Playing Cards in Cairo: A Review

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.

Geert Wilders, “Fitna,” and the Last Refuge of the Bigoted

Fitna (the Arabic word for ‘dissension’), a new film by Geert Wilders, a rightwing Dutch parliamentarian, should not be suppressed.

This isn’t because it has anything valuable or insightful to offer to the debates surrounding Islam, modernity, or the convulsions wracking much of the Middle East. No, it must be seen so that it can be shown up for the insipid propaganda video it is.

To suppress the film in the name of political correctness only underscores the seductive mystery its creators have cultivated. Wilders & Co released snippets of info here and there, whipping up a torrent of anticipation for a film that can only be described as banal.

“Fitna” is a propaganda piece whose ‘aesthetic’ is comparable to those made by radical Islamists. The burning of effigies, extremist placards, and threats to website staff undertaken by Muslim vigilantes as a reaction to this film are themselves myopic and morally bankrupt. When ‘Muslim indignation’ takes a violent turn it merely confirms the claims of provocateurs like Wilders.

The film itself is not a critique of Islamic fundamentalism or even the tribal vestiges of malign practices such as stoning and female circumcision. Wilders’ enterprise is rather the pathetic attempt to salvage a ‘nativist’ conception of Dutch, and, more generally, European identity.

In order to fashion a ‘pristine’ and ‘untarnished’ representation of this idea, Wilders is forced to place it in contradistinction to a clearly defined enemy, represented by the looming threat of a monolithic and omnipresent ‘Islam’. Fitna is therefore yet another variant of the discursively manufactured ‘clash of civilizations’ thesis first argued for by Samuel P. Huntington in the American journal Foreign Affairs over a decade ago.

Wilders’ strategy is simple and crude. He arbitrarily picks out a few decontextualized lines from the Quran, then juxtaposes them with footage of obscene violence committed by Muslim extremists. 9/11, 7/7, and the Madrid Bombings, are paraded across the screen in an orgy of mayhem.

The propaganda videos of al-Qaeda and those inspired by their message equally rely on publicizing violence in order to attract recruits. Read More »

God’s Crucible: A Review

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.

A Possible Peace Between Israel and Palestine: A Review

This is a review of A Possible Peace Between Israel and Palestine: An Insider’s Account of the Geneva Initiative by Menachem Klein, translated by Haim Watzman. Columbia University Press. 2007.

We are being driven to accept the two-state solution as the only way to solve the conflict between Israel and Palestine. The logic is simple:

Israel remains a Jewish state; Palestine is going to be independent.

The book, written by an Israeli academic who used to serve as an adviser of Ehud Barak, calls for a deeper re-thinking of the peace settlement. His vision of the future between Israel and Palestine is idealistic, but also, I believe, pragmatic. Instead of seeing peace deals with Palestinians as grace-giving measures, he urges for Israelis to treat Palestinians as equals.

Rather than dismantling all Israeli settlements, which, he argues, is impossible due to the political influence of settlers and heavy costs, he advocates the maintenance of large settlement blocs. Turning to Jerusalem, Klein believes that the division of the city should be based on the historical positions of individual religious sites, while East Jerusalem should be drawn into different districts to ensure villages close to Ramallah will be under direct governance of the future Palestinian state. Villages between Ramallah and the Old City can have their public and social services provided by third parties, for the sake of stability.

Klein portrays the failure of American involvement, which is blindly pro-Israel, as well as the danger of unilateral movement, which inevitably leaves one side bitter. He is deeply invested in the emotional aspects of the conflict, arguing that Jerusalem in particular has tremendous meaning for all parties involved. He discusses Zionism, the abandonment of Palestinian right of return, and the price both sides have had to pay in the ongoing struggle.

I recommend this book to anyone seeking an alternative voice in discussions surrounding the two-state solution.

Soundtrack: An iPod Epic

This is where this particular story starts: I was listening to my iPod, and I had set it to shuffle.

I don’t necessarily like the shuffle function. I resort to it. Some folks enjoy the surprise of what’s coming next; I simply cannot choose one band over another.

I have about eleven gigs of music, and I find the variety paralyzing. Finally, I’ll choose one of the three artists that I always choose, and disgust myself with my own predictability. It’s a small, silent drama that gets played out to an audience of just one, and I prefer to skip it. So I shuffle.

The particular sequence of “random” songs I am about to relate seemed to tell a unique story. As I listened to it, I became absolutely positive that not only had my iPod gained some sort of terrifying self-awareness, but that it was playing tricks on me.

Or, here’s a simpler, more arrogant explanation: the universe was sending me a message, because I’m so important and handsome. Either way, this particular sequence of songs reminded me more than anything of the night I met a guy that I will refer to as Rafferty.

And so the story turned into a music retrospective, and an odyssey of me and Rafferty. It’s sad, creepy, and beautiful. Enjoy.

Brighton Rock (5:09) – Queen

I was ambushed. Expecting the standard lyrical, pop-genius that Queen has always provided, I was literally punched in my rat-eating face when the happy carnival intro morphed into complex progressions, power chords, and a guitar solo that would probably cause Mother Teresa to fling her bra onto the stage.

Freddie Mercury does his thing as well as ever, which makes this song evidence that he could also have been a great front man for Judas Priest. This is a song from my past that made a startling, happy reappearance; it would also be a fantastic tune to burn down a building to.

And so it goes that it was a summer between college semesters. I had ended up at a party, tagging along with a friend. And at this same party, I met this guy I had known from the third grade. I met Rafferty. And Rafferty had changed.

A lot.

Gone were the glasses, the tucked-in polo shirt, the short stature that had forced him to squint up at people. Present-day Rafferty had shoulder-length stoner hair. He seemed like the kind of guy that solved the problem of boredom by going out with a bat to set off car alarms. Apparently, he had been living on a diet of vodka and bovine growth hormone. He was huge, lively, cheerful, visibly wasted, and urging me to much of the same. I had an old new friend, and he was about to rock my face off.

Hey Mama (4:20) – Kanye West

When Kanye West forgets about how wonderful Kanye West feels Kanye West is, he really is one of the greats. And this song is a perfect example: Read More »

People of the Book: A Review

This is a review of Zachary Karabell’s People of the Book: The Forgotten History of Islam and the West. John Murray. 2007.

In Samuel Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations, the author envisioned that, after the collapse of communism, the Christian West inevitably would start conflicts with Islam, due to different values, traditions and ideologies. His prediction, seemingly, has become real for lots of people since the attack of 9/11. The Iraq war and the bombings in London in July 2005 have intensified this belief. Religions, which were once becoming irrelevant in our lives, have again proven to be crucial factors in the long negotiation toward some semblance of peace and harmony in the world. The emergence of Islamic fundamentalists and the Christian Right in the United States have made people doubt the very possibility of co-existence.

In his latest book, Zachary Karabell (who obtained his doctorate degree from Columbia and published books on American college education and politics before the previous book on the Suez Canal), tries to present the history of happy co-existence among Muslims, Christians and Jews: from the era of Muhammad till twenty-first century Dubai.

Karabell suggests that the decline of relationships among Muslims, Christians and Jews can be traced back to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when Western-educated Arab intellectuals imported nationalism into their homes. Zionism, an ideology that began to grow popular after the First World War, further altered the former friendship between Muslims and Jews.

Rather than blaming Muslims for prejudice against Jews and Christians, Karabell asks us to think about the responsibility Christian Europe should bear for recent violence. What caused the departure of European Jews and, therefore, resulted in conflicts between Muslims and Jews? What brought about the plight of Palestinians? For Karabell, it would be easy to point a finger at Arabs, but he believes that without the persecution of Jews and the Holocaust, violence would not plague both Muslims and Jews.

As an example of restoration of harmony between followers of Muhammad and People of the Book, Karabell speaks about the city of Dubai, suggesting that the path to co-existence can be shaped by global-minded business strategy.

Obviously, Karabell understands that this is easier said than done. He illustrates his point by bringing up the enormous voting power of the American Christian Right, whose support was instrumental to the George W. Bush White House. The stronghold of religious parties in the Israeli government is another example he uses.

Karabell’s bibliography is well-stocked, from Turkish and Arabic sources, to publications of English-language conservative scholars, including Robert Spencer and Bat Ye’or. Both Spencer and Ye’or are contributors to Jihad Watch, a famous site, and have been accused of sparking Islamophobia. By going straight to such sources, Karabell has exposed the heart of present religious hostilities.

Chronicling the history of encounters between Islam and the West in the last fourteen hundred years, Karabell attempts to see a path toward peaceful co-existence today. I am not entirely sure that he has found a useful solution to the crises we face. Yet he has delivered a fascinating exploration of the good and bad that is to be found in the expressions of the Abrahamic faiths. There is some hope that we can get along yet, even if some of us continue to believe that killing people is the only answer.

Lion of Jordan: A Review

This is a review of Avi Shlaim’s Lion of Jordan: The Life of King Hussein in War and Peace. Allen Lane. 2007.

Many volumes on the lives of Israeli and Palestinian politicians, and their involvement in the peace process, have been published. However, there has been too little focus on Arab rulers, leaders in Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia - and their roles when it comes to Israel and Palestine.

Enter Avi Shlaim, an Israeli professor of International Relations at Oxford University. Schleim aims to provide an account of King Hussein’s involvement in the quest for peace in one of the most volatile regions in the world. Shlaim is further interested in challenging the conventional view that Israel has long been a victim of Arab aggression - both militarily and diplomatically.

Shlaim’s book stands out due to its use of primary sources; Shlaim interviewed the late Jordanian king in 1996. The interview became the eventual foundation of the book. In contrast with left-wing historians such as Benny Morris, Shlaim brings more personal insight into King Hussein’s views on Israel, Arafat, and Palestinian nationalism. In addition, Shlaim’s interviews with Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin create a vivid image of how Israeli leaders viewed the late King.

The book urges the reader to consider who King Hussein really was: a hero (as he is commonly perceived in the West)? Or a puppet? Did King Hussein really want peace for Palestinians, or were personal gains his main aim in the conflict? Considering Jordan’s reliance on foreign aid, saying “yes” to the Western-backed Jewish state next door would appear to have been an easy choice for King Hussein - Shlaim suggests. Shlaim further challenges readers to weigh the cost of making a permanent peace deal with Israel at the expense of freedom of speech and democracy.

Shlaim has succeeded in crafting a largely objective narrative on the life of King Hussein. And it is Shlaim’s belief that this particular ruler could have helped create peace in his lifetime, if the other powers had paid him more genuine attention - though Shlaim is much less charitable when it comes to what he believes to be King Hussein’s failure at modernizing Jordan, and granting more civil and political rights to its citizens.

The Oil and the Glory: A Review

This is a review of Steve LeVine’s The Oil and the Glory: The Pursuit of Empire and Fortune on the Caspian Sea. Random House. 2007.

Steve LeVine has worked as a freelance journalist for The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Financial Times, and Newsweek - in places such as the former Soviet Union, Pakistan, and the Philippines. Drawing on his considerable journalistic experience, he sets out to chronicle the history of the Caspian Sea.

Different characters intersect in the book: Nobel family of Sweden, American middlemen acting on behalf of the Soviet Union to make deals with American and British petroleum companies, oil executives begging their government to pressure Soviet leaders to allow drilling, and Central Asian leaders resisting pressure from Moscow to allow Moscow-supported companies to open the oil fields.

However, the central character of the book is oil. It is, perhaps, the only thing (after changes in regimes in ex-Soviet Union republics) that makes Moscow so determined to reclaim its influence in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, even threatening the destructions of oil drilling sites in these countries if they do not seek the opinion of Moscow before signing deals with Western companies.

LeVine describes Russia as a troublemaker, which has tried to use pipelines built in the Soviet era as leverage to force its former colonies to submit to the former master. However, the Russian attempt to rebuild influence is contained by the Clinton administration, whose policy on Caspian Sea and oil in Central Asia was shaped by Rosemarie Forsythe - who served as the Director of Russian, Ukrainian and Eurasian Affairs of the National Security Council, and Bill White- the Deputy Secretary of Energy.

The struggle between Russia and the United States for more influence in Central Asia is familiarized by the invocation of the struggle between Britain and Russia in the nineteenth century, when both sides were lobbying Iran, Armenia and Azerbaijan to consolidate the supply of oil to the West or to the Russian empire. The competition between two superpowers is a re-play of an old game. It is only natural for Russia to struggle to secure its backyards against the ex-colonies, who are full of hatred on Moscow due to forced abandonment of nomadic lives and migration imposed by Stalin and subsequent leaders and are therefore siding with another major power in the world, LeVine argues.

LeVine questions whether the United States is genuinely interested in bringing freedom and democracy to the region, and whether it is interested in actually monitoring the business practices of American oil firms in Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. He believes that the United States helped mobilize support for pro-Western politicians to launch the “color revolutions” in Ukraine and Georgia to overthrow pro-Russia governments. However, when it comes to pro-America allies in Central Asia, the commitment to expanding freedom and democracy becomes secondary to strategic interests, LeVine argues. The book exposes the common practice of paying bribes to despotic leaders in the newly independent republics. Yet the book also urges readers to re-examine what constitutes corruption: Should lobbying of American oil companies such as Chevron and Exxon and Mobil in the Congress and Senate on behalf of Azerbaijan or Kazakhstan be considered as offering bribes to Baku and Almaty?

The book relies on several hundred interviews conducted between 1992 and 2007, as well as autobiographical writings of key political players from the United States, the Soviet Union and ex-Soviet republics. The combination of these primary sources provides first-hand views of officials and businessmen going about their deals, and offering their opinions of the future of the Caspian Sea. However, the lack of sources originating in Russian and Central Asian languages greatly limits LeVine’s scope.

On the whole, the book illustrates the history and importance of Caspian Sea through a series of dramas whose character include oilmen, dictatorial leaders of ex-Soviet republics, Russian politicians who have tried to maintain their influence among their neighbors, and government officials of the United States who have worked to expand their influence in the region since the collapse of the communist party in Moscow. The result is the fascinating account of the region, a region which will continue to become increasingly crucial when it comes to the global supply of oil.

Power, Faith, and Fantasy: A Review

This is a review of Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East 1776 to the Present by Michael Oren. W.W. Norton, 2007

It is believed that America only began to get involved in the affairs of the Middle East after the Suez Crisis in 1956, which caused the decline of the influence of the British in the region. For most people, America intensified its influence after the Yom Kippur war, when Richard Nixon agreed to export American weapons to help Israel defeat Egypt and Syria.

Michael Oren has some different ideas wherein America’s role in the region is concerned. Oren is a historian and author whose latest book aims to help readers understand the motives driving American politicians, Christian leaders, and members of the media, to get involved in Middle Eastern affairs. He also concerns himself with the eternal question of whether or not American involvement is positive or negative.

Modern scholars suggest that the first direct conflict between America and the Islamic world, barring the Hizbollah attack that killed 240 American troops in 1983, was the attack against Saddam Hussein in 1993. Oren challenges this notion. The first conflict between the two civilizations took place from 1776-1815, he asserts. Barbary pirates from Morocco, Libya, and Algeria attacked American business ships and held sailors captive. Oren believes that the decision of James Madison to send dispatches to attack ports in North Africa affirmed American status as a global power. Success in stopping the attacks also boosted American confidence in using force to protect overseas commerce, Oren claims.

The book also rebukes what Oren calls “the myth of the Israel lobby”, which has become a much-debated issue. Oren believes that the American support for Israel is not simply tied to Jewish lobbies, which have been accused of using millions of dollars to influence Washington D.C to establish a pro-Israel policy. Neither, he says, is America pro-Israel due to the work of John Hagee, Pat Roberston, and other right-wing Christians.

The influences of the above preachers and lobbyists are real and cannot be ignored. Yet Oren ultimately offers a different explanation for the seemingly unconditional American support to the Jewish state: which is what Oren describes as a grown-up, realist view of the right of Israel to exist, stemming from American desire to protect Jews from persecution following the pogroms and the Holocaust.

Oren also suggests that the Arab attacks against Jews, militarily or rhetorical, further serve Israeli interests on the ground. Arab assaults, Oren says, are portrayed as a fundamentalist Islamic jihad against people of different faiths and civilizations, creating an image of Arabs as a people who do not desire peace.

Oren only devotes one section to the history of American attachment to the Middle East after the Second World War. He focuses on a general interpretation on the nature of the U.S - Middle East relations. He is right to predict that the United States will have much more challenges ahead, especially from Iran, as well as the al-Qaeda terrorist network. Overall, Oren finds years of American involvement positive in that modern education and health care are funded and/or encouraged in the region, and in the belief that America is a nation that strives for peace and security for the Middle East.

Praise for America’s good intentions is obviously Oren’s most controversial statement. America’s intentions may be as good as Oren claims, but so far, the results are rather mixed (as evidenced by poor political, economical, and educational conditions in many Muslim countries); Oren could have done a better job addressing the present situation.

This book drew upon a wealth of materials from various archives and literature. However, these materials were all written in English, which may have limited the author’s scope. In addition, the book suffers from a lack of source materials on more recent events. Oren claims that it would have been difficult to obtain diverse resources, but the book would provide a more multi-dimensional view of how people in the Middle East perceive American involvement if at least secondhand resources in French, Arabic, or Hebrew were consulted.

Despite such shortcomings, my ultimate pronouncement is that this book is terrific. It is a must-read manual for diplomats and peacemakers who have been puzzled by the “seemingly irrational actions” successive American governments have displayed when Israel-related issues appear at the UN Security Council. It provides a great deal of explanations for the continuous American vetoes on resolutions demanding Israeli withdrawal from West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.

Oren’s highlighting of the fact that American involvement in the Middle East can be traced back to 1776 is by itself an invaluable reminder of how short our memory can be wherein American foreign policy is concerned. People interested in a refresher course would do well to pick up Oren’s book.

Dangerous Nation: A Review

This is a review of Dangerous Nation: America’s Foreign Policy from Its Earliest Days to the Dawn of the Twentieth Century by Robert Kagan. Vintage Books, November 2007 Read More »