demands that Israel absorb people who left in 1948.

With this book, Morris has firmly established himself in the mainstream of historic thought and analysis. This may be a disappointment to some, and welcome news to others.

1948 cover

By Jonathan Mok | Posted in academia, book reviews, middle east | Comments (0)

The Hong Kong Sinfonietta, a Growing Presence

June 1, 2008 – 5:11 am

3 May 2008
Rachmaninov: Piano Concerto No 4 in G minor, Op 40
Rachmaninov: Piano Concerto No 2 in C minor, Op 18

The Sinfonietta, established in 1990, offered concertgoers the rare chance to enjoy Peter Donohue last month. The British pianist entertained the audience with the rarely performed Rachmaninov’s fourth and first piano concertos.

Let’s first say a few words about the Sinfonietta: Yip Wing-sie became its chief conductor in 2002. The Sinfonietta has performed with global starts such as Placido Domingo and Luciano Pavarotti. The Sinfonietta is also well-known for its educational concerts, and the guiding mission of bringing classic music into day-to-day life..

Speaking of the Peter Donahue performance, while the Fourth Piano Concerto is not as well-known as compared to the Second and First or Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini, it is believed that the Fourth is one of the best of Rachmaninov’s piano-and-orchestra work. It’s considered stylistically top-notch, yet does not lack the passion and fervor. Its orchestral writing is especially sophisticated, thus any orchestra that undertakes it must undergo an extensive and demanding rehearsal process.

Yip and the Sinfonietta did their jobs with both precision and emotion, which was crucial. As for Donohue, his playing here was superb; he is a true virtuoso performer wholeheartedly playing for the joy of the music. His music is never forceful.

After the intermission, Donohue launched into the beginning of the First Piano Concerto with great spirit. Read More »

By Jonathan Mok | Posted in Society, east asia, music, music reviews | Comments (1)

Interview With Author Hugh Miles

May 15, 2008 – 2:36 am

This is an interview with Hugh Miles, author of Playing Cards In Cairo. We wish to thank everyone who made this interview possible.

hugh miles

Jonathan Mok: What inspired you to write the book?

Hugh Miles: While writing my previous book, “Al Jazeera – How Arab TV News Has Challenged the World,” I had to travel all over the Gulf and North Africa. I soon realised it would make more sense to be based somewhere in the region than to commute back and forth from London every few weeks. I wanted somewhere central and accessible both to Europe and all the countries in the region. I love big cities so Cairo seemed like the obvious choice.

Cairo does not suit everyone – it’s crowded and terribly polluted – but I found it fascinating. It is the cultural heart and soul of the Arab world, where Arab trends start and I just wanted to soak it all up. The fact that you can live so well in Egypt compared to the cost of living of London certainly contributed to that decision!

I started working freelance for Western newspapers and magazines, covering everything from terrorism to the arts. I was on the point of leaving and then unexpectedly I met an Egyptian girl and fell in love.

Dating an Arab Muslim girl is not easy and I soon realised that I would have to find a clever way to spend time with her if we were not going to fall foul of conservative Egyptian society. So I began to play cards with her and her friends.

The stories I heard around the card table taught me much about the lives of young women in the Egyptian megalopolis and I felt privileged to glimpse what is normally the hidden half of Arab society.

I wanted to write about the cards sessions in a newspaper, but I knew it would not be possible as strictly speaking what I heard was not news. That’s when I decided to write a book.

Jonathan: Does the continuation of that traditional practices such as wearing veils, symbolize the failure of secularisation that the Egyptian government has tried to implement since Nasser? Read More »

By Jonathan Mok | Posted in Arts & Literature, books, islam, middle east | Comments (0)

Playing Cards in Cairo: A Review

May 13, 2008 – 9:48 am

This is a review of Playing Cards in Cairo by Hugh Miles. Abacus. 2008.

Hugh Miles, the son of a British diplomat, has a freewheeling approach to life that, by proxy, helps readers gain a better understanding of Egyptian society. This society is observed through the experiences of his female friends and Roda, an Egyptian woman who becomes his wife.

The book tells stories of Miles’ card-playing mates: Yosra, Nadia, Reem and, by extension, their relatives. The book also documents the blossoming of Miles’ relationship with Roda. Tough subjects, from family abuse to drug addiction, are tackled in this fascinating account.

The book reveals the failure of successive Egyptian governments since Nasser: the idea of secularization seems laughable in a place where millions of females suffer from family violence; the pledge for equality is a farce when one considers the levels of corruption within the state; discrimination against people of different class-backgrounds thrives in a society meant to be egalitarian.

The book also confronts the hypocrisy of stringent interpretation of Islamic law. For example, if pre-martial sex is not accepted, why is a contract marriage, urfi, permitted under Sunni Islam? (P.92-93)

Miles’ narrative is more heartfelt than some, because he is discussing his friends here. The contemporary problems of Egyptian society, lack of job opportunities for young people, lack of freedom of speech, the struggles of Muslims who want to leave their faith, feels more immediate.

Unfortunately, Miles does not really discuss the roots of many of Egypt’s problems. For example, he argues that “Cairo is a class-ridden society where people are expected to know their place…” (p.198) However, a curious outsider such as myself does not see him discussing why he thinks this is the case.

Miles is nevertheless right to question whether democratization will follow economic progress. The transformation of economy, in his eyes, “only [strengthens a] more authoritarian [Egyptian government]” (p.263) He has a point, based on other examples in the region.

Miles’ writing is not didactic. Through merely recounting the difficulties faced by his female friends, he retains enough objectivity to give readers their own chance to think about the status of Egyptian women.

“Today, Egyptian women are better educated than ever before, buy they are sill expected to do the child rearing and domestic chores…Though they can sometimes…choose a husband…family pressures are strong and their lives are blighted by discrimination, deprivation and violence.” (p.276)

Miles’ reserved tone is what really makes his writing resonate.

By Jonathan Mok | Posted in Arts & Literature, africa, book reviews, books, islam, middle east | Comments (2)

Who Speaks For Islam: A Review

April 5, 2008 – 11:46 pm

This is a review of Who Speaks For Islam: What A Billion Muslims Really Think, by John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed. Gallup Poll Press. First Printing: 2007.

This book attempts a systematic survey of how Muslims generally view democracy, civil rights, the status of women, and the relationship between Islam and the West.

The most important message behind the book is the notion of how similar the citizens of Muslim nations and people living in the West are. For example, in the first chapter, “ Democracy and Theocracy”, 42% percent of Americans interviewed in a Gallup poll survey suggested that “ religious leaders should have a direct role in writing the constitution.” 55% percent believe that religious leaders should “ play no role at all.” According to the book, the Iranian population has presented similar opinions.

This book contains surprises. For example, it claims that 60% percent of pro-democracy Muslims went to a religious service in the past seven days before being interviewed. Clearly, such statistics force a re-think of the very definition of democracy. Is there only one form of democracy? Must a good democracy separate religion and politics? Is the Western form of democracy widely accepted as the only standard?

Most importantly, can a model of democracy which embraces religious principles and democratic values actually exist? Read More »

By Jonathan Mok | Posted in Arts & Literature, book reviews, islam | Comments (2)

God’s Crucible: A Review

March 24, 2008 – 7:54 am

This is a review of God’s Crucible: Islam and the Making of Europe, 570-1215, by David Levering Lewis. W.W. Norton. 2008

Islamic presence in Spain between the 7th and 14th centuries has long been considered a controversial topic. The ex-Spanish Prime minister, Jose Maria Aznar, for example, added fire to the already intense discussions two years ago. He argued Muslims have never apologized for “conquering Spain and staying for eight centuries”.

Modern Conservative scholars such as Victor Davis Hanson, Bat Ye’or and Robert Spencer suggested that Muslim rule in Spain were despots who subjected people of other faiths to heavy taxation and religious persecution. David Levering Lewis thinks otherwise. This New York University professor places the relationship between Muslim nations and and Europe at the center of his latest book. His book inspires one to re-think the Islamic contribution to Europe.

The biggest accomplishment of Lewis’s book lies in its attempt to challenge conventional thinking regarding the victory of Charles Martel, the leader of the Franks. He rebukes historians such as Edward Gibbons and Victor Davis Hanson for their simplistic views on the Battle of Poitiers:

“Today, Charles Martel’s defeat of ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Ghafiqi is buried deep in the collective memory of the West, a marker of an important happening seldom recalled with the hyperbole typical of an earlier, more cultural self-aggrandizing age…However, it probably occurs to few, if any of the contemporary descendants of the “Europenses” to credit the existence of the European Union to the Battle of Poitiers.”

Lewis does an excellent job of asking the question as to what served to create Europe as we know it. He believes that years of Western-dominated thinking on the war have made us blind to the idea that Martel’s victory may have actually hurt Europe of those days by paving the way for an intolerant feudal age. At present times, the re-education Lewis offers us is of vital importance.

For me, the most surprising discovery in Lewis’s book concerns how the struggle between two civilizations actually improved welfare of women. It’s an intriguing premise, since conflict usually means setbacks wherein women’s rights are concerned.

Lewis blames Pope Innocent III and Pope Urban II for ending the long history of co-existence between Arabs, Jews and Christians. He beautifully summarizes the impact of the Pope’s Fourth Lateran Council’s call for wars against unbelievers and heresy:

“Difference, immemorially accommodated for better and worse by Western Europe’s peoples as the way of the world, was institutionalized henceforth as unassailable “otherness”

Lewis’s condemnation of Catholic Church is practically confrontational. He made me wonder whether even the present-day Vatican has the credibility to initiate dialogue with different faiths. In his book, Lewis gives a glimpse of the world of Christendom whose defeat of the Islamic faith slowed down the development of technology, culture, and science. It’s a grim picture, to say the least.

This book makes one consider the possibility that bad luck is likely to befall Europe if it decides to turn away from its Muslim neighbors in Turkey and Morocco. These neighbors may just offer some solutions to the aging crisis of the Great Continent.

The book suffers from a dearth of Spanish and Arabic source materials and a surplus of academic language. Having said that, Lewis still stands well above many colleagues who have tackled similar subjects.

Above all else, God’s Crucible is full of useful information for advocates of inter-faith dialogue; it’s main message is that freedom of exchange of ideas, tolerance of dissidents, and respect for diversity are will make a society prosperous.

By Jonathan Mok | Posted in Arts & Literature, Religion, book reviews, europe, islam | Comments (1)