Embrace by Brooklyn Bridge .. The Mess that is Egyptian Immigrant Identity!

Review of Embrace by Brooklyn Bridge by Ezzedine Choukri Fishere

As I started reading Embrace by Brooklyn Bridge by EzzedineChoukri Fishere, I found myself thinking of David Guterson’s East of the Mountains. Beautifully written prose of great men coming to terms, with their imminent death, tiding up their worldly affairs and moving on, into the wilderness to face their ends, away from the distractions of their busy successful lives. The book starts with recently diagnosed Professor Darweesh, an accomplished Egyptian American academic, who is planning his departure from New York City after hosting a big birthday dinner for his granddaughter, who is visiting him from Egypt. I had read Fishere’s latest book The Exit’s Gate first and was somewhat surprised at the different pace of Brooklyn, exactly as I had been ten years ago, reading Guterson’s transition from Snow Falling on Cedar to East of the Mountains; from fast moving, taut dramas to a slow reflective, contemplative end of life meanderings.

The first chapter of Brooklyn introduced us to Darweesh’s life and his difficult family relationships. Fishere managed to weave several complex characters with nuances and peculiarities around his central figure. When I finished the first chapter, I was still fully expecting a continuation similar to Guterson’s East of the Mountain, but no! I was in for a surprise, a real treat, other characters came to the fore ... I started to think Barbara Kingsolver’s Poisonwood Bible, with multiple family members recounting similar events and also recalled another Egyptian writer Youssif Al Qaid, whose work was my first exposure to a this new class of Egyptian writers employing innovative literary instruments in their work.

Fishere kept on, with each new chapter introducing us to fascinating new people, all connected to Darweesh, mostly through family. So the masterful character development displayed at the first chapter continued, with yet more nuance, more color around extended family and associates, seamlessly connecting to yet, mostly, additional well-rounded characters.

The people we meet in Embrace by Brooklyn Bridge reveal so much to us about the immigrant experience, from the fully assimilated to those distant and estranged, struggling with identity issues. Fishere’s creations are amazingly real; I feel that I have met people like them. After few chapters, I discovered that Brooklyn is not really centered on Darweesh or his illness but rather a collection of sub plots, each focused on its own heroes and only some remotely related to Darweesh. Virtually each of the people we meet is worthy of their own full-length novel, to deal with their lives and their identity struggles. Novelists rarely display the blatantly obvious truth that all human’s life is ultimately, mostly self-centered; Fishere gets it!

Many Egyptian readers would probably learn more, about the tragedy of neighboring Darfur from Fishere’s book as we get to know Darweesh’s son. To American readers, when this wonderful work is ultimately published in English, Darweesh’s son would probably come across, as a typical American worldly type, the sort that is enlists with Peace Corps, a genuinely conscientious college type struggling with the evils in the world, so not the struggles of an immigrant, but those resembling the native born Americans.  The Islamist Dawood, playing at moderation is a character that would shock western readers, but his beliefs would not shock Egyptians so much. Fishere’s creativity and restraint are amazing; restraint comes in, as he feeds us enough about a character, but leaves us hanging, wanting more; it is seductive restraint! With Dawood, we are left unsure of who the man really is, does he suffer from delusions of grandeur or was he really a master terrorist.

With the large number of primary and secondary characters such as those created by Fishere, it is inevitable that some would wind up being carton like, single dimensional, and we do have a small minority of those here, the most obvious for me ,were the overly cruel and overly loving Washington DC immigrants, where the son eventually ceases contact with the father. Perhaps, the single dimensional aspect here, is a mere reflection of the son own development and struggles as the lone brown boy in his school. While Fishere avoided the trap of flowery Arabic with overly repetitive and redundant adjective, some of his words came across, overly distant, almost of the type one would find in a book translated into the Arabic Language rather than actually written in it.

It is hard to review this work without actually “spoiling it”. The literary quality of the writing and the character roundedness are real treats, but we are actually offered a feast, not just a couple of treats; there is immense suspense too, at multiple levels!  Virtually every single chapter, leaves in suspense as to what will happen next to the particular person, not just in the immediate future, but, we are brought into empathizing with the person in total, their relationships, their future, we want them to overcome, to be happy, to manage … to find solace. The suspense is at different levels, will this person make it to the party on time? What will happen to his or her work, life or love affairs? Even Darweesh’s daughter, who we don’t directly meet, we want to know what really influenced her … what it is next for her.

Ezzedine Fishere created a true masterpiece, beautifully crafted and developed. The style is highly unusual, especially for Arabic Literature, but utterly contemporary.  The detail of the places and customs reflect keen observation and pleasure in the subtle details. As I finished the book, I couldn’t help thinking that, published in the English Language, this book would surely be Pulitzer Prize material. And looking back at it, in total, my Guterson and Kingsolver comparisons apply, only to parts, but not to the whole. Embrace by Brooklyn Bridge leaves me with that sense of loss and emptiness that I had reading works of Annie Proulx; The Shipping News, but more so  Accordion Crimes and Close Range. Embrace by Brooklyn Bridge is a very special work, by an amazing writer who has, truly, mastered his craft.

AA

January 20, 2013   

Zionism .... Nuances and .... Mr. Morsi

Zionism means different things to different people. To most Egyptians, Arabs, Muslims and certainly Palestinians. Zionism is all about dispossession of the Palestinians, about the expulsions of the natives, about occupation, about the settlements and the cruel  eradication of Palestinian villages and history. For the vast majority of Jews, Zionism is about a national identity, of pride in their Jewishness. Jews can't understand how others can view Zionism as racist, when Zionism welcomes Jews of all colors, origins and converts too. The pro Palestinian camps see Zionism as the ultimate form of racism and bigotry, an ideology that usurps the rights the Palestinians to their homes, to their land, to their history based on a superior claim of the Jews, just by virtue of their Jewishness, their "race".

My attempt at making sense of this huge gulf, between the interpretations, leads me to see Zionism as a nationalist movement, with some religious wrappings. Zionism allows an atheist "Jew" to  belong to the Jewish people; so clearly an alternate non-religious identity. This, very point, causes stress in Israel itself, the secularists see Judaism and Jewishishness  more of an overarching identity that accept people of Jewish origins regardless of their religious beliefs or adherence. Whereas, many religious Jews clearly see it differently, for them, faith and the Jewish Law are at the center of their lives.  Other religious Jews accept religion in a fashion that accomodate secular Zionism.

It may be helpful to look at Zionism in three parts, first being the rise of the Jewish people and their identification as a nation, second is the desire for a homeland, third is the choice of Palestine for a homeland. 

With the oppression, the Jews suffered throughout their history, at the hands of whichever majority they lived under, it is hard to stand against their desire to be considered as a nation. The way I see it, what right do I have telling the majority of Kurds or South Sudanese people, they are not a distinct nation? If the majority of Corsican or Basques people wanted to be a separate nation, then that is ultimately, their right. The Jews have plenty of reason to want to proclaim their own identity even before the Holocaust.

Second is the claim to a homeland, where never again Jews can become a minority living under the whims of another majority, at times accommodating and friendly, and at times oppressive but almost always suspicious and watchful. That too is understandable and again if the majority of Jews want it, I am all for it. Even if a minority wants it and don't wish to impose it on others then power to them.

The third, and most troubling aspect is really in what I term "applied Zionism" rather than in Zionism itself, is the choice of Palestine for the homeland. Zionism, a secular nationalist movement, needed to capture the imagination of the non secular, religious Jews and hence the introduction of Palestine rather than East Africa, Tasmania or other relatively unpopulated piece of real estate. In doing so, applied Zionism undermined some of the basic foundations of Zionism, itself.

So today’s' applied Zionism has to wrestle with a sad contradiction, of being a liberation movement and a colonial movement; of being a movement that is race blind towards Jews yet racist towards non Jews!

The Secular advocates of Zionism betrayed their liberal principles to attract more Jews, to protect more Jews, and to liberate more Jews; they mixed their secular vision with biblical history and focused on Palestine and thus gained a great deal of success, that would probably never been possible, had they opted for any other piece of real estate apart from Palestine. The price of this success has to be either giving up the vision of never again facing the possibility of becoming minority, or giving up Zionism as a moral liberation movement and turning it, into a colonial supremacist movement that aims to subjugate the natives forever. This is a moral battle, the Israelis, the Jews, the Zionists must fight, an internal struggle that will forever remain a weight on their conscience. The history of the suffering of the Jews does not actually waive that moral responsibility as some have suggested.

Naturally, the evolution of the meaning of Zionism, both, to Jews and non Jews, does not occur in a vacum, was and continues to be, influenced by events. It is instructive to see, what Zionism mean to a critical player such as Egypt's new democratically elected president  Mr. Mohammad Morsi. Mr. Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood have a long history of both animosity to Israel and support for Palestine, but has vowed to respect and protect Egypt's peace agreement with Israel.

Mr. Morsi appears to make little distinction between Israelis, Jews or Zionists when he talked of the need to instill "hate of Jews and Zionists" into "our" children. Reflecting on the choice of words "Jews and Zionists", does this come from the tendency to use multiple repetitive words to describe the same thing in Arabic or did Mr. Morsi view Jews as a distinct category from Zionists? My guess is that Mr. Morsi agrees with the first aspect of Zionism, that the Jews are an indeed a nation, regardless of of their beliefs and practices, in a way, he is re-affirming a central aspects of Zionism by projecting his feelings against Jews, all Jews, as distinct identity and as a nation! Mr. Morsi's call for hatred did not leave room for the exclusions of pro Palestine Jewish advocates or even the small fringe of religious Jews who are passionately anti Zionism and anti Israel, so the call clearly shows an all encompassing hate for Jews beyond just support for Palestine.

It may surprise Mr. Morsi to learn that, his own country had several Zionist associations from late in the 19th century and Zionist newspapers operated freely, whereas the lone anti Zionist publication was shut down by the Egyptian Government in the early 1930's as anti Jewish Palestinian propaganda. The president of Egypt may also wish to re-examine how his rhetoric and that of his Muslim Brothers organization and its Palestinian counterparts may have played a role in strengthening the hands of the "Revisionist" Zionists who worked for an exclusive Jewish state in Palestine. A study of the roots, of topics never discussed in Egypt, such as the massacres of Hebron or Safed may help him understand how hate begets hate. The massacres of Jews and anti Jewish hate may explain how the course of history may have changed but offer no excuse of brutality by of Jewish gangs and Israel, since its founding.

Finally, I wish more Egyptians, Palestinians,  Muslims,  Jews, Israelis, Americans etc. stop using this highly confusing and emotive word "Zionism" as it is shorthand for many contradictory meanings that leads to more confusion and misunderstandings, not clarity. Show, if you must, your hate for Jews directly, like Mr. Morsi did, without having to hide behind the word Zionist, it certainly said more about him than it did about the Jews. Perhaps better still if you are pro Palestinians, express your support and convictions, without falling into racist hate that fuels, yet more hate and fire. For Jews, perhaps, time to re-examine the use of the word Zionism and come to terms with how, what may have started as a nobel vision, operates as violent, oppressive, racist and bigoted reality on the ground.

AA
January 18, 2013
(updated from earlier work)

Inconvenient History: tales of lesser discussed history of Egypt & Israel

As Egypt's relationship with Israel takes central stage for both countries, a look at some interesting little known historical facts may be beneficial for Egyptians and Israelis to explore. While I am in no position to offer ironclad guarantees of the accuracy of the various events and I lack the skill and knowledge necessary to offer various citations and references, I do however believe that the events cited here have indeed occurred largely as described. Oftentimes there are layers of fog surrounding events of the type covered here; less so with those here, most have just tended to get buried or be ignored, with the hope, that they fade away completely.


Egyptian popular mission representing the leading Muslim & Christian families traveled to Palestine to congratulate the Jews of Palestine following the Balfour declaration:

Contrary to the wide spread belief, the Balfour Declaration of 1917, was not, at the time, seen by most Egyptian intellectuals as a sentence against the Palestinians. Interestingly enough some Egyptian Muslim and Christian families held parties to celebrate the Declaration, the Muslim Governor of Alexandria sent a telegram of appreciation to Lord Balfour. A delegation of Egyptian Muslims and Christians led by another Egyptian Muslim, whose paper strongly advocated the then minority position of Arab Nationalism, traveled to congratulate the Jews of Palestine. Majority of Egyptians leaders didn't consider an Arab affiliation for Egypt at the time. The people who participated in that retrospectively misguided delegation were not received back as traitors or sellouts when they returned to Egypt. The majority of Egyptians who held more Egyptian nationalist views also saw the declaration as positive news. Perhaps those Egyptian intellectuals focused on the Decleration's guarantees of the rights of the native population of Palestine or saw certain positive aspects in Jewish nationalism the way Americans do today! This topic will be examined later.

As New York turned back Jews fleeing Nazi Europe, Alexandria welcomed them to Egypt, one of , just, four ports globally open to take in Jews escaping from Nazi atrocities

Sadly few highlight this historical fact. Yad Vashem, other memorials and Holocaust history in general offer no special recognition of the role that independent Egypt played saving Jewish lives. A disgusting byproduct of the recent rise of anti-Semitism in Egypt with the wide circulation of books of Holocaust deniers, few Egyptians are actually aware of this important generosity that Egypt and all Egyptians should be proud of.

Amazingly as large numbers of European Jews arrived in Egypt escaping Nazi Europe few wealthy Egyptian Sephardic Jews worried about backlash

While this was by no means wide spread, it is important to note the disproportionate attention certain Jew haters such as the marginal figure of Hussieni the Mufti of Jerusalem receives who some groups even absurdly suggest that his influence reached Egypt. Could a non Jew argue that the memory of the Holocaust should not be used for short term propaganda gains?

In reading about World War II and the horrors faced by the Jews at the hands of advancing Nazi armies, nationalist partisans be them Russian, Ukrainian, Serbian or just the local populations; it is amazing that Alexandria, the city with the largest Jewish population in Egypt, did not record attacks on Jewish property and lives when Hitler’s army was only 70 miles to the west.

As Alexandria’s western suburbs were being bombed, Alexandrians wanting to rid themselves of the British occupation attacked British soldiers but no real signs of hate or anger against Jews surfaced. The Jews of Alexandria worried about the advancing Nazi army but did not fear their Egyptian neighbors. This is strange when so much of the hate propaganda would have us believe that Egyptians and Jews are natural enemies.

While the then non peaceful Muslim Brotherhood had indeed started to attack Jews in graffiti around 1939 in certain cities, there appears to have been no such attacks at all during the time of impending entry of Hitler’s army into Alexandria.

Israeli Mossad Operation Susannah widely known as the Lavon affair: Six years after the establishment of the State of Israel, Egyptian Jews largely stayed put and minimal immigration to Israel occurred. Israeli Intelligence, in order to spur their immigration, as well as attempting to derail Egyptian American relationship, carried out a number of terrorist attacks in Cairo in 1954. The Mossad agents were caught, tried and imprisoned in Egypt. Following the defeat of Egypt in the 1967 war, the imprisoned Mossad agents were exchanged for Egyptian POWs and later, were treated to official welcomes by the Israeli Government and more honors as recent as 2005.

Many Egyptians would now be shocked to read the text of the speech of Zakriyah Mohieddean, Egypt's vice-president at the time talking of Egypt’s Jewish sons. The language of monkeys and pigs was hardly heard before the Mubarak era.

Various attempts to rewrite the history of the Lavon affair continued even into the twenty-first century. Israelis will at some point need to come to terms with the bloody history of their nation. Egyptians will need to learn that anti-Semitism plays to the hands of the Israel’s right wing which consistently advocates exclusivity as the only way to defend Jews from ever hateful enemies.

UK and France admitted conspiracy in 1956 Suez War, yet Israel continue to label it “war of self defense”. It is truly absurd that while the British and French have come clean about this trilateral aggression on Egypt and numerous books and archieves have now been made available for over two decades, Israel’s official version remains that the invasion of Egypt in 1956 was a war of self defense or just totally omitted from history.

This is probably one of the most blatant examples that show the need for Israel to come clean with its history. The Jewish and Israeli people will be more willing to make the concessions necessary for peace when they are more aware of facts. There are many disputed facts in the history of the various Israeli conflicts, perhaps the lies associated with the 1956 Suez war would allow more Israel supporters to look beyond state propaganda. We often hear of school books in Palestine and elsewhere teaching hate of Israel, this shows that history books need changing on all sides.

Not one Egyptian Jew lost his or her citizenship for being Jewish, yet many native Egyptian Jews left because of bigotry and distrust.

Egyptian citizenship laws were first introduced in 1929. With the collapse of the Ottoman Empire residents had choices to make to become Egyptian, Turk or other nationality. Left over from the days of overt British & French domination following the invasion of Egypt in 1882, was a strange justice system that saw locals facing Egyptian Law, while foreign European minorities subject to their own laws and consular courts. Many of the affluent Jews living in Egypt for two or even three generations regarded themselves above the locals and pursued European citizenships; the Ladinos with more recent roots in Turkey or the Levant generally opted for Turkish or Egyptian citizenship. Following the Suez War citizens of France & UK were evicted from Egypt. Some Jewish families were divided as many held different European citizenships. The second wave of expulsions happened after the 1961 introduction of socialist nationalization laws which targeted foreign and Egyptian capitalists; its biggest exodus was actually for Greek and Italian Christians and included wealthy Egyptian Jewish, Christian and Muslim families.

Through the forties and fifties of the 20th century it appears that the Jews in Egypt who faced problems with the state were for reasons of communist affiliations, British or French nationality or anti capitalist laws. This would be entirely consistent with Nasser’s policies who viewed the exit of Egyptian Jews as a victory for Zionism and hence the earlier appeals for Egypt’s Jewish sons. It took few years after the Suez war for real animosity at the national level to start building up in the middle and late sixties.

Over the years I met many American Jews who told me of their Egyptian friends who were expelled from Egypt for being Jewish and it never failed that upon questioning it became clear that the friends in question never held the Egyptian nationality to start with, through their own choice, and had rejected the Egyptian citizenship for other opions and eventually left Egypt as part of a bigger story.

Yet for the ethnic Egyptian Jews, mostly “Karaite” whose mother tongue was Egyptian Arabic, were Egyptian citizens and were in all aspects part of the fabric of the “locals” ,rather than the world of the superior minorities. Egypt lost a great deal by losing its Greeks, Italians and its “foreign” Jews who were part of its cultural, industrial and merchant classes for generations. Yet Egypt's biggest loss will always be its native Jews who, those who trace their roots back thousands of years, those who wore the galabeya or tarboush, listened to Om Kalthoum music, ate mehshi and molokhiya. Ultimately it was bigotry, racism, mistrust of their fellow Egyptians that led to their gradual isolation and eventual sad departure from Egypt. Egypts’ Karaite Jews of Egypt left because of dwindling opportunity, increasing suspicion and obvious inducement for a better life. Sadly one hears of similar stories of discrimination and bigotry towards Coptic Christians nowadays.

Egyptians use Zionist as a non racist insult, Jews hear an offensive racist slur. This is not so much historical fact as an observation of current discourse, particularly post the January 25, 2011 Egyptian Revolution. The internet savvy Egyptians are trying to choose their words in Arabic and English carefully, they are forward thinking revolutionaries driven by values of freedom and justice. Egyptians use “Zionist” mostly to mean Jews who support the oppression of the people of Palestine. Yet many Egyptians proceed to use the common bigoted racist anti-Semitic slurs with the word Zionist, so we hear of Zionist monkeys and pigs and the like. The forward looking Egyptians are willing to live with Jews and make peace with Jews but not Zionists, the Salafi minority and their elk reject all other and worse of all Jews.

Yet to many Jews, Zionism is an identity, it is more about their pride as people, it has a lot to do with their affection for Israel but to most Jews and Israelis, Zionism does not equal oppression of Palestine or usurping their rights. So while some Egyptians want to use a non racist language, virtually most Jews and Israelis hear nothing but racist language. Some Egyptians have taken to hone their criticism against Israelis rather than Jews failing to note that often times, there is far more advocacy for Palestinian rights amongst Israeli Jews than non Israeli Jews.

The Mubarak era saw massive increase of media criticism of Israel and of all things Jewish including the shameful serialization of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion on Mubarak’s own State TV, the rise of anti-Semitism in Egypt was a product of the state encouragement as a sanctioned channel for venting and activism and it also served the purpose of showing the US and the west the crucial need for Mubarak and his regime for ongoing stability. Long gone were the Sadat days of actively seeking reconciliation, Mubarak’s was the cold peace at the people to people level.

But this, clearly, is not the whole story, at a time of shocking images of live round the clock news coverage and citizen journalism; Israel is seen to be seriously out of step with its continued suppression of the rights of the people of Palestine, massive reprisals and collective punishment on a population occupied for generations. Israelis cannot stay silent on what is being committed in their name, day in and day out, and expect not to be hated. The continued right wing supremacist policies of colonial settlements, house demolitions, road blocks and “facts on the ground” are eroding the possibilities of peace and with Israel being a “democracy” are coloring all of its people with one big ugly brush in the eyes of many Egyptians.

Most Egyptians today are unaware of the deep roots of Zionism in Egypt and how most Egyptian political leaders and intellectuals looked admirably on Zionism even into the early 1930’s. In 1925 ardent Egyptian Nationalist Ahmed Lutfi el-Sayed represented Egypt in the opening ceremony of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Some of the leaders of the Wafed Party in 1919 Revolution were also well known leaders of Zionist Associations in Cairo & Alexandria. Back then Jews, indeed Zionist Jews and Egyptians never viewed one another as enemies but friends. The Wafed Governments did not tolerate what they termed “Palestinian propaganda” from the one lone anti Zionist paper warning against evictions of Palestinians, they shut it down, while several Zionist papers were published in Egypt. The word “Zionism” did not have the abhorrent connotation it conjures today in the mind of the average Egyptian. Yet to Jews it still has the same lofty values that colleagues of Saad Zaghloul and Ahmed Lutfi el-Sayed advocated.

The current events offer hope for change for the better but also offer a huge amount of uncertainty and fear. Perhaps looking at history we can see that the natural order is friendship between Jews and Egyptians or at the very least absence of animosity, perhaps Egyptians can learn to criticize actions and situations rather than labels and Jews and Israelis can revisit the history to see why a people who supported and welcomed them for many years have become so hateful towards them.

Ayman Ashour
August 29, 2011


Recommended Readings and Sources


I received a number of requests for sources and some readers wanted to read more on the various topics.

For political history and general views of Egyptians intellectuals and political leaders, I relied on readings in Arabic and English including The Question of Palestine by Edward Said and several of his other works. Leila Ahmed's outstanding memoir Border Passage, more than any other work helped me clear my views on issues of Egyptian identity and the more recent Arab identification. Other works that stayed with me included the controversial Enemy in the Promised Land by Sanaa Hassan and works in Arabic by Abed el Rahman el Refa'ay and others. Material I have encountered along the way but think had less influence on me were works by Bernard Lewis in English, Redwa Ashour and several others in Arabic.

For the Jewish experience in Egypt, I relied on Cairo, City Victorious which extensively used rabbinical records from Egyptian synagogues. The excellent Andre Aciman's Out of Egypt touched me deeply and I have also read  few other stories of  Jewish exits from Egypt.

Joel Beinin outstanding Stanford University research titled: Egyptian Jewish identities: communitarianisms, nationalisms, nostalgias, offers a concise review of material covered in more detail elsewhere. The paper is available on the internet and I have read several critical reviews of it as well but honestly have not been moved by them, perhaps Beinin just said what I wanted to hear.

I have also, through nearly 10 years as a co-moderator of an Arab Jewish internet dialogue group, and as member of in-person dialogue group in Boston, have heard directly of Egyptian Jewish experiences and was refered to countless articles and materials. Egyptian Jewish groups on the Internet continue to offer fascinating insight too.


My attempts to understand what the Holocaust meant for Jews come primarily from accounts of children and grandchildren of Holocaust survivors in dialogue; also readings of Primo Levy touched me deeply and on the use of the memory of Holocaust for political or monetary gains on The Holocaust Industry by Norman Finkelestin. I have suffered through several books in Arabic including those translated from French that deny the Holocaust or at least its full extent as well as theories on Jewish collusion with Nazi.


Reading on what I term “applied Zionism” or rather what actually happened on the ground in Palestine includes limited readings of Benny Morris and the amazing Hannah Arendt and closer to my own perspective was the outstanding work of Fay Afaf Kenafani: Nadia, Captive of hope and In Search of Fatima by Ghada Karami.

For the Lavon Affair I have primarily relied on Internet searches, one or two articles in Arabic and the also writings by Joel Beinin of Stanford referenced above. I have read minimal amounts of similar operations carried out in Iraq for the purpose of inducing fear in the Jewish communities to emigrate to Israel.

For the Suez 1956, I read few books by British politicians of the time including Descent to Suez and relied on the website of the Jewish Agency which until few years ago described the war as “campaign of self defense” but as of yesterday appear to have deleted all reference to it, or I may have looked it elsewhere.

I have reviewed  many of the books referenced above and the reviews are on " myAmazon reviews". 

Finally, I am neither a historian nor a researcher; I just happen to be an avid reader and also have a relatively good memory. The topics have been of great interest to me and I view the reconciliation between Egypt and Israel as critical for achieving peace in the whole region, I am also deeply moved by the historic and on-going suffering of both Jews and Palestinians.

Reflections on Zionism, Islamism, Peace Talks, Identity

Disjointed reflections

I see the current waves of "Islamism" to be a non-liberal counter reaction to and an Islamic version of Zionism. Both, to me, are nationalist movements not religious. So, I, an Egyptian American and a Muslim am supposed to feel more in common with a Hui Chinese Muslim, than I do with my next door Jewish neighbors or my Egyptian Christian childhood friends. In certain respect Islamism suggests that Islam becomes the main identity I have, the “only” group I belong to. So a religious movement with nationalist soul and color…

With Zionism you see the reverse, a nationalist movement with religious wrappings. You can be an atheist "Jew" yet still belong to the Jewish people; clearly an alternate non-religious, national identity. This very point as I know causes a lot of stress in Israel between the secularists who see Judaism and Jewish more of an overarching identity that accept people of Jewish origins regardless of their religious beliefs and views. The religious clearly see it differently and for them religion is so central in their own life and some of those interpret religious text in ways that are exclusive, others accept religion in an non exclusive fashion but also adopt secular Zionism.


I see Zionism in different parts, one is the rise of the Jewish people and their identification as a nation by themselves and others, second is the claim for a homeland, third is the choice of Palestine for a homeland.

With the oppression the Jews have suffered throughout their history at the hands of whichever majority they lived under it is hard for anyone to stand against the desire to be considered as a nation. The way I see it, what right do I have telling the majority of East Timorean people they are not a distinct nation, if the majority of Texans wanted to be a separate nation that is their call. The Jews have plenty of reason to want to proclaim their own identity even before the WWII holocaust.

Second is the claim to a homeland, where never again Jews can be a minority living under the whims of the majority at times accommodating and friendly and at times oppressive but almost always suspicious and watchful. That too is understandable and again if the majority of Jews want it I am all for it. Even if a minority wants it and don't wish to impose it on others then power to them.

The third and most troubling aspect is really in applied Zionism not in Zionism itself, is the choice of Palestine for the homeland. Zionism, a secular nationalist movement, needed to capture the imagination of the non secular Jews and hence the introduction of Palestine rather than Tasmania or other relatively unpopulated piece of real estate. In doing so applied Zionism undermined a basic foundation of Zionism of never again living as a minority or even facing that possibility.

So today’s' applied Zionism has to wrestle with this sad contradiction of being a liberation movement and a colonial movement, of being a movement that is race blind towards Jews yet racist towards non Jews.

The Secular advocates of Zionism betrayed their secular principles to attract more Jews, to protect more Jews and to liberate more Jews, they mixed their secular vision with biblical history and focused on Palestine and they gained a great deal of success that would probably never been possible had they opted for any other piece of real estate apart from Palestine. The price of this success has to be either giving up the vision of never again facing the possibility of being threatened of becoming minority OR giving up Zionism as a moral liberation movement and turning it forever into a colonial supremacist movement that aims to subjugate the natives forever.


AA - updated from Feb 2, 2007

Who is more Egyptian?

Egyptians & Identity

In a post colonial world, an Egyptian living in the west suffers from the negative stereotypes attached to Arabs: a feeling of shame and anger at being labeled ‘Arab’, ‘Arab’ with petrodollars and hypocrisy, ‘Arab’ who oppress their women and lust for other women, ‘Arab’ trapped in traditions of betrayal and double talk. Naturally, facing such an ugly stereotype, one would attempt to disassociate from such images as much as possible. This is even more the case given the tension between Egyptians and Arabs under both Nasser (Arabs seen as reactionary) and Sadat (Arabs seen as rejectionist). Yet a better understanding of the negative stereotypes, save for the petrodollars, will show that their roots lie not really in Arabia but rather in Egypt. In his book Orientalism, Edward Said used a huge body of work by Orientalists to discuss Egypt more than any other culture. In fact, Arabia was only referenced in Said’s analysis of the writings of D. H. Lawrence. So much of the negative attributes assigned to the “Arab” are really based on a collective but erroneous Orientalist view of Egyptians rather than of Arabs!

The negative image of the Arab that prevails today in the west is the sum total of a long process that began with Lane’s detailed account of the customs of the Egyptians moving on to the lusty scheming King Farouk and continuing today in anti-Arab, racist movies ranging from Disney’s Aladdin to the Raid On Entebbe. Today, the negative image of ‘Arab’ has deepened to include the terrorism and petrodollars as new chapters in the same old book.

So what does an intelligent and proud Egyptian do in response? Does he go in and fight the unfair negative stereotype and the racist hatred or should he attempt to squash those stereotypes and distance himself from them? Indeed, Edward Said suggested that the process of Orientalism saw the transfer of all of the negative stereotypes associated with Shakespearian Jews to the Arabs in our time. Could a new Egyptian image, free from all of these horrible, negative stereotypes but largely built on Egypt itself be possible? An image dependent on Egypt’s ancient history and borrowing heavily from Christian Jacq’s portrayal of the wisdom and glory of that culture: Egyptians who lived by the Law of Ma’at until they were then invaded and defeated by the horrible hordes of Arabia! The problem now is Arabism, we want out!

Cultivating this image is totally incompatible unless one adopts an aggressive stance towards Arabism and in doing so, the bright young man or woman does not know that Arabism itself is but a product of colonial orientalist discourse. Indeed Arabism is no more than the very same attempt to gain distance from the negative image of Egypt that was painted by Orientalists and extended, unjustly, to cover not just all Egyptians but also other Arabic speaking and Moslem countries. Could it be that Arabism is just the other side of the coin of the neo-Egyptian nationalism?

Alas, we turn and look at Egypt, we find that the people there have many common backward links with the looked down upon Arabs. So what do we do? We de-Egyptianize them! We happily move forward with the concept that these people are Arabs, or at least mixed breed, while we Egyptians are progressive and forward looking.

Regardless of this argument and logic, one or two Million or even ten or twenty million cannot usurp the right to being Egyptian nor are they more Egyptian than the other 65 million who are there now. Egyptian is what Egypt is today and those seeking an alternative definition for what Egypt is today are better advised to look for another label for themselves, not for what Egypt is and Egyptians are today.

We are stuck with our fellow countrymen, poor, prejudiced, backward and suffering the ravages of corruption and ignorance. They are our people, we can’t deny them or de-Egyptianize them because it does not suit our self-image. We have to work to improve their lot in Egypt and we have to confront the stereotypes created by Orientalism. To subscribe to and aid in Orientalist thought is a matter of naive self-gratification, intellectual dishonesty and betrayal, but certainly not treason!

One day an Egyptian identity could remerge. If and when this happens, I hope it will be one that is based on what Egyptians have in common, on what makes them a unique people. If and when this happens, I hope the Egyptian identity will not be built on false, even laughable and defensive self-gratification against Arabs or others. I hope an emerging Egyptian identity would be wider than a narrow religious or ethnic affiliation. I hope for an Egyptian identity at peace with itself, accepting its own people for what they are now, striving for a better future for Egypt and not one stuck with ancient Egyptian glories.

Ayman S. Ashour

(An Egyptian nationalist fighting the superimposition of Arabism on Egypt and an Arab American fighting the negative stereotypes of Egyptians known through Orientalist ignorance as “Arabs”)

Originally Written March 13, 2003

Saving Sudan & Darfur …..The Muslim Silence and the American Paradox

Sudan has been tearing itself apart for many years now. The war between the SPLA (Sudan’s People Liberation Army) and the Government was relatively well understood by the world outside. The South Sudanese who are predominantly Animist and Christian agitated for independence from an increasingly fundamentalist Islamic state that sought to impose its will on the whole country. As would be expected various outsiders with own agendas and interests weighed in to provide aid and weapons to the SPLA and the Government. Finally after decades of horrible suffering and destruction some sort of peace has finally been reached.

Few days ago an announcement was made about a peace accord reached between the Sudanese Government and the Eastern Sudan rebels; the conflict in the east has received less media attention even though it appears to have intensified prior to Darfur. While the on-going conflict in Darfur has recently been receiving considerable amount of media coverage, there remains a high degree of ignorance of the conflict both in Islamic countries and in the West. Many assume that the conflict is of Arabs against Africans or Muslims against non Muslims; both assumptions are false. This is a conflict of black Africans tribes against other black African tribes and both sides are Muslim. The news media often quotes “Janjaweed, the Arab militias” but there is little Arab about them to support their own claim of Arabness. In fact in the Arab Peninsula they would be referred to as Africans and more often “abeed” or slaves. In the West post 9/11 the terms Arab, Muslim and Terrorist conjure up similar images so Arab Militias carries a lot of emotions and feed the ignorance. Yet the name “Dar Fur”, itself is Arabic for the House of Fur and warring tribes to outsiders are indistinguishable much as the case was in Rwanda with the Hutos and Tutusis.

Another major struggle that is hardly mentioned in the news is what is happening in the Sudan heartland starting with Khartoum itself. Here the brutal fundamentalist regime has for many years been employing harsh suppression measures against its opposition ranging from murder and torture to, at best, exile and house arrest. Some of the victims are also Muslim fundamentalists who oppose with the regime, others include moderates, secularists, leftists etc.

A question that must be asked is why is the relative silence in the Islamic World about the on-going atrocities in the Sudan and in particular Darfur and what can the West and in particular the USA do to stop the carnage in Sudan. The relative silence of Muslim on Muslim massacres continues to be a source of shame and sadness for me. The Darfuri rebel groups receive assistance from pro Western sources. Christian, including Evangelical, and Jewish Charities have allegedly been active in helping the victims in Darfur. Could this be the reason enough for the relative indifference in the Muslim World? The history of the US and particularly French involvement in Northern Darfur dating back to 80’s is murky with the West arming some groups against others to outbid effort by Libya’s Ghadafi to expand his sphere of influence, could this be a factor in the silence of the Muslim World? Is there a tinge of racism? Isn’t the life of a black African Muslim worth the same as that of an Iraqi or a Palestinian? Is Darfur another front in the conflict between America and Islamdom? Are the people of Darfur naive to allow themselves to be used by the West? Do they have it coming? Why is the silence? Why is Darfur not a cause for Muslims and Arabs in the USA and the West? Whose action or inaction is complicit in the killings of hundreds of thousands? Many questions ….few clear answers!

Many observers have been talking of the US loss of moral authority and credibility since the War in Iraq. This is much more the case in the Middle East and the Muslim World, where the US silence on the suffering of the Palestinians and its unwavering support for Israel (right or wrong) makes the US completely disbelieved. The causes that the US advocates are viewed with suspicion and the default position is, virtually always, the anti American position. It is indeed tough for the US to label the death of 400,000 people in Darfur genocide when the numbers of Iraqi war dead are now estimated by some to be even higher …... What can the US do now?

I guess the answer must start with the US Government recognizing the reality that America is no longer viewed as the beacon of freedom and justice it once was, and that the US is viewed with suspicion and fear. It seems that the US, just by merely speaking on behalf of the people of Darfur, contributes to the antipathy and the indifference of many Muslims towards them. So paradoxically as the US tries to intervene to save Muslims from a horrible carnage its efforts boomerang and the Sudan Government is seen as a victim standing up to the US Imperialism and its crusades. The US is in tough position indeed, engage and risk more rejection by Sudan, the Arab League and much of the Muslim World or turn the other way and let genocide unfold into the killing of millions.

As an American Muslim I feel that the US must remain engaged in the effort to save the people of Darfur but it should be done through quite diplomacy and multi lateral organizations such as the UN. The US must refrain from lecturing and from the grandiose rhetoric of condemnations. The US must act and speak in manner that recognizes that it is no longer viewed as a moral authority; a new level of modesty in foreign policy will do more to help the people of Darfur than the big accusatory pronouncements. The US must also accept the limit of its power to shape the agenda in Sudan and elsewhere in the Muslim World. Direct and indirect financial and military aid for different groups by the US will most likely damage the interests of the US in the long run; the US has simply not been successful in this sort of effort for so long. The US may wish to re-direct some of its efforts through Muslim charities from the US and elsewhere and honestly and truly focus exclusively on the human suffering without attempting to gain an edge or advance a foreign policy objective apart from saving the people of Darfur.

Will this be enough to save Darfur and the rest of Sudan? Could this be a start to rebuild the US tattered image in the Muslim World? Could this prompt more voices to speak up against the horrors inflicted by the Sudanese Government?.....…at the very least it would be a start in the right direction!

October 15, 2006

Tremendous Insight into Egypt Bedouins -- Book Review of Veiled Sentiments by Leila Abu Lughod

Lila Abu Lughod, an Arab American woman, lived among the Awlad Ali tribes of the North West of Egypt for two years. Veiled Sentiments is the book she wrote on the lives and poetry of Awlad Ali. Abu Lughod field work was clearly not carried out from a "superior" stance; she sympathized with her subjects and dealt with them as equal human beings rather than inferior specimen or cultures. Abu Lughod attitude, intelligence, training and tremendous analystical ability helped her in developing great insight and understanding of this fascinating culture.

Abu Lughod analysis of concepts such as "hishma" was truly incisive and shed a great deal of light on the nature of modesty between women and men and amongst men and women. The analysis seems to explain behaviors and norms witnessed elsewhere in Egypt and indeed other parts of the Middle East.

An important thesis of Abu Lughod is that the Awlad Ali people often communicated in very conservative and modest way directly through words; they only said what was proper and fitted the norms. Yet a second mode of communication far more true and expressive was found in their little songs or poems.

Abu Lughod discussed gender relation amongst Awlad Ali at length and the relationship between women and the families of their husbands and the society at large. I really enjoyed this book and would highly recommend it. For an excellent work on veiling and gender issues, I would recommend Leila Ahmed's Women & Gender in Islam.

Cartoons, Ships, Danes, Italians, Egyptians & Saudis

I woke up yesterday to morning papers and internet news showing pictures of angry people on the streets of Cairo. A boatful of poor Egyptian laborers returning from Saudi Arabia to the South of Egypt went down in the Red Sea. A fire erupted on the boat some 90 minutes after it left the Saudi Port and for some unknown reason the boat did not return to Saudi and it kept going farther out to sea. Some hours later, the reports are still conflicting but most say 2 hours, the boat took in water and 15 minutes after that went down with some 1400 people in the dark shark infested waters of the Red Sea. Rescue operations commenced some 8 to 13 hours later, again conflicting reports, and less than 400 people were saved and taken to hospitals in Egypt.

Poor Egyptian laborers from the South of Egypt often go to work in the oil rich countries; they often work in the construction industry and many at relatively low paying jobs that do not afford them luxury of annual trips home. Thus the workers stay away from home for several years and finally return with their savings carrying gifts to their families. I expect some would use bank facilities to wire their savings home but the vast majority would have carried all of their earthly possessions back with them on board. So down went some 1000 people and the livelihood and hopes of some 1400 poor families; all lost to the bottom of the Red Sea. The War On The Poor continues to claims its victims from New Orleans and the Gulf of Mexico Coast to Pakistani Kashmir and trains and now to the Red Sea.

So far I have not heard of people taken to hospitals in Saudi or any Saudi participation in the rescue, perhaps the poor drowning Egyptians lacked the necessary re-entry permits. Naturally I assumed that the angry demonstrations on the streets of Cairo were against the Saudi and the Egyptian authorities. I was mistaken the angry mob was demonstrating against ..the USA for Iraq …no no ..Israel for Palestine ..no no the angry mob on the streets of Cairo were demonstrating against Denmark and the now infamous anti Muslim offensive cartoons. Egypt was not that bad, in Syria where self expression without Government approval is as rare as the balanced coverage on Fox News the Danish and Norwegians Embassies were torched …not a word about the 1000 or so Egyptians that downed!

The Danish cartoons were doubtless offensive. An attempt to defy self censorship and to reassert the freedom of expression is somewhat more acceptable when lampooning one’s own culture or heritage but attacking others especially at a time of rising incidents of racism and Islamophopia is unacceptable behavior. While the Prime Minster of Denmark publicly expressed regret over the publication of the Cartoons I am unaware that neither Italian Prime Minster Berlusconi nor any of his predecessors have ever expressed regret over the much more offensive portrayal of the Prophet Mohammad by Dante.

If the Danes want to continue to portray themselves as forward looking liberal egalitarian society yet support a newspaper (by buying it and advertising in it) that promotes racism I say let them. Islam is not insulted by such bigotry anymore than it was by Dante centuries ago. Islam and Muslims however are insulted far worse when we allow the extremists to steal the banner of Islam and commit heinous crimes under its name and remain silent. Danish cartoons are a bigger danger to Denmark and to what and how the Danes claim to see as their values. Some have argued that it is up to Muslims of Demark to deal with this problem, I would argue that it is up to Non Muslims of Denmark to boycott the offensive paper and those who advertise in it. I would argue that this needs to be done through discussions and dialogue and not even a boycott of Danish products let alone violent demonstration that reinforce the negative stereotypes that we object to in the cartoons.

I wish that the sense of activism and outrage on the streets of Cairo and Damascus and many other Muslim countries is redirected towards more fundamental Islamic issues. “Mercy” and “Compassion” and their linguistic derivatives are by far the most repeated words of the Quran. Where is the mercy and compassion towards the passengers of El Salaam 98? Where is accountability or justice? Isn’t the seeking of justice fundamental to the Islamic belief or does that only apply when the perpetrators of the injustice are non Muslims??


AA
February 5, 2006

How Many People Must Die?

I had honestly thought that the 9/11 tragedy could actually lead to positive movements in the "peace" process, could lead to a greater understanding that killing a child eating a pizza in Jerusalem and blowing up the WTC are both despicable acts of killing of the innocents, both the classic definition of terror, only different in scale.

I had hoped that American Jews and Israelis would understand that pushing the US to adopt double standards when it comes to Israel would lead to massive waves of Anti-Americanism, the extreme of which will threaten America itself. As a result, it would be important to pressure American politicians for moderation, for the sake of Israel and America both. If a backlash against Israel ever occurs in America, with the latent racism, it is likely to be very sever. Why risk it?

I had hoped that Arabs and Moslems in the west feeling the weight of the green crescent they wear on their faces would actually feel for the first time, what it must have been like for the Jews under the Nazi wearing the yellow star, would begin to understand the feeling of being the subject of racist hate, fear and distrust. I had hoped that Arabs and Moslems would see first hand the peril of racism and understand more of what drives the Jewish psyche.

I had hoped that the Israeli people would sit back and reflect on what they have done, what they are doing to the poor helpless, hapless, hopeless yet loud mouthed Palestinians.

I had hoped that the blood of thousands of people would be a wake up call. I had hoped that the sight of innocent victims jumping out of the inferno of the World Trade Center would shake prejudices, would make people stop being pawns in the dynamic cycle of violence around them and think.

Instead we have more killings, the terrorists murder a 75-year-old extremist and turn him into martyr. The Prime Minster on hearing the news probably said to himself I can get away with a couple of hundred souls and twenty five houses, he will surely be waiting for another terrorist attack over the next few weeks. The last thing he ever wanted was peace and there is nothing more that he likes than an excuse for avoiding peace and for an orgy of killings, so good for the soul. The extremists on both sides help each other’s agenda mutual of hate and distrust.

The cycle of butchery and denials continues;
 I was here first, no I was!
You shot at us first, no you did…
You pushed me out! no you left on your own…
You provoked me, no you attacked me…
I want peace! you want war!
You want war! I want peace!
My religion is better…
My religion is better…
Your religion is hate; no it is not, yours is!
You want all of it!
You want all of it!
You put gum in my hair, you took my toy, no you did!

Is there anyone else listening to this fight,
or just the two angry peoples?
The rest of the world has just tuned them both out!

How many people must die before we know too many people have died?
The answer my friend is …still pending,
Obviously NOT enough yet?

AA
November 3, 2001

Anti Essentialism & Controversial - Book Review of Edward Said's Orientalism

This book and Edward Said in general seem capable of generating such intense controversy. Many reviewers of this book seem to forget actually to review the work and focus on attacking Edward Said as a person, many others still forget to review the book and proceed to speak for Palestinian rights and the negative western attitudes of Islam. I will attempt to present an actual review of this book based on MY own reading of it.

In Orientalism, Said sets about dismantling the study of the "orient" in general with primary focus on the Islamic Near East. Said argues that concepts such as the Orient, Islam, the Arabs, etc. are too vast to be grouped together and presented as one coherent whole, encompassing all there is to know about the subject. Said bases his view on the shear width and breadth of the subject, the inherent bias of conflicting cultures and more recently the role of the Orientalism in colonialism. It is indeed difficult to attempt to represent a book that is so focused on anti essentialism.

Said's research of western / occidental discourse was very thorough indeed and he does illustrate through repeated examples how misinformation sufficiently repeated can become accepted academic work. Said also presents an analysis of the causes and motives and theorizes about his findings. A lengthy and a times tedious discussion of the origins of Orientalism is rather repetitive and hard to follow for a non specialist like me.

Edward Said however seem to have fallen in the same trap he attributes to Orientalism, he has not attempted to explore Arab writings of the periods he discussed nor has he attempted to present (possibly even read) work by Egyptian and Arab historians of the periods he was addressing save for work carried out in the west and within western universities. In doing so, Said fails to see how the modern and contemporary "orient" sees itself through primarily "oriental" eyes such as Ibn Khaldoun, Al Maqrizi and also through the writings of orientalists like Lane. Said also fails to address the work carried out by orientalists based on many manuscripts of Orientals.

I particularly enjoyed Said's analysis of the strong ties that Orientalism has with power and colonialism. Said analysis of the diverging development of the British and French practice based on the latter's limited success as a colonial power was very enjoyable and very well thought out. The Orientalism Today and indeed the Afterwards section are also very informative and as these were more familiar areas for Said his presentation of ideas and thoughts came across more clearly and the writing was far less tedious than the earlier parts of the book.

Orientalism is not an easy read, it will challenge many established views, indeed it has already with a fair degree of success led to changes in the way the Near East is studied. To me, most of all I see this as a book that offers in part a largely coherent explanation for the on-going misunderstanding between the West and the Near East and in Islam. And while Occidentalism does not exist as a field of study in a place like Egypt per se, Said fails to see that the west is viewed largely in terms of its wealth, promiscuous habits, hypocrisy and anti Islam and thus fails to see it as 2 way street, albeit with unequal power.

This is by no means a the definitive correction of the history of the Middle East or Near Orient, it is however a very legitimate and serious study of a field of study that no doubt has a lot to answer for!

AA Oct 26, 2001