And the Arabs, the Ugliest of Them All

Translated by Sandy Choi

In two previous two articles on this subject, we talked about “The Ugly American” and “The Uglier Israeli.” In both cases, we were not talking about the American and Israeli peoples, but rather the specific types of political leaders that do not learn from history, or even from the study of civilization, sociology, and political science. All that they know of history, that which they extravagantly employ, is brute military force without thought or organization, or taking into account the next day, year or decade. It is one of the defining characteristics of the Ugly American that after he is finished, he, along with his accomplices in the killing, destruction and displacement, hurries to rebuild and reconstruct what he demolished in a single moment, mad with power. As for the Uglier Israeli, he is not concerned with even this superficial amount of compensation for the victims of the arrogance of power and the obsession with greatness. He still trades international lyupon the Jewish victims of Nazi Holocaust, yet he considers himself morally immune to any censure of any of his heinous crimes against humanity. The Uglier Israeli is quick to accuse anyone who criticizes him of being anti-Semitic. It is appropriate to mention once more that the adjectives “Ugly,” “Uglier,” and “The Ugliest”

apply to the leaders that makes decisions and not to their constituents. I was a guest on the hour-long al-Jazeera talk show, “Direct Discussion, on the evening of August 3, 2006. The format of the program goes like this: The guest talks about one of the issues occupying public opinion for about ten minutes. Then, he answers questions from viewers who phone in from ten Arab states, excessive in their condemnation of Israel, America and the Arab regimes. This is understandable given the anger they feel at what happened to the Lebanese and Palestinian peoples at the hands of Israel, as are their feelings of surprise at the change in the situation and the frustration from which they suffer. But most of them also went overboard by cursing people – either the Arabs for not taking more action, or the American and Israeli people, as if all citizens take on the guilt of their rulers. They used expressions such as “those dogs or pigs or maggots.”

This detestable language should not be encouraged or even tolerated. It does not befit the nobility or bravery of the Lebanese or Palestinian resistance, whom the masses praise. Likewise, some who called me during the program were extravagant in their expectations of Hezbollah and its leader, Hassan Nasrallah. Two of them demanded nothing less than the complete annihilation of Israel and the Jews. Besides its lack of humanity and sense of reality, this places psychological and political burdens on the resistance that it can do without. It already faces enough challenges and responsibilities and dangers, having finished its fourth week of vicious fighting with the strongest army in the Middle East. Lastly, Hassan Nasrallah himself was not so excessive in words or actions.

This brings us to the subject of our article on the Arabs, the ugliest of them all. Once again I will talk here about “the leadership” and “the presidencies” and “the kings” and not about the people, for it is Arab people who are resisting in Palestine and Lebanon, and it was Arab people who helped each other resist in other countries and in other times. We encountered, or rediscovered, at least two manifestations of the Ugliest Arab during the current war between Israel and Hezbollah. The first manifestation was that of the collusion between several Arab states on one side and Israel, the United States and Great Britain on the other. This collusion varied in degrees of official silence, as if what is happening is not in an Arab country named Lebanon, but on planet Mars or in mysterious far-flung lands! As if to condemn the victim, they used phrases such as “irresponsible” to describe Hezbollah’s capturing of two Israeli soldiers and its killing of eight in a skirmish across the border. I.e., that Hezbollah overstepped its bounds and completely entangled all of Lebanon, government and people, in a battle that did not take into account the opinion of the Lebanese, despite the fact that Hezbollah is represented in Parliament and participates in the government. Even if this were so, is it not purely a Lebanese matter?

This what all the Lebanese leaders said, that they will settle their accounts once the dust of battle has settled, but not during. Hassan Nasrallah says himself that while Hezbollah agreed to participate in the government of President Fouad Seniora, the party will maintain its right to continue to bear arms until the Sheba’a Farms are liberated and tens of  Lebanese families are released from Israeli prisons.

No one in the Lebanese government denies this. Another defining characteristic of this collusion is what Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert revealed when he made a statement at the end of the second week of the war, saying that principal Arab states were supporting the Israeli campaign against Hezbollah. It seems that Olmert may have been hasty in making this statement. Some of the states that had remained silent for two weeks rushed to announce “solidarity with the Lebanese people against the aggression…” (albeit without naming who was undertaking the aggression!). Others in possession of oil wealth announced “ample donations” for aiding in the reconstruction of demolished roads, bridges, airports and power stations. The manifestation began to seem more familiar in the third week because a common Arab saying applied to it: “He who has a bump on condemning their position as extremely treacherous, equivalent to a calumny of the splendor of Hezbollah’s brave fighters. The Ministry of Religious Affairs hastened after this to caution the mosques’ imams not to raise objections to sectarian differences between Sunnis and Shiites. Likewise, many denounced the biased Saudi fatwa. But the implication of sectarian differences is connected to the fears of some Arab regimes of Iran’s increasing influence in the region. Iran is in an alliance with Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon, and numerous parties and leaders in Iraq. It is well known that the majority of the populations in Bahrain and the Eastern region of Saudi Arabia are also Shi’ite Muslims.

Despite the fact that political leaders in Algeria and the Gulf do not usually discuss with us their fears of Iran and the Shi’a, their friends in the East express this fear on their behalf. This is what the Jordanian his head cannot stop feeling it.” All those around whom suspicions of collusion swarmed competed to outdo one another in affectation, exaggeration or overacting with displays of sympathy or support for the Lebanese people, or in the solidifying of regional and international calls for containment of the situation and a cease-fire. So much so that the illustrious journalist, Ibrahim Eissa, wrote in one of his editorial columns for the newspaper, al-Dustour, in a clear reference to the scant role of Egypt, that the Egyptian presidency had turned into a central telephone exchange connecting the Arab, Middle Eastern and world capitals in order to stop the fighting. The satirical writer did not forget to express his appreciation and concern for the Egyptian president because of his legendary efforts despite having reached the age of seventy-eight! As for the second manifestation of the Ugliest Arab, it was that in which his colleagues tried to blockade Hezbollah in the name of God on the grounds that the leaders are Shi’a. They were not Muslims because they were “Rafidites” (rejectionists) and their concerns are those of the “Kharijites” (dissidents)