Remember the big PR campaign run by the Syrian government on the sad 40th anniversary of the illegal Israeli occupation of the Golan? Neither do I. To be fair, they only had 40 years to prepare and are probably saving their best efforts for an eventual 50th anniversary, so why rush them before that milestone? Besides, the Syrian government, with an infinite wisdom which I do not possess, is calmly confident in the knowledge that Golan facts are common knowledge needing no introduction.

In the meantime, after having illegally occupied it in 1967 and illegally annexed it in 1981, the sneaky Israelis have gone and run their own PR campaign to remind (and not to convince) the world that the Golan is Israeli. The Israeli Ministry of Tourism (note the clever URL) has outdone itself with the biggest campaign it ever ran, concocting advertisements with dreamy images and brand new slogans which ask, even when showing the Golan: "This is Israel. Who knew?"

Good question. I didn’t, but I might be in a minority because others already knew, or are finding out quickly by reading articles such as the following two, which should only be read with tissues on standby as the inspirational “human interest” slant will make even the most detached of you empathize with the plight of these poor lonesome cowboys who are definitely far away from home.


In the National Post this week, Karen Burshtein romanticizes about the life of "an old cowhand from the Holy Land," describing the Golan as “the wild mountainous region in northeast Israel,” and as “the finger of land between Syria, Lebanon and Jordan.” It takes 640 words to discover that “Israel captured the Golan from Syria in the 1967 war”, a capture which most readers will assume is legal and final, given that “the Israel Land Authority owns the land” which happens to be “one of the most beautiful regions in Israel.”

It is odd (or is it?) that the word “capture” has become the norm for describing what would be called an invasion and an occupation when other states are involved. At least Joel Greenberg, in the Chicago Tribune, acknowledges that the cowboy of his story (also this week, as chance would have it) “lives not in Israel proper but in the Golan Heights, a strategic plateau captured from Syria in the 1967 Middle East war.” Greenberg professionally elaborates that “the area is generally viewed abroad as occupied territory,” even though the terrific cowboys call it home, "home on the Heights.” Still, for the sake of a true peace (cue for tissues), this cowboy is willing to give up his home, after which he says “they’ll write that I died of a broken heart.”




Israeli settler on occupied Syrian land … aka “Golan Cowboy”


Israeli embassies the world over thoroughly scour media in their respective countries, monitoring publications, airwaves, and cyberspace, and firing off indignant but eloquent and effective letters to the editors responsible for digressions from their agenda and their “facts.” Their Syrian counterparts, unfortunately, do not believe this is worth their time, which is one reason why articles like these continue to form opinions and strengthen perceptions in Israel’s favor, including the myth of the “Israeli Golan.”


Cowboys and journalists are not the only ones to be smitten by the wonderful territory: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his wife just spent Passover vacation in the Golan, already familiar with its charms which Israel markets as if the Golan were really its own, enticing visitors to see the “wonderful scenic treasures alongside lovely nature reserves, historic and archeological sites and attractions, for the whole family.” Indeed, continues the ministry, the beauty of the Golan is so captivating that some visitors return again and again (Olmerts included, and apparently not to say goodbye).


This is nothing that Syrians didn’t already know of course, and it could only mean that Israel not only stole the Golan, but probably also stole the entire marketing literature which Syria presents. Burden of proof calling, I decided to cast a cursory glance at the relevant Syrian sites and deliver the confirmation.


Logically, I visited the website of the Syrian Ministry of Tourism to report on the evidence. Using the search engine, since the Golan was nowhere to be found on the front page, I learned that “old historical texts refer to the Golan as the extension of the slopes of Mt. Hernon,” and that “during the Canaanite period Banias was known as Laish, and most probably, it was the capital of an Aramaic kingdom / Beit Rahoub.” The two paragraphs on the Golan (the third one being a repetition) go all the way up to Greek and Arab geographers.

After reading this fascinating description, don’t you just want to jump on a plane and go visit with your family? And doesn’t it give you the distinct conviction that the Golan is an integral part of Syria? If not, you must be one of those difficult, hard to please people; thankfully, the Ministry of Tourism was ready for this eventuality and posted on its main page, in capital letters you can’t miss, a link to the ultimate tourism pitch:

“THE AXIS OF EAVIL IS AFTER ALL NOT SO BAD.” [sic]


I don’t mean to be picky, but I think this marketing approach needs a rethink if the Syrians are going to begin marketing what is theirs. But maybe it is not the Ministry of Tourism’s job to mention and describe the Golan, especially when it uses the website’s front page to advertise investment conferences, rather than actual tourism. There are a few countries in the world where ministries of information still exist, I remembered, which is surely where such details will be found by the few determined inquisitive minds which haven’t yet absorbed the Israeli campaign.

So I visited the website of the Ministry of Information, following a crazy hunch that its default purpose was to inform, and to initiate campaigns dispersing actual information, if not merely respond to the Israeli ones. I had been under the strange impression that the Ministry of Information’s job mostly consisted of informing non-Syrians (and non-Arabic speakers) about Syria. It turns out there isn’t even a page in English on the website of the ministry dealing with foreign media.

Still clinging to a wild belief that government ministries couldn’t possibly be guilty of such massive incompetence (or, even worse, of such negligence), I concluded I was simply looking in the wrong places, not finding where journalists, travel agents, tourists, writers, students, or anyone remotely interested in the region would automatically look.

I suddenly remembered an obvious place I had overlooked: the website of the Ministry of Culture. Eureka! Obviously, since Damascus is the Culture Capital of the Arab World in 2008, all relevant information and facts about capital and country would be on its website, even though a first look indicated its English was inherited from SANA. Eagerly, I clicked on the “About Syria” page: it was blank. (Blank, that is, except for the "Print this document" indicator.)

Time to concentrate, I thought, not to panic. If the Ministry of Culture is unable to come up with a single sentence about the country, which government entity should one turn to in a desperate search for information on the Golan, and, just as importantly, for a campaign to counter Israel’s “Who knew?” ads? Which government entity would have the linguistic capacity and the marketing communication expertise to tell the world about the Golan, or about anything related to Syria?

The Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs doesn’t even have a website, a sign of self-assurance that unlike all other countries in the world, Syria’s foreign policy is consistently crystal clear and needs no explanation. However, I dared hope, the few Syrian embassies which actually have websites would have understood the importance of clear communication, relevant information, simple clear design, coherence and compatibility; a discouraging search demonstrated that they didn’t. Each embassy has a different domain name system, a different style, and different contents, with no concerted effort to project a unified image, a consistent template or a common message. On the issue of the Golan, however, they are unanimous: they ignore it.


Thus, to mention only a few examples, the website of the Syrian Embassy in London manages a few links on the wrong page but serves for little other than ridiculously expensive visa applications. The website of the Syrian Embassy in Washington, D.C. has a busy, hard to read (bold white on dark blue) erratic text and an awkward collage of photos on a long rambling page. The website of the Syrian Embassy in Paris is a disappointing, inelegant, rudimentary site listing all the information in an unorganized sequence on one page. The website of the Syrian Embassy in Ottawa is so clumsy that it looks as if it was typed on a typewriter, so outdated that the front page still links to the Presidential Election dates, and boasts a “photo gelery.” It also links to a certain website called Occupied Golan, a name not conducive to great excitement but which at least addresses the issue. If interested, do click on the link: the domain name is for sale.


Uninspiring, maddening and totally inadequate, so far. Clutching at straws, I turned to a website which I have frequently ridiculed and which makes a mockery of the concept of news agency (and which actually shows the BBC logo when it is bookmarked!). But at least, I consoled myself as I waited for the page to load its mediocre drivel not even fit for classic propaganda, at least good old bad SANA would go on and on about the Golan, tirelessly “underlining” the fact that it is Syrian, that it is occupied, that international law says it has to be given back, and that it also happens to be a lovely area with delicious apples, wonderful water, and all the other things that the Israelis have stolen from us, but for which we will wait forever if we have to, knowing that one day it will come back to the Syrian homeland, like its liberated city Quneitra, and that we will again smell the fresh air of the Golan and swim in its lake, thank you very much. Or something to that effect.

Alas, good old bad SANA did not underline any of that. It didn’t have a page, a link, or a paragraph stating the official Syrian position on the Golan, or on anything else. Of course, this could be because the Golan isn't actual news, but that never stopped SANA before. Nevertheless, it did have a page titled “Other Useful web sites” [sic] (implying that SANA considered itself to be useful, but I digress) which I hoped would finally lead me to the holy grail: I should not have been surprised to find a blank page, yet again. Mea culpa.


My search has ended. For the time being, information about the Golan - and about all other issues relating to the regional conflict - will continue to star in official Israeli websites and to shine by its absence on official Syrian websites. Syria has decided to not even fire a shot in the media war (not necessarily a bad thing given the "quality" of the material generated so far), ceding the information highway to the pros.


This obviously doesn’t mean we are going to remain passive as Israel continues to blatantly claim ownership of our land, sixty years after the Nakba, and 41 years since it “captured” the Golan, the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem. As SANA proudly announced, this year will not only be “a year of marches and protests in Arab countries” – yeah, that will show them – but it will also be, right in the beating heart of Arabism, the year that the biggest Palestinian flag ever made will fly in the Damascus sky in a quest to enter the Guinness Book of World Records. I wanted you to know that, before resting my case.


[ 18 comments ]

---

Many people have been hopeful that negotiations could resume between Syria and Israel, but those who know me will not be surprised by my cynicism. Olmert just promised Syria the entire Golan, my oh my, and suddenly we're all excited, as if this was supposed to be a fringe benefit.

I don't buy Israel's sudden peaceful disposition; I think they're faking it.


Faking It

Rime Allaf


Facts have rarely gotten in the Bush administration's way when demonizing a political opponent, even when that opponent has actually tried to accommodate multiple American demands. Accused of enemy complicity in most places where the US or its allies are involved, Syria has nevertheless regularly offered concrete help in the "war on terror" (including in the infamous extraordinary renditions) and in policing and sealing the Iraqi border.

A last minute invitation to Annapolis, in November 2007, was merely a reluctant move by US President George W. Bush to pretend he was serious about reaching a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. Under no circumstance should Syria have imagined this meant American pressure would stabilize, or even decrease, especially after the Israeli raid on a mysterious Syrian target in September 2007, which was clearly blessed by Bush.

Seven months after that raid, the US suddenly divulged that Israel had destroyed a nuclear reactor, built with North Korean help, which would have produced enough plutonium for one or two weapons within a year of becoming operational. The allegations were supported by "proof" presented in a series of graphs and photographs of "North Korean faces", nuclear equipment and satellite images of buildings, which were promptly discredited by some experts while used as evidence by others.

The IAEA was understandably outraged that this information was not produced for its inspection, before the Israeli raid and in the months following it. While some have chosen to believe that the current disclosure was meant to pressure North Korea, Bush offered several reasons for this delay. In particular, he explained, the US wanted to prevent confrontation and conflict in the region (raid notwithstanding, apparently) and was concerned that Syria would feel pressured to retaliate against Israel if the nuclear intelligence was made public, a reasoning that is difficult to take seriously. Clearly, the US is somehow convinced that Syria's urge to defend itself has now passed.

Even by the low standards of the Bush administration and its record of manufactured intelligence and fabricated liberations, the allegations about the timing are implausible and have other aims: since his arrival at the White House, Bush has done everything to thwart a potential peace deal between Syria and Israel, regardless of the fluctuating positions of the latter.

Indeed, even when taking into account the invitation to Annapolis, US behavior toward Syria has at least been consistent throughout the tenure of the Bush administration, with political pressure steadily increasing over the years and sanctions imposed. In contrast, Israel's demeanor vis-a-vis Syria has been erratic, sending mixed messages and failing to adopt a solid position.

It is odd that a prime minister raiding a site on enemy ground, supposedly knowing it is a nuclear facility, should praise that same enemy leader ten days later, declaring his respect. It is also strange that a massive war drill should subsequently be choreographed, groundlessly fueling war speculations. At the same time, Israeli officials have repeatedly confirmed that Syria poses no military threat, an acknowledgement that not only lays to rest looming war fears from its side, but also annuls the security factor in the Golan withdrawal equation.

The sudden emergence of peace talk rumors is confusing in the midst of such conflicting messages. Divulged by Syria, uncharacteristically, an initiative by Turkey has put negotiations back on the agenda. Most importantly, Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, confirmed to his Turkish mediators that Israel would return the entire Golan in exchange for peace with Syria. Normally, such statements are unnecessary, given that UNSC Resolution 242 already obliges Israel to return to its June 4, 1967 position. Furthermore, the Rabin Deposit, since the early 1990s, had already pledged Israel's full withdrawal from occupied Syrian land. In the current regional balance, however, Olmert's unexpected statement would have been music to Syrian ears.

Lest there be too much enthusiasm that an immediate deal is imminent, however, the Syrian president was quick to clarify that this would not be possible before 2009, when a more reasonable US administration, one assumes, is in place. Syria seems to be discounting the possibility of a McCain presidency, or else ignorant of the latter's own visions, and it seems to expect that whoever Bush's successor is, he or she will be a more willing and honest broker. Even if Syria and Israel warm to each other under the matchmaking talents of their common friend Turkey, all parties know that an eventual wedding can only be officiated by an American minister. It would thus be premature to interpret the current messages as signs of seriousness or of a breakthrough.

Damascus has often been accused of wanting to engage for engagement's sake, but its position has not changed over the years as it called repeatedly for a return to negotiations. In contrast, Israel continuously found excuses to procrastinate while claiming it doubted Syria's intentions. Obviously, Israel knows a peace deal means a complete withdrawal from the Golan, to which Israelis seem to have gotten rather attached over the years, and whose return to Syria will cost the latter a lot more than just "peace" according to the blueprints developed in track two talks. Israel is clearly in no hurry to reach this stage, making the timing of Olmert's declaration suspect as well, especially when considering his domestic political struggles and his attempt to avoid "painful concessions" on the Palestinian track.

It seems rather unfortunate that the public acknowledgement of Israel's full withdrawal from the Golan should coincide with the "revelation" of Syria's amazing nuclear capacities. What remains to be determined is whether Bush was helping Olmert retract, whether Olmert was helping Bush attack, or whether both were simply, as usual, simultaneously scratching each other's backs.
- Published 1/5/2008 © bitterlemons-international.org

Rime Allaf is associate fellow at London's Chatham House.


[ 10 comments ]

---

All day long, all night long, I have thought about their last breakfast, about the words they might have said to each other, about the thoughts they might have had, about the day they might have planned after having that breakfast, that last breakfast.

All day long, all night long, I have wondered how mothers across the world might have reacted to news and images of such gratuitous savagery, had they seen it, certain they would have subconsciously hugged their children a little tighter, as I did mine.

All day long, all night long, I have deliberated whether to publish a photo of angelic little faces as a scream in the face of indifference, or whether to let them rest peacefully, finally sure that no more harm could ever come to them.


But since most Western media is too civilized to publish photos that might harm the sensibilities of delicate people,

Since most Western media is too busy to report on minor collateral damage which the killers even refuse to acknowledge, mentioning the massacre as an afterthought, as “in other news,” too busy preparing an emotional coverage of the 60th anniversary of its favorite “democracy,”

Since most Saudi media has excelled in being more royal than the king, pretending professionalism by matter-of-factly mentioning the butchery before moving on to more important news,

Since the “international community” and the “free world” insist we must stop criticizing the aggressor, prove our peaceful intentions, and denounce those who refuse to be oppressed,

Since we are asked to provide land, peace parks, water rights, and preferential treatment while voluntarily relinquishing any claim of return, compensation or justice, whether legal or moral,

Since we must swear by their right to exist while forsaking ours,


Then at the very least, we must show you these photos and hope that your humanity will be offended by the crimes they show, that the “values” you claim we don’t share will make you see what “facts on the ground” actually look like, and that your conscience will be haunted by the knowledge that with your help, these children and their mother, like countless innocent victims before them, are condemned to become a mere statistic in the unending tragedy of the Palestinian people.


Israel’s sacred “right to self-defense”:











May God rest their souls in peace:

Miyasar Abu Meatak , 40 years old
Rudina, 6 years old
Saleh, 4 years old
Hana, 3 years old
Mousad, 15 months old



[ 14 comments ]

---

Annie and I had a coffee at the Four Seasons Hotel in Damascus last October, just a couple of days before my departure to London, on the eve of her trip to Brussels. We were simply catching up, knowing we’d see each other again in January, when we were both supposed to be back in Damascus, a city which she made her own, in a country she adopted with open arms.

But throughout the next months, I learned via email about the inexplicable ban; as far as I was concerned, it was surely a mistake, the fault of an overzealous, or mediocre employee following a new rule to the letter, without bothering to look at the details. We knew that the authorities had suddenly put a stop to foreigners sitting in Syrian universities as listeners, and we understood this as being a precaution against young revolutionaries with dangerous ideas.

Anyone who knows Annie or who has met her in cyberspace knows she does not quite fit the profile of a trouble-maker. Yet, she has been banned from Syria. And not because of the university’s new rules, but for a reason which has yet to be explained to Annie. Does this make any sense to anyone?

I recall the sad phone call I received from her on January 9, when Annie tried, and failed, to come home. Held at the airport, she called to say she was being sent back, not knowing what would happen next. Still, I reassured her that it was a mistake that would be resolved. I was wrong.

I asked Annie to summarize the story, a frustrating, and for Annie devastating, epilogue to five years of happiness in Damascus. All Syrian bloggers are more than welcome to cut/copy and paste the story and spread it further, and to help us solve this mystery. Annie is reachable on her new blog as well as on her original one, which I linked above. I am sure she would appreciate any words of advice, and of comfort.


Annie’s story

Six months ago, on October 27, 2007, in the bleak hours of the morning I was about to board a flight to Brussels at the Damascus international airport. I was leaving for a holiday, or so I thought.

I had cleared the emigration service and was about to proceed to the boarding area, when a policeman caught up with me, asked me the name of my father, and shortly thereafter came back and announced in a very neutral voice : you may leave but you’ll NEVER come back. “ABADAN ? What did I do? I’ll die !”

I phoned a friend thinking that my poor Arabic was responsible for misunderstanding this horrible news and the friend confirmed the sentence.

Upon arrival in Brussels, I went straight to the Syrian embassy and they told me they had no file about me, that my visa was valid and that it had not even been cancelled in Damascus. So, as far as they were concerned, I could go back. I wrote them a report about what happened and it was translated and sent to Damascus.

Back I went on January 9 after a friend with “wasta” had assured me that there was no obstacle to my return. I spent 20 hours in Damascus in the transit area of the airport before being shipped out. I was not allowed to see my friends or to leave them the presents I had brought with me.

A new Syrian consul arrived in Brussels and I went to see him. He asked me to write a letter. I wrote it in Arabic and he forwarded it to Damascus. He never got an answer. So, I applied for a new visa and I obtained it; nevertheless, according to other sources in Damascus, I am still blacklisted and not because I was part of an expelled shipment of University students who were mere listeners as I had thought so far. Where is the hitch?

Usually, when people are expelled, they are given time to pack. Not in my case. Fortunately, I had just paid 8 months of rent and my possessions were safe. My wonderful Syrian friends did all the sorting, disposing, packing and shipping of what I had accumulated during five years in books, records, clothes.

So, now I am in exile, pining for Damascus trying to rebuild a life elsewhere, but where? I cannot complain: I have a country and a house, things which most refugees are without.



[ 14 comments ]

---

I may be in a minority here, but I’m tired of reading “Nouveau Orientalist” articles beginning with sentiments like “I thought Syrians were evil people but they turned out to be welcoming and nice” and ending with deep statements like “things are much more complicated than they look on the surface.” You don’t say.

If this weren’t cause enough for complaint, what annoys me even more than the actual articles are the reactions by some Syrians, Syria lovers and ubiquitous regime apologists (the Neobaathists, who would credit their idols for any “positive” news from Syria), who go on quoting endlessly, excitedly what this American journalist said or what that foreign reporter wrote, often in the most superficial and generalist of manners.

I can only imagine the elation caused by yesterday’s Los Angeles Times piece on Al Madina FM and its English-speaking presenter. My husband and I had been in the car one day, and we both looked at each other, raising our eyebrows (see below for an explanation of what this means) and laughing (not in a good way) when we heard “Good Morning Syria” as we scanned the stations. Likewise, we had not understood why Al Madina FM was advertising on billboards in English. I’ve already got a project for an expat-targeted radio show (one in about 10 other such “projects” which languish on my to-do list, which should really be called “wishful thinking”), which would definitely advertise in English, but most expats don’t speak Arabic and would struggle to make sense of “Good Morning Syria”, so it can’t be for them - and Al Madina FM does not claim this on its website (which you can check if you can bear the “SANAesque” spelling and syntax).

Could it be that we were not impressed because we didn’t understand the potential target audience (?) for such shows? Thankfully for clueless people like my husband and I, the LA Times’ Borzou Daragahi explains that “despite the political and military tensions, the rhythms and textures of daily life here are increasingly meshing with those of Western nations.”

Hence "Good Morning Syria," one assumes, which he describes as the nation’s hottest radio show. In fact, the article continues: “On the streets of Damascus, people breezily draw in American sounds, sights and icons, making them part of their own cultural DNA.” Good thing all those Syrians are compensating for their other backward cultural habits; but even for someone who is quite partial to Americana and to many such sights and sounds, I find the premise rather simplistic. Daragahi, however, argues that “transforming a nation’s culture can shift it toward the Western orbit” – a one-way “globalization” of which he clearly approves.

In addition to making sweeping generalizations about the Arab “state of mind” (a term which I am certainly not trying to borrow from Raphael Patai’s pathetic prejudiced discourse), Nouveau Orientalism also plants ideas which are skewed: the description of the Syrian government as being “the most hostile to the West in the Arab world” is a loaded statement, and it is false. In fact, this government would love nothing more than to be on good terms with “the West” and would rather invite “Westerners” (rather than qualified expats more knowledgeable about the country) to carry out consultancy on every aspect of “reform.” I can assure you that the love affair with Britain, to name but one country in “the West,” is being facilitated at the highest levels. Anti-American policies, certainly (especially as many of these are anti-Syrian themselves), but anti-West certainly not.

Other Nouveau Orientalism types of articles simply rehash Classic Orientalism, such as this recent article alluding that Syrian men – or at least the frustrated, obnoxious jerks who stalk the streets and harass women – are apparently only interested in foreign women, who are “having a hard time adjusting to the attention of Syrian men.” Too bad no Syrian women were asked about how they suffer the indignity of groping, touching, pushing and other physical assaults, without even mentioning the looks, the whispers and the obscenities imposed on them, especially in crowded places. This unfortunate fact of life eludes NPR reporter Peter Kenyon and his interviewees, who clearly believe that they are considered to be somewhat special, as explains a young student of Arabic; "Every time I tell a Syrian that I'm American, they just get really excited and happy." How lovely. And how strange. For my part, I don’t know when was the last time I was really excited and happy when introduced to an American, but that must be because I haven’t met George Clooney yet. And it won’t be because of his nationality, but I digress.

Other Nouveau Orientalists helpfully explain the quirks of this country with statements that made me raise my eyebrows (go figure, I must have been in denial): according to Haley Edwards of the Seattle Times, ”In Syria, raising your eyebrows does not connote "surprise." It means "no."

Apart from this anomaly, however, Edwards sets the reader’s mind to rest about Syrians' normalcy by describing that “in certain neighborhoods, you'll even see Syrian women wearing jeans, heeled boots and flipping the bright-blond highlights in their hair.” Wow. Now if that doesn’t impress you, I don’t know what will.

But since writers in mainstream media pride themselves on being balanced, this glorious account does not fail to acknowledge the fact that Islam and its oppressive laws are ever present; for example, she explains (with what she thinks is a lot of humour, surely unwarranted for the subject), that ”the punishment for, say, stoning your flirtatious wife to death in the cul-de-sac outside your uncle's house on a sunny afternoon is pretty light.”

Yes, indeed, the public stoning of women is a rather unfortunate practice in Syria around every street corner. As if women didn’t have enough real legal and social issues to deal with.

Edwards goes completely Orientalist with her description of Syrian generosity: ”You can't walk a block in Damascus, or in Palmyra or Homs, for that matter, without a stranger (a fig merchant, a goat herder, a hair stylist) inviting you into his home, thrusting an infant into your arms and offering you a spread of baba ghanouj and hummus and black tea so sweet it would make even the most ardent disciple of Southern hospitality flush with competition.” How many clichés did you count in that sentence?

The Telegraph’s Peter Hughes, while not as exaggerated, agrees about the hospitality in a country “he had expected to find difficult” and about which he clearly had very little information, given that he describes Syrian food as ”Lebanese-style mezes, salads and grills.” Some Syrians might protest on the thorny issue of what’s Lebanese and what’s Syrian; perhaps a perfectly neutral (and classically orientalist) word like “Levantine” would have been better in this case.

The above are mere examples of an increasing trend of Nouveau Orientalist reporting which too many Syrians, to my irritation, find positive. While it’s certainly better than the usual fare, it is still far from reasonable, especially when it merely encourages Neobaathists to wax poetic about the wonder that is New Syria.


Not that it matters much these days, because frankly, Syrians have other things on their mind lately, especially the cut in fuel subsidies and the realization that for a lot of people, life has suddenly gotten a lot tougher. But that will be the subject of another post.


Before: Classic Orientalism




After: Nouveau Orientalism





[ 21 comments ]

---

With apologies for not posting in the usual English, this is a piece I wrote in French back in February, and which was published recently in the review of the European Institute of the Mediterranean based in Barcelona. There is a Spanish translation online as well, which I approved, but I will not have time to translate into English.

As per the title, I argue that Syria is both hostage and jailer of Lebanon, and that it allowed for a Franco-American reconciliation at its own expense with the extension of Lahoud's presidency three years ago. Nothing I haven't already said here many times. I also argue that Syria has lost new opportunities with the new French president, by neglecting to even appoint an ambassador to Paris following Siba Nasser's retirement, and by failing to take initiative. Instead of doing everything to improve relations with Paris, Syria, as usual, waited to react instead of acting, and allowed Lebanese politicians to lead the game.

However, given Sarkozy's very personal approach to foreign affairs, and given France's upcoming presidency of the European Union (when he plans to launch the new "Club Med"), it would be advisable for Syria to review its attitude towards France, and to consider it a gateway to improved relations with the European Union, and to the eventual signing of the Association Agreement.


La Syrie, otage et geôlière du Liban
Par Rime Allaf

Depuis plusieurs années, médias et politiciens confondus ne décrivent la Syrie plus que par ses mauvaises relations avec le reste du monde ; on parle de dégradation (lorsqu’il s’agit de la plupart des pays européens) ou de quasi rupture (quand ce sont les Etats-Unis). Les accusations pleuvent sur la prétendue manie syrienne de se mêler de ce qui ne la regarde pas, et de semer le chaos et la pagaille dans le Moyen-Orient, en particulier en Irak et au Liban. En effet, les dirigeants syriens sont souvent coupables de se mêler des affaires d’autrui, et les actions et déclarations du régime le rendent lui-même responsable à un large degré pour son isolation diplomatique. Cependant, ce dernier se considère contraint par la géographie et par les événements de se préoccuper de se qui se passe dans son quartier, ne cachant point son besoin stratégique de maintenir une influence dans les pays frontaliers, où beaucoup de pouvoirs se bousculent à cette fin sans avoir de justification géographique.

Le rôle corrupteur supposé de la Syrie dans la violence en Irak, tel que décrit en termes très simplistes par les USA, a été la raison principale de la détérioration des rapports entre Washington et Damas. Pourtant, mis à part les plus proches alliés du Président George W. Bush qui participèrent à l’invasion de l’Irak, la plupart des pays européens n’ont pas considéré la position syrienne comme étant particulièrement condamnable. D’ailleurs, comme le poids politique de l’Europe ne joue pas le rôle déterminatif dans les relations avec les pays arabes, avec qui le rapport est davantage économique (bien que le processus de Barcelone, pour ne citer qu’un exemple de coopération euroméditerranéenne, a des fins socio-politiques), ce n’est que l’Europe de Tony Blair, de Silvio Berlusconi ou de José Maria Aznar qui s’est mise à l’heure américaine, tandis que l’Europe de Jacques Chirac et de ses proches (comme l’Allemagne de Gerhard Schröder) ne trouvait pas encore que la Syrie avait tout à fait tort – tout au moins par rapport à l’Irak.

Le départ de Berlusconi et Aznar de leurs postes respectifs, laissant la place à des gouvernements de gauche (Romano Prodi en Italie, et José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero en Espagne), et l’arrivée de Angela Merkel au pouvoir en Allemagne, amenant au contraire un gouvernement plutôt conservateur, inversa la position de ces pays, surtout en ce qui concerne l’Irak ; dans tous ces cas, il était clair que les alliances personnelles et la politique interne avaient pris le devant sur les intérêts nationaux, un comportement plus digne de dictatures orientales que de démocraties occidentales. Avec la plupart des gouvernements de gauche, plus disposés à dialoguer qu’à imposer, un échange d’idées et de positions redevenait possible.

Le régime syrien n’avait pas encore connu l’apogée de ses troubles avec l’Irak, puisque c’est la France qui accélérera le processus d’isolation de ce pays considéré jusqu'à là comme potentiel allié. Après que la Grande Bretagne de Tony Blair eu mené le combat médiatique et politique relatif a l’Irak, c’est la France de Jacques Chirac qui décide de diriger une toute nouvelle politique anti-syrienne en se concentrant sur le Liban. Quelques années après avoir déclaré, à Beyrouth, que la présence syrienne était nécessaire au Liban (se référant à l’armée syrienne) et après avoir été le seul chef d’état occidental à assister aux obsèques du président Hafez al Assad pour souligner son soutien à son successeur, Chirac fait volte-face et dénonce cette présence avec une résolution onusienne co-parrainée avec les Etats-Unis (signalant un rapprochement visible des deux pouvoirs) visant à contraindre la Syrie à sortir du Liban.

Ce changement ne prit pas lieu du jour au lendemain, et il y a plusieurs éléments qui ont contribué à la détérioration des relations franco-syriennes.Une des rumeurs les plus persistantes se réfère à une affaire louche de concession pétrolière, censée avoir été promise à une grande compagnie française, mais offerte à la dernière heure à un concurrent canadien, les français s’étant surpris du montant de la « commission » qu’un proche du régime syrien considérait comme son dû. Cet incident, dit-on, provoqua la colère du Président Chirac qui commençait déjà à manifester son impatience à cause de la lenteur des réformes (sous gérance française) que lui promettait le nouveau régime à Damas.

Mais c’est dans cet autre ancien protectorat français, au Liban, que les relations franco-syriennes atteignent leur plus bas niveau. Depuis la mort de Hafez al Assad, et l’installation d’un nouveau proconsul syrien n’ayant aucune finesse diplomatique ni appréciation politique envers ce fragile consensus qu’est le système libanais, les différentes factions du Liban commençaient à s’agiter. Au lieu de les rassurer, Damas ne fit qu’aggraver le cas avec ses impositions, perdant ainsi la loyauté de plusieurs de ses alliés, en commençant par le dénommé Monsieur Liban, Rafic Hariri.

Ami intime de longue date du Président Chirac, le premier ministre libanais (à plusieurs reprises) se sentait frustré par l’insistance syrienne d’imposer illégalement une extension de trois ans au Président Emile Lahoud. Ayant été forcé de l’approuver, en septembre 2004, Hariri démissionna tout de suite de son poste et s’occupa des détails de la grande rupture, une rupture dont le premier acte venait de passer avec l’adoption de la Résolution 1559 du Conseil de Sécurité, imposant (entre autres) le retrait de toutes les troupes étrangères du Liban. Avec l’affaire Lahoud, la Syrie venait de faciliter la réconciliation franco-américaine à ses propres dépends, et de perdre soudainement le support de l’Arabie Saoudite (ainsi que celui de l’Egypte) dont Hariri était un des citoyens les plus connus.

L’assassinat spectaculaire de Hariri en février 2005, attribué (sans preuves) au régime syrien par beaucoup de partis, eu des répercussions immenses, menant à une isolation diplomatique du régime sans précédent, et au retrait humiliant des soldats syriens deux mois plus tard, sous la huée de centaines de milliers de manifestants libanais se croyant finalement libres de l’étouffante domination syrienne. Cependant, ces derniers se trompaient : avec ou sans armée, le Syrie continuait d’exercer une influence considérable au Liban, à tel point que le tribunal international (unique en son genre, crée par une résolution du Conseil de Sécurité pour juger les accusés de ce crime) n’a toujours pas commencé son travail.

Trois ans après le meurtre de Hariri, et suivant une douzaine d’autres attentats tout aussi meurtriers visant des personnalités libanaises (encore attribués, sans preuves, au régime syrien) et une agression israélienne violente en 2006, le Liban se trouve toujours dans une impasse, coincé entre les différentes puissances régionales et mondiales essayant d’imposer leurs influences, et paralysé économiquement et politiquement par l’intransigeance des factions libanaises figées sur des positions opposées et des visions contradictoires.

D’un côté, supporté par les pays occidentaux et l’Arabie Saoudite, se trouve le Mouvement du 14 Mars, sous la direction de Saad Hariri, fils du défunt premier ministre ; de l’autre côté, soutenu par la Syrie et l’Iran, se trouve la coalition entre le Hezbollah et ses alliés chrétiens, dont le plus notable est l’ancien Général Michel Aoun. Les factions ayant un support plus ou moins égal, le Liban étant divisé en deux, une solution satisfaisant tout le monde semble improbable, et si l’élection jusqu’ici bloquée d’un président de la république ne se produit pas par consensus, l’imposition du parti le plus fort ne serait qu’une solution temporaire et potentiellement explosive.

Pendant que le Liban suffoque, les supporters de ces factions se rendent mutuellement responsables du status quo, sans proposer d’alternative faisable, et sans penser aux initiatives possibles.

Ayant souffert de son approche personnelle avec le Liban, Damas avait calmement attendu le départ de Chirac (simple tactique de persévérance qu’elle semble suivre avec tous ses détracteurs), espérant sûrement prendre cette opportunité pour renouer avec la France et pour établir, dès le début, une relation avec le nouveau président. Mais, incroyablement, Damas ne pensa même pas à envoyer un nouvel ambassadeur à Paris pour amadouer ses nouveaux interlocuteurs français (le poste étant resté vacant depuis le départ de l’ambassadeur Siba Nasser). Au lieu de faire le premier pas, le régime syrien semblait attendre que le Président Sarkozy le fasse : ce dernier ne déçoit pas et entame une diplomatie éclair et plutôt light au Liban, envoyant tantôt son Ministre des Affaires Etrangères, Bernard Kouchner, tantôt son Conseiller, Claude Guéant, et multipliant les démarches auprès de Damas pour obtenir des concessions syriennes pour lesquelles il est prêt à offrir un rapprochement et une visite éventuelle du président français, ainsi qu’un éventuel soulagement de la pression du tribunal international. Le cas échéant, Sarkozy insinue qu’il serait prêt à débloquer les fonds nécessaire pour l’établissement du dit tribunal.

Mais si le régime syrien continuait de pratiquer ses mauvaises habitudes de politique inefficace et de vision stratégique myope, le gouvernement français s’en faisait de nouvelles, s’engageant sur la voie périlleuse des affaires levantines sans en connaître les paramètres.

En effet, bien que très différent de son prédécesseur dans son style autant que dans sa forme, le Président Sarkozy n’avait aucune intention de redonner la parole au Quai d’Orsay, même avec (ou peut-être à cause de) son choix certainement inhabituel de ministre des affaires étrangères. Tout comme avec Chirac, tout au moins en ce qui concernait la Syrie, le chef d’état français s’était aussi désigné chef de la diplomatie française. Malheureusement, ni Sarkozy, ni son ministre, ne bénéficient de l’étendue expérience diplomatique de leurs prédécesseurs ou de leur connaissance de la région, et l’initiative française était donc condamnée à l’échec sans l’apport professionnel du Quai d’Orsay.

Au lieu de s’améliorer, les relations franco-syriennes continuent donc leur détérioration, surtout sous l’influence libanaise. Plus la France (et l’Arabie Saoudite) exercent de la pression sur Damas, plus les dirigeants syriens s’en prennent à leurs opposants libanais, et vice versa, avec aucune sortie de secours de ce cercle vicieux.

Le problème ne se limite pas aux relations de la Syrie avec ses confrères arabes, ou même avec la France. Cette dernière prendra la présidence de l’Union Européenne en juillet 2008, et tout laisse à prévoir que Nicolas Sarkozy compte en faire une présidence active et initiatrice, espérant commencer par son projet « Club Med » (une Union Méditerranéenne créant une communauté économique et traitant aussi de sécurité et d'immigration). Pour l’instant, la Syrie reste le seul pays concerné à ne pas avoir pas signé l’Accord d’Association avec l’Union Européenne, et Sarkozy peut donc jouer un rôle important pour elle, surtout en considérant son support enthousiaste déclaré pour l’état d’Israël. A travers Sarkozy, la Syrie a autant d’opportunités que de risques, et il faudrait que Damas redonne aux affaires d’état l’attention qu’elles méritent et s’occupe moins de détails purement cérémonieux comme le Sommet Arabe. Pour l’instant, il semble que la communication ne fonctionne toujours pas entre Damas et Paris, mais il est très possible que cela soit à travers le Liban que le message passe enfin.

Rime Allaf, associate fellow, programme pour le Moyen-Orient, Chatham House, Londres.


[ 5 comments ]

---

As Israel prepares to celebrate its sixtieth anniversary, and as Palestinians reach sixty years of disposession, we must honor the memory of those who perished in the savage butchery that was the Deir Yasin massacre of April 9, 1948.

Ten years ago already, James Zogby was lamenting the revisionist efforts of the Zionist Organization of America, trying to rewrite Palestinian history when Israel's founders themselves boasted about their methods on the record. He quotes arch-terrorist Menachem Begin as he describes the effect of real and implied threats on Palestinians:

"Arabs throughout the country, induced to believe wild tales of 'Irgun butchery' were seized with limitless panic and started to flee for their lives. This mass flight soon developed into a maddened, uncontrolled stampede. Of the almost 800,000 who lived on the present territory of the State of Israel, only some 165,000 are still there. The political and economic significance of this development can hardly be overestimated."

Anyone can Google photos (and accounts) of what happened in Deir Yassin, even according to the terrorist perpetrators themselves. Rather than post photos of bloodied corpses which were widely circulated at the time of the massacre, helping to provoke the mass panic, I prefer to show survivors - already refugees - fleeing the village, never to return to their homes. Their right of return, and that of their descendents, however, is guaranteed by every law the "international community" has adopted, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and United Nations Resolution 194. Remember this as sixtieth birthdays are celebrated and "facts on the ground" are created.




[ 13 comments ]

---

As I've already explained to many of you who kindly asked by email, I apologize for Mosaics' recent disappearing act and for my prolonged silence. Until the gods of technology allow us full access to all the archives, however, I am faced with a blank canvas and feel rather lonely here without the many entries (and corresponding comments) which have been filling up this space since 2004.

Nevertheless, I hope to get back to blogging soon, and I thank each and every one of you for your concern. In the meantime, and although it comes too late now, here is something I wrote a week before the Arab League Summit in Damascus.


Success Measured by Attendance

By Rime Allaf

Despite their proven futility, Arab League summits have always managed to create a modicum of expectation over the last couple of decades as several big events shook the Arab world to its core. But apart from exceptions when actionable resolutions were adopted, like the expulsion of Egypt in the Baghdad Summit of 1979 (following its lone peace settlement with Israel) or the emergency Cairo Summit of 1990 in the aftermath of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (where a recording leaked subsequently showed Arab leaders disgracefully shouting insults across the table), they have mostly been opportunities to prove the cliché that "Arabs agree to disagree."

With such low expectations and no likely achievements, the region now mostly plays a different summit game: how good will turnout be, which of the big names will skip, and which will strive to steal the headlines with a late arrival? The scrutiny continues during the summit: who will be merely civil to whom, who will show effusive appreciation to whom, and whose brotherly kisses and hugs will provide the best photo-op?

The upcoming Damascus Summit suffers from these usual afflictions, but there are additional issues raising the stakes. For one, past thorny summits were held on relatively neutral grounds, either in countries not directly implicated in the crisis du jour, or in Arab League headquarters. In contrast, the Damascus Summit will convene in the country most at odds with its co-members, under the auspices of a rather controversial regime whose relations with most Arab states have deteriorated over one of the trickiest problems facing the region in recent years. Unlike other summits, this one is hosted by the party accused of causing the rift in Lebanon, whose presidential crisis is blamed on Damascus alone.

One other novelty is the extent of pre-conditions other regimes have imposed, or tried to impose, on their host -- conditions which reveal the lack of faith of summit participants themselves in the potential value of such gatherings. Instead of proposing to use the summit to resolve the Lebanese problem, amongst others, countries with rival positions have hinted that their participation depended precisely on the election of a president after 16 attempts; a seventeenth failure, they warn, would break the summit and doom it to low-level (if any) representation, rather than being graced with the presence of influential leaders.

Syria is anxious to avoid a humiliating no-show from the big names. Repeatedly trying, and repeatedly failing, to secure Saudi approval for a visit by Foreign Minister Walid Muallem to deliver the official summit invitation, Syria finally resigned itself to send it at a much lower level, illustrating the depth of the gulf between Riyadh and Damascus. It will not have helped, of course, that Lebanon was the last of 22 countries to be invited to the summit, in a manner defying protocol and typical of Syrian "diplomacy": handed to a resigned minister of the Lebanese cabinet by an official of the Syrian Foreign Ministry, it wasn't even signed by the host of the event, but by the Syrian Prime Minister.

Such moves do nothing to endear the Syrian regime to its critics, and Muallem's claim that this summit would have the highest level of attendance of any summit remains to be proven. It is not clear whether he counts one of the confirmed attendants, the Iranian Foreign Minister, in his tally, but unless other friendly neighbors (such as Turkey) also make an appearance, the representative of Iran may find himself the sole non-Arab at the table amongst irate participants finding one more point of contention with the host.

But Damascus is also subject to unprecedented third party interference, a phenomenon not experienced by other summit organizers. With the American president arrogantly preaching to Arabs about attendance, and with even the usually diplomatic head of EU diplomacy, Javier Solana, opining that key Arab leaders would not come if a Lebanese counterpart is not amongst them, Syria's own meddling begins to appear pertinent.

A summit would be a perfect setting to reach regional solutions, but pan-Arab politics have rarely abided by such logic and we are left measuring success through attendance rather than achievement. Thus, even the 2002 Beirut Summit's major accomplishment (the adoption of the Arab Peace Initiative) was overshadowed by the absence of half the heads of state, and by the deliberate blocking of besieged Palestinian President Yasser Arafat's televised address to his fellow leaders, as the host, Lebanese President Emile Lahoud, cut his broadcast as it began from Ramallah and declared it was time for lunch.

The current Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, will be unenthusiastic about making a personal appearance in the capital where his biggest enemy (Hamas) holds political court, but unable to skip the summit given the tragic situation in Gaza. Likewise, the Lebanese will be damned if they come (which some would consider a show of weakness in front of Syria) and damned if they don't (which could be interpreted as unwillingness to trust pan-Arab diplomacy). Current heavyweights Egypt and Saudi Arabia will also be torn between attending to impose their presence, and defaulting to register their opposition to Syrian actions, and to cause summit failure. But Syrian-Saudi relations, currently at an all-time low, have overcome greater challenges; while many believe that King Abdullah has not forgiven, or forgotten, Syrian slights he felt were directed at his person after the Israeli assault on Lebanon in 2006, this didn't stop him from embracing and meeting with the Syrian president during the last summit in Riyadh. This shows that summits do little to change political situations, and the Damascus Summit will be just as inconsequential as its precursors.

Still, the Syrian regime is hoping that the regional situation, recently inflamed even more with the help of Israel, the United States and various other incendiary meddlers, will sway them towards participation, and that their presence in the self-proclaimed "beating heart of Arabism" will allow for a whirlwind persuasive exposé on its leadership in the sacrosanct Arab struggle – a task made more difficult, if not moot, by the presence of Iran.

To paraphrase Fontenelle, a great obstacle to success is the expectation of too much success. Despite Syrian hype about the summit, success measured by attendance merely increases the possibility of failure in such unfavourable circumstances.

Rime Allaf is Associate Fellow at Chatham House

[ 10 comments ]

---

Today, the Arab capital of culture glistened under the snow. Shining beneath a white sky which enveloped the city with tenderness and lent it an awe-inspiring aura, Damascus seemed to settle comfortably into a role it always knew it deserved. At the start of this Damascene year of culture, as I read the names of various prominent cultured people who will visit the world’s oldest city, I could only think about those who will not be part of the celebrations.

Indeed, my appreciation of Milan Kundera and Noam Chomsky, for example, would have only been even greater had they been invited to impart their art alongside their Syrian peers, our very own “muthaquafin.” But this Arabic word, often used here to refer to our civil society activists, has been robbed of its most worthy personification: regrettably, too many of our truly cultured Syrians are behind bars, in forced exile, or in forced silence. At best, our best have been ignored and cast aside.

Our intellectuals have been stifled for too many years, and the only permissible manifestation of “culture” has been one of conformity with an encoded agenda, lapped up by pedants, yes-men and women, and uncouth would-be ideologues.

I hope that everyone will spare a thought for the true cultured Syrians who continue to languish in terribly harsh conditions in jail, emprisoned for no other reason than practicing their own culture of honesty and compassion for their country, for which they had the greatest and most sincere of ambitions. I have mentioned many of their names in the past (including Michel Kilo, Anwar Bunni, Kamal Labwani), in this blog and elsewhere, in solidarity with the brave civil society activists who dared to speak and to write about what was needed to make Syria a better place.

Today, in particular, I hope you will have a prayer in your hearts for our respected Dr. Aref Dalila, one of this capital’s greatest minds and kindest souls, who is suffering a very grave deterioration in his health, and whose spirit is in great need of our support as he continues to endure solitary confinement in brutal conditions for a seventh consecutive year. May he and all our prisoners of conscience soon recover the physical, spiritual and intellectual freedoms which are our God-given rights. Without them, Damascus is poorer, more sad, and more lonely.

“As the soil, however rich it may be, cannot be productive without culture, so the mind, without cultivation, can never produce good fruit.” (Seneca)


[ add comment ]

---

In 1990, as the United States and its Gulf allies prepared public opinion for the impending liberation of Kuwait from its Iraqi invaders, the public relations firm Kill & Knowlton concocted a perfect tale to illustrate the enemy’s barbarity. The Kuwaiti ambassador to the US did not hesitate to use his own daughter to help spin one of the biggest lies of the war; the young girl, posing as a nurse, testified tearfully to a congressional hearing that she had seen with her own eyes how Iraqi soldiers had thrown Kuwaiti babies out of incubators, leaving them to die.

That story sold the war to the American people then, just as Colin Powell's WMD vial sold it again 13 years later. Without evidence, depending only on the testimony of a young woman, people's outrage pushed their governments to deal with the barbarians. Since a picture is worth a thousand words, an actual photo of a baby in an incubator, facing a terrible tragedy unless something is done to help him, will surely move the world to provide a solution. Could this tiny baby, lying helpless in his incubator, help convince Americans that turning off the electricity is akin to throwing him out of his cosy incubator?

Baby in Gaza - from a series of photos in The Guardian

Apparently not. Nobody really seems to care if Palestinians live or die, or why. From this New York Times headline, in fact, you’d think that the fuel shortage which shut Gaza’s Power Plant, leaving the city in the dark was due to a mere unfortunate accident, freak weather, or a technical problem.

Don’t bother checking the BBC either, which believes that there is some kind of equivalence between the two sides, and which shamelessly uses Israeli terminology (like “targeted killings”) to explain that there is a propaganda battle over Gaza. In order to help baffled readers understand why Israel acts the way it does, the BBC explains that after Israel’s “withdrawal” from Gaza, “physical casualties have been few, but the psychological pressure of living under the daily threat of attack has made ordinary life in the south very difficult.” Oh my, psychological pressure – let’s hope the so-called international community reacts quickly to end this trauma.

You really do have to read other media or to watch other news to know that once again, Israel’s inhumane treatment of Palestinians will stop at nothing, and that after the systematic murder of dozens of Palestinians over the past few weeks, the barbaric siege of the world’s biggest, most desperate ghetto goes on. Sadly, some babies are still more equal than others.

[ 2 comments ]

---

OK, so I've had a busy month, hectic travels, lots to do in London, and I haven't blogged for longer than I care to admit. I'll be back soon, not with excuses (don't you think blogging should mean never having to say you're sorry?) but with my usual grumbles about the state of this world. In the meantime, here are a few thoughts on the terribly important "nucular" problem in Syria, which Bitter Lemons International discussed this week.

The media has gone nuclear about Syria
Rime Allaf

The most striking element of Israel's September 6 raid on Syrian territory was the aggressor's most unusual behavior, namely a reticence to brag about yet another illegal assault, to the point of imposing military censorship on media coverage. This after an equally unusual and totally spontaneous Syrian disclosure that a raid had in fact taken place, making the event even more peculiar. The normal, vague Syrian response to Israeli assaults had until then stopped, meekly and indefinitely, at reserving the right to retaliate. By the time Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, some ten days later, declared having "a good deal of respect for the Syrian leader and for Syrian policy"--an unexpected sentiment not echoed by Israel's actions--there had been mysterious American leaks about alleged Syrian nuclear facilities or nuclear shipments and a growing array of theories about what had happened, adding much speculation but little actual information.

When Syria suddenly cleaned up the site of the raid, a month later, most reports in the media and in the blogosphere triumphantly took this as an indication of Syria's "guilt." Clearly, the latter's action did not significantly improve odds that the benefit of the doubt would be granted--even to the actual victim of aggression--especially as other Syrian sites attacked by Israel (such as the Golan town of Quneitra, systematically destroyed before Israel was forced to withdraw following the disengagement agreement in 1974) have been left intact in their desolation for decades, forced witnesses testifying about the violence of the enemy.

But no serious analyst or nuclear expert, not even hysterical fear mongers, can actually back up claims that Syria in its present condition could truly pose a threat to the security of Israel. As things stand, it is difficult to believe that Syria could develop into even a significant opponent to Israel, and as repeated reports by respected professionals in the field have stated, Syria's nuclear ambitions, if any, are modest, its capacities are non-existent and its potential for development in such matters is practically nil. No matter how it is presented, the nuclear linkage between Syria and North Korea or Iran has no basis.

Unfortunately, mainstream media's Pavlovian conditioning has ensured that the Bush administration's bait about supposed weapons of mass destruction, yet again, was taken unconditionally. Reliable villains don't come easy, and Syria has not done itself any favors in its clumsy handling of the affair. As usual, the official response was completely inadequate in comparison to the media-savvy exposes of both the attackers and the accusers; Syrian ministers with clearly unrelated portfolios and limited persuasive talents led the battle, while other officials gave contradicting information. This in no way excuses the sloppy reporting and the rumors disguised as truth that covered the pages of newspapers and websites. In fact, most reports only exercised the necessary journalistic caution when covering Syria's initial announcement that it had been attacked, and that its air defense had challenged the Israeli planes and chased them out; until Israel actually confirmed the raid, making headline news, Syrian statements were described as alleged, claimed, supposed--anything but believable.

But even while doubting Syria's declarations, many reports, probably inadvertently, gave credibility to the argument of a nuclear Syria. Indeed, analysis seemed to accept the "normalcy" of the rumor that a nuclear facility had been hit, not only because it served the purpose of portraying Syria as a problem-maker in cahoots with even more undesirable regimes in the most dangerous of activities, but also because it elaborated on the reasons why Syria would want, or need, such capacities. As a deterrent against an occupying enemy whose own 200 plus nuclear warheads loom menacingly near, the only adequate measure is some of the same.

But while these well-presented arguments about Syrian needs by foreign (and generally anti-Syrian) media made perfect sense, they neglected to dig into the mountain of facts already covered by numerous proliferation reports, including details about the countries (mostly Western powers) that have assisted Syria and in which Syrian scientists have trained, and the description of the kind of research and production of which Syria is capable (mainly isotopes for medical and agricultural applications). Such details, and the fact that unlike Israel, Syria is a signatory to the Non Nuclear Proliferation Treaty since 1969, do not support the scaremongering and the political agenda behind it.

The events and the uncharacteristic behavior following the attack seem to suggest that both Syria and Israel have something to hide, and that they were surprised by each other's game as it was being divulged. For some analysts, repercussions of this raid are still being felt, from Annapolis to Beirut; for others still, the raid gave a new perspective on the preposterous plans for Tehran. But unless--or rather, given Baghdad's recent experience, even if--the current American secretary of state can produce a vial of evidence to hold up during a session of the Security Council, it is incumbent on the media to exercise responsibility and to simply report the fact that the Israeli raid on Syria remains a mystery. - Published 29/11/2007 Š bitterlemons-international.org

Rime Allaf is associate fellow at Chatham House in London.


[ add comment ]

---

With all the hype about Syria, its alleged hidden weapons programs, and the flying white knights in shining armor who are daringly saving the world from the evils of nuclear technology in rogue hands (I leave you to digest the irony of this notion), and somewhat tired of all the silly "analysis" I am reading about this whole affair, I thought it was time for a laugh by reminding you of what The Onion published on Syria just after the invasion of Iraq.

What the media automatically parrotted back then, subsequent mea culpas notwithstanding, still applies today. With the burden of proof a forgotten concept, all we now need is for Thelma or Louise (aka Rice or Livni) to brandish a small vial in the Security Council.

Those unfamiliar with The Onion should also read "Middle East Conflict Intensifies As Blah Blah Blah, Etc. Etc.", which includes "quotes" from Bush speeches, or perhaps also find out about that"Study: Iraqis May Experience Sadness When Friends, Relatives Die", to get an idea of the media parodies it specializes in, and the strangely momentary cathartic effect of reading about our tragic events in this way.

CIA: Syria Harboring More Than 15 Million Known Arabs April 30, 2003 : Issue 39•16

LANGLEY, VA—In an alarming report released Monday by the Central Intelligence Agency, Syria may be harboring upwards of 15 million known Arabs within its borders. Suspected Arabs move freely through a Damascus marketplace. "Reliable intelligence collected by our agency indicates that Syria has conspired to lend physical and economic support to a massive number of people belonging to this group," CIA director George J. Tenet said. "The shocking truth is, there are nearly as many Arabs in Syria as there are people in New York and Los Angeles combined. In fact, Syrians openly refer to their nation as the Syrian Arab Republic, despite knowing full well America's opinion on these matters."

Explaining the CIA's methods of gathering data on the rogue ethnicity's presence in Syria, Tenet said it relied on a combination of satellite imagery, computer-system infiltration, reports from Syrian covert operatives, intercepted radio and television transmissions, and The World Almanac And Book Of Facts 2003. "It's practically an open secret these days," Tenet said. "Syrian television brazenly shows Arabs in military uniforms carrying guns, or delivering political speeches to other members of the group. Walk into any house of worship in the country, and you'll see people reading the Koran and bowing their heads in prayer toward Mecca. It's almost like they're daring the United States to get involved."

"Disturbingly, more than 90 percent of these Arabs have been linked to the practice of 'Islam'—a defiantly non-Western system of faith whose core principles are embraced by none other than Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein," Tenet added. "If this is true, and we do consider this information to be correct in all particulars, then this is troubling at best."

President Bush, Tenet said, has been aware of Syria's ties to known Arab political and religious figures since the earliest planning stages of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Tenet assured reporters that all possible diplomatic avenues of resolving the situation were being aggressively pursued.

In a chilling scene, thousands of Arabs bow toward Mecca in praise of Allah.

"We have informed [Syrian President] Bashar al-Assad of the presence of Arabs in his country and have offered any aid necessary to bring this situation under control," Tenet said. "I am confident that a resolution to this crisis can be achieved without resorting to military action."

This is not the first time Syria has been linked to Arabs. Israel found the Golan Heights heavily populated by Arabs when it annexed the region from Syria during 1967's Arab-Israeli War. Arabs have historically held many influential posts in the Syrian government, and the CIA claims to have data indicating that wealthy Arab businessmen control the greater part of Syria's economy. The CIA report prompted concern from many Americans. "I'm not surprised," said Wayne Early, an Atlanta-area mortgage broker. "I suspect they're all over that part of the world. First, the government linked them to Sept. 11, then Afghanistan, and then Iraq. It makes you wonder who's next."

"The more I learn about Arabs, the less I like them," said Carol Schecter of Norfolk, VA. "Beirut, Teheran, Baghdad... everyplace there's trouble, they're there, and now we've found them in Syria. I just hope they don't hurt the regular Syrians."

Tenet assured citizens that he is committed to resolving the crisis. "We don't want to cause any undue panic, but now that the Arabs are there, we're going to have to deal with them," Tenet said. "Unfortunately, they're not just going to go away by themselves."


[ add comment ]

---

Either way, it’s the notion of a forced conversion to Christianity that’s shaking mainstream American media to its core. Lo and behold, people have suddenly discovered that Ann Coulter is – gasp – a bigot. How could she proclaim, out of the blue moon, that non-Christians should convert? What a scandal.

Except that it wasn’t a scandal when the intended “converts” were Muslims (all of them), and when she wrote that “we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.” Contrary to what many people think, she did not get fired for writing this, as is explained here by the National Review Online itself. Nor was she attacked for going too far; after all, this was right after September 11, when emotions ran high and every “raghead” deserved to be scorned because of his “car-burning religion,” because Muslims have a “predilection for violence” and their “default mode is rioting and setting things on fire.” (Coulter’s quotes are easy to find on numerous websites, I will not link to any of her writing; I did my bit with Oriana Fallaci and that was enough.)

Muslims were not allowed to complain, for they had to bear the collective guilt for the actions of a few men, mostly nationals of America’s strongest Arab ally. So nobody minded when Coulter wanted to convert Muslims at gunpoint. (Nor did Syrian officials flinch or bother protesting when she suggested ”bombing Syrians back to the stone age;” who could blame her – they had after all rioted because of some really tasteful cartoons.)

Of course, it’s an entirely different story when Coulter wants to convert Jews. That makes her a racist, you see, and a racist of the most forbidden kind: an anti-Semite. Not that she wants to force Jews to convert (compulsion is purely for Muslims), but she thinks they should be “perfected” by becoming Christians (a notion that some of her coreligionists are actually defending as a correct Christian dogma).

Even Coulter knows that what is acceptable discourse with regards to Muslims becomes a huge red line with regards to Jews; therefore, she insisted that her offended host give her more airtime to explain herself, which doesn’t seem to have helped, judging from the outraged or exasperated comments in the US. But this same media shouldn’t pretend to be shocked. Since her eruption into American media, several years ago, Ann Coulter has been banking (royally, literally) on her shock factor, her rudeness, her insensitivity, her slandering, her lying, her bigotry, all of which became fuel for bestselling books (an incomprehensible phenomenon) and which became her trademark. It says a lot about American media and politicians that such an essentially stupid, ignorant, vulgar, offensive and prejudiced person should be given a platform in the first place.

It is pointless to waste more time stooping to Coulter’s level to attack her. But maybe the so-called independent media should begin to deliberate on the monsters they helped create, and on the deplorable standards, and the double standards, they have accepted as the norm. As for all the indignation about the issue of conversion, I still think the Jews got away with a lot less grief than the Muslims: after all, if these were your only choices, would you rather be perfected or killed?


[ add comment ]

---

So where in New York can you find people who refer to a customer as the “zboon” and to the sale as “be’aah”? Not just at Crazy Eddie’s either. Read this fabulous article about The Sy Empire in the New York Times Magazine and find out all about Syrian Jews and their community in New York. If you thought Bab Al Hara showed a close-knit society, wait until you read about the Syrian Jews who fall within the Edict.

About 7 or 8 years ago, on a trip to New York, I remember shopping for electronics in downtown Manhattan when a salesman (wearing a kippa) noticed a necklace I was wearing, with Islamic calligraphy. He asked where I was from, I told him, and he excitedly replied: “Me too, my family is from Syria.” We had a great chat, and he was waxing poetic about the good old days (as lived by his parents and grandparents) in the home country. I think it's a pity they’re not part of it anymore.


[ add comment ]

---

Time for the annual phenomenon of Ramadan television drama series, and for the phenomenon of reporting on them, as has been the fashion in the past few years. If you recall, I certainly wasn't going to be outdone and shared my thoughts on the subject last year. Alas, only a few articles have made it to print or online this year, given that we uninteresting and ungrateful Arabs have not even bothered to make series dealing with terrorism and with real Muslims’ denunciation of it. Shame on us really: what on earth is mainstream media going to write, patronizingly, about our collective souls, to show it is in touch with our hearts and is familiar with our minds?

Syrian-Egyptian rivalry, that’s what. Not that the Syrians are better, mind you; just before Ramadan started, rumor here had it that there would only be a few Syrian serials this year, because the Egyptians were back with a vengeance and because fewer television channels had agreed to buy Syrian serials; apparently, this was for political reasons, because of the anti-Syrian attitude. Nonsense, of course: Syrian drama and comedy has filled the Arabic-language satellite sphere (including all Saudi and Lebanese channels) for the past few years, regardless of the accusations against the country. We Syrians really take the biscuit, always using the “they’re against us” political excuse to rationalize anything.

Digressing every so slightly, speaking of politics, of alleged regime isolation and of International Tribunal fear (neither of which seem to be evident, as I’ve been arguing), there is a series this year called “The first night after the thousand;” I’ve only seen bits and pieces, but it is a perfect example of actual Syrian confidence, showing a fictitious state of Shahrayaristan welcoming an international commission sent by a certain Condoleezza, made up of members of the “international community” to investigate all sorts of misdemeanours (including a missing apple which made Newton miss discovering gravity). In other words, absurd accusations by people with an agenda.

But back to the alleged Syrian-Egyptian rivalry, about which Bassam Koussa, as usual, has the best response. It turns out that Syrians are all over the airwaves again -- and even more so, in fact, by sneakily taking the lead in several Egyptian series. Imagine the nerve! Like it or not, ”King Farouk “ - the most expensive Arabic drama ever made - is directed by one of my favorite Syrian directors, Hatem Ali, and, ultimate insult, it casts Taim Hassan, one of Syria’s rising stars, in the leading role. Frankly, if I were Egyptian, I would be wondering why a Syrian was chosen for this role. (I only was able to swallow his accent as an Egyptian when I heard him speak English- after that, the Egyptian seemed natural. I don’t know why even directors like Hatem Ali don’t give importance to things like foreign languages. Then again, neither do the biggest Hollywood producers.)

Syrian actor Jamal Suleiman, following a successful attempt to play a man from Upper Egypt in last year’s “Hada’ek Al Shaytan” has continued his conquest of Egyptian drama and stars in a new series whose name escapes me. You see, apart from a seemingly well-made drama starring famous Egyptian actress Yusra, dealing with rape (by the son of a minister), the Arab world seems to be mostly glued to drama with a distinctive Syrian accent – and in particular a strong Damascene accent.

Without any doubt, the “Bab Al Hara” phenomenon has swept over the Arabic-speaking world, taking us all by surprise; while the successful first part left everyone wanting more, having paused on a cliff-hanger (some people even thought it had ended badly, unaware that there was a sequel), part two has become even more popular, becoming must-see-TV for people of all ages, sexes, occupations, classes and lifestyles. First, everyone wanted to know what would happen after Abu Issam so shockingly and suddenly divorced his wife, Souad, and whether Steif, the pretend-blind beggar, would be uncovered as a murderous spy by the Za’im after so many men of the anti-French occupation resistance (sorry, I mean the terrorism) are killed.

As we finally reach the last few days of Ramadan, so much more has happened leaving us asking for more. What will it take to rehabilitate Abu Issam and restore his reputation, after an entire month of amazing events that have snowballed into one huge mess? Can it be done in the remaining couple of days? Apparently not, because Bab Al Hara - part three - is coming up!

I can report from the Syrian capital that apart from fasting and feasting, the other activity that is uniting Syrians during this holy month of Ramadan is Bab Al Hara! Every night, in every café, in every posh air-conditioned boutique, in every small shop trying to keep cool with a fan, televisions are tuned to whichever channel is broadcasting Bab Al Hara; at 9 PM local time, it’s MBC. A quick glance through the window of most “hip” cafés (including unlikely places like In House) will show table after table of young, trendy people all turned towards the large, flat screen television on the wall, taking in every word and even imitating what they hear. It is simply incredible.

Two days ago, as I waited for the elevator in the underground parking of Cham City Center (the new posh mall), I could hear the opening song of Bab Al Hara coming from the stairs. Heading to the supermarket next to the food mall, I noticed that every single table was turned towards one of the flat screen TVs mounted from the ceiling, and that every guest looking up, taking in every scene and every word. There were a good couple of hundred people there. Apparently, it’s like this everywhere; I am told Al Arabiya television announced recently that Bab Al Hara, so far at least, is the most watched television serial over the entire Arab world. Clearly, director Bassam Al Malla knows what he’s doing, responding to our collective subconscious wish for a return to a world with values, a world with honor, a world with community belonging, strong neighborly bonds and unbreakable family ties, a world when a word was the only guarantee needed. (Describing Bab al Hara merely in terms of sexism, as I’ve heard it being done, misses the entire point, and would make most international literature before the late twentieth century unreadable as well.)

Indeed, for the third year in a row (and hold on because Bab Al Hara’s Part Three is coming next Ramadan), the most popular serials have been Layali Al Salhieh, and Bab Al Hara’s two parts; we are clearly undergoing a mass longing for lost values. Apart from that, the genius of the series is that politically, and in certain ways socially, it shows that nothing changes, and that plus ça change, plus ça reste le meme.

I have even managed to find a favorite character (in contrast to a favorite actor) in this series, a choice which reveals my own sense of longing for those ‘good old days” which I never experienced; I am quite partial to Mo’taz, the fiery younger son of Abu Issam, who manages to provide humor and lightness in the midst of the most complicated of times, and who is also clearly destined to become a real “man” even before his time, never hesitating to use his fists to right wrongs, to defend injustices, and to stand by those who need him. I wonder that this says about me, and I also wonder which characters have left the biggest mark on other followers of the series. From the continued mentions of his name in numerous conversations I've heard, it is clear that the character of Ida'chari (who died in part one) played by Bassam Koussa (seen here on the left, with Samer Masri playing Abu Chehab), has left a mark.

Syrian drama (and comedy) is one of the best and getting better. Let us pray that the government, the regime, the Baath, the clergy, and all those whose interference usually complicate our lives, never get to mess it up, and that independent directors and producers find a way to market their wonderful works, with proper subtitles, outside the current boundaries. This is one project I would happily push and help get started, and my mind continually buzzes with ideas about how to do proper marketing communication for the best of our drama kings – and hopefully, some real drama queens.

I leave you with the catchy Bab Al Hara song, the intro that resonates through the streets of Arab cities everywhere at least twice a day (at the beginning and at the end of each episode), depending on how many channels one chooses to watch. On Syrian television, it is on at midday, and even my 14-month old daughter will stop whatever she is doing when she hears the first bars, remaining mesmerized by the unfolding events, until the song comes again to signal the end of another episode, and the beginning of a sweet afternoon nap.


[ add comment ]

---

Most people in the vibrant Syrian blogosphere are feeling somber these days, after having heard the devastating news of the car crash that killed the parents of Yazan Badran, one of our most appreciated bloggers, a young man whose comments have often graced various blogs and whose humane, civilized and intelligent contributions endeared him even to those who have never met him.

Yazan has suffered the greatest tragedy a person his age can possibly experience. Like all those who can only imagine the pain he must be feeling, I mourn the passing of the people who have inculcated such wonderful qualities, values and ideas into our friend, and who were, without doubt, and rightly so, the proudest of parents.

Yazan’s mother and father died on their way to Syria, as they travelled to spend time with their only son on leave from Japan. Their last days will hopefully have been warm, exciting ones, full with the joyful anticipation of seeing their cherished son. I pray that Yazan will find his peace in the many beautiful memories he has of his loving parents, and that he will have the strength to continue on the road they opened for him, fulfilling his aspirations, and realizing their dreams.

My heartfelt condolences and warm thoughts also go to Dr. Aref Dalila, Yazan’s uncle, who will have received the terrible news of his sister and his brother-in-law’s untimely death in the most terrible of conditions, and who will mourn in solitary confinement. Dear friends, you are not alone. Our prayers are with you, and may God rest their souls in peace.


[ add comment ]

---

In the ”Do as I say, not as I do” news category:

Israel urges Myanmar government to refrain from harming protesters. Such compassion for people under brutal military rule is so touching. In the ”The last straw” news category: Syria is morally responsible for Iraqi refugees. Not just morally, in fact, since the Iraqi government (not familiar with the beggars/choosers equation) declares that "Syria must guarantee their full rights as far as security, residency if possible, education, health and minimum living standards." None of which are offered by the Iraqis. Or the Americans.

In the ”Look who’s talking again about WMDs” news category: Syria Joins the Axis of Evil, explains John Bolton, who thinks bombing Iran will make the world an even safer place, after the huge success of the invasion of Iraq and its effect on regional peace.

In the ”International law and geography-challenged media” news category: Bees Without Borders stray into Syria, informs us the Associated Press which is not aware that the occupied Golan Heights is already Syrian airspace and territory! Unless AP is the first entity in the world to recognize Israel’s illegal annexation, that is.

In the “Syrian government efficiency” news category: It turns out that the question "Have you ever been to Israel?" in the visa application form may not be the perfect method for Syrian embassies to avoid “undesirable” journalists. What a shock. And finally, in the ”It’s about time!” news category: ACSAD speaks, therefore it is, as a somewhat official response finally comes out from Syria. Before the president clarified further, that is. Now we all know what happened.


[ add comment ]

---

Believe it or not, I am still mentally adding anecdotes and insulting examples to my first list of grumbles about driving, and about smoking. It turns out I didn’t even skim the surface of how bad things are, (remember, we are in week 1 of Ramadan, and the ramifications on driving are immense, especially just before iftar) but you’ll be happy to know that other issues are competing for my ire.

The other day, at Costa (the coffee shop chain), I gave my order to the barrista, in Arabic naturally, and paused as I tried to remember a word, giving up and adding “to go” in English. He smiled, so I asked him: “How do you say that in Arabic anyway?” He replied, literally: “Take away.” We actually both laughed and realized there was no accepted Arabic yet for this most global of phenomena, and that the actual translation of "take away" didn’t quite sound correct. I still find it very amusing, and sometimes even endearing, that Syrians (and other Arabs) have developed certain terminology to suit their needs.

In technology, they will say things like “sayyavet” (meaning “I saved” on the computer), or “m’farmmat” (meaning “it is formatted”). An air-conditioned space is “m’kandash” while an interior-decorated place is “m’dokar,” and the list of such linguistic innovations is long. It is when Syrians try to use “straight” English, as versus its Arabized version, that things go astray, and that my grumbling takes a life of its own.

First, there are the annoying miscellaneous people who claim they know something and have to convince you of it, even though you’ve never heard of it. My husband, who has lived in the UK for nearly 25 years, tried hard to persuade some of his extended family members that no matter where they’d heard it, the supposed saying “He who sucks seeds shall not succeed” was not exactly a common saying, to put it mildly. He tried to elaborate on the fact that the whole concept of eating seeds (you know, cracking them open with your teeth, then by some extremely able and unappealing manoeuvring pushing the seed out, and eating it while spitting the seed shell out – one of the things I love to hate) was not common in the Anglo-Saxon world, let alone the strange notion of sucking them. To no avail. “You just don’t know” they protested, “that’s what the English say.” Faced with such erudition, who are we to argue?

Then you’ve got those who know they don’t speak it, but who try to be helpful by “translating” for you. I remember a colleague going out of his mind because a merchant in the old souk had tried to convince a foreign gentleman accompanying him to buy some merchandise, saying repeatedly: “Zis, advice!” (“Hay nassiha!”) But they all pale in comparison to the professional language-bashers, spread equally between the private sector (which should know better) and the public sector (which should be held accountable).

I still fantasize about tracking down and insulting (I’m restraining myself here) the idiot who first came up with the idea of splashing the English word “Sale” across his shop windows; not because that was wrong, but because he thought he should also add the French equivalent, or so I assume went his thought process, and ended up writing “Sold.” No, I won’t pardon your French. So which is it, is it on sale, or has it already been sold? Of course, every single shop in Damascus now announces price reductions in these two or three languages; I’m not sure they’re aware that it’s “Soldes” in French, or that they’re even aware that it’s another language altogether. They now go together: Sale, Sold. Quick business, when you look at it that way. Even on the über-posh Damascus Boulevard and its designer clothes boutiques (seen below in this shot taken by night), the “multilingual” sales pitch falls for the “proven” message. “But the owner is Lebanese!” exclaimed a friend. Sigh. When are Syrians going to snap out of this notion that Lebanese=better?

Sometimes, while driving, I turn on the radio to get to know what’s the happening thing, and I channel surf between several popular private stations, mostly ending up on Madina. Every few minutes, when advertising time comes, I start to grumble again: for some strange reason, Syrian marketing people (wait ‘til I show them) are advising their gullible clients that an ad for a product or a service in Syria would be better with the Lebanese accent, and with the annoying Lebanese style which I don’t quite know how to describe (basically, a rather effeminate male voice, practically singing the words and stressing the last syllable of the brand name). This unfortunate ploy also applies to television, I’m afraid. I will simply have to link to one so that you know what I mean. Are any of my fellow Syrians with me on this? Yes, we digress, but come on! (As a marketing communications consultant, I owe it to my profession to write a post about Syrian advertising one day, if I can bear it.)

Damascene restaurants, even little tiny ones with two plastic tables on a street corner, also oblige foreign visitors to Syria with a custom-made translation of their dishes; frankly, it’s cute. Annoying, but somehow cute. It becomes unacceptable when the more expensive ones do it. My mother was once looking at a dessert menu, wondering what “Grape” meant: was it the fresh fruit alone, or some concoction built around grapes? No no, answers the waiter: “It’s grape. Grape with sugar, grape with chocolate, grape Suzette, grape with whatever you like.” It took a while, but she finally understood it was a crepe. You see, neither English nor French are her first language, and I’m sure the waiter in question would never believe she speaks both fluently, since she had to ask what a grape was. I wouldn’t dream of taking up a whole post to denounce the errors and the horrors of mistranslations in restaurant menus, you’ve all probably seen numerous examples. Nor will I waste time on the job announcements in weekly newspapers which demand “excellant” English, or on the advertisements (even billboard ads) which can’t be bothered to check that words are spelled correctly. After all, we barely have time for tackling the public sector, and part of the reason for my blogging delays is that I’ve been trying to document the numerous examples of things gone terribly wrong at government level, and which I deem totally unacceptable.

All I’ve seen so far is that the Syrian authorities are steadfast in their opposition to linguistic perfection, or even normalcy. As many of you know, the Baathist regime has always made a point of keeping the level of Arabic at its highest. (Actually, this is true even of previous, more prosperous and enlightened eras in Syria.) Apparently, this obsession with the respect of the Arabic language (which I’m told still manages to get massacred by robotic “journalists”) does not apply to foreign tongues, even though all city signs are now written in two languages at least: one being Arabic, and the other … well, it’s difficult to say. Lest we get lost in a labyrinth of examples from the lingua franca of Syrian officialdom (or rather officialdoom), let us simply tackle, ever so superficially for now, the subject of street signs - you know, like everywhere else in the world, the official signs that indicate where roads will lead you, eventually, maniacs and moronic drivers notwithstanding.

I truly do not know where to begin grumbling, nor how to rate which signs got me the most infuriated, nor which of the many photos I have been taking to post on this blog. It would be impossible to put them all, so I will create my little album and save it for later. Mind you, so far, I’ve mostly been clicking while driving whenever I see a chance, so I clearly need a different approach. Official direction signs in Syria seem to be made by a foreign spy, or an agitator who hates Syrians so much he wants to humiliate them and cause even more chaos. This person is clearly secure in the knowledge that no Syrian official alive, and even less Syrian civil servants, will be bothered to check his work, even assuming that somebody in those damn ministries, governorates and directorates (which all do very little ministering, governing or directing) actually would know how to translate, write, spell, punctuate, capitalize, or even stick to one font.

These are the signs from hell, the signs which make me reconsider my desire for Syrians to add other languages to their education. The diversification in these signs is amazing: a single Arabic name will be translated in several different ways, with several different spellings, with several different fonts, with the most confusing and illogical random layout leaving you unsure of which word belongs to which arrow, in different signs posted around the city.

Sometimes, I feel the signs have been put together in the same way blackmailers send ransom notes, with letters cut out from different newspaper articles in a scary way. We are being held to ransom, and we’re ignoring it to our own peril. Sometimes, various letters are capitalized in the name, in the middle of the word, and not even necessarily the first letter. Often, a period will come at the end of a full name (or word of some sort) for no reason. Sometimes, there are letters (one letter, like “C,” or several letters, like “sq”) following a name, leaving English speakers the task of guessing that “Umawyeen.Sq” does not really mean Omayad multiplied by itself (oh horror of horrors). Sometimes, I see the words “C Center” to “translate” the “markaz al madina” notion; how difficult would it be to write City Center, and exactly who decides what can be abbreviated, and how? And the problem is, this is not some isolated mistake or a few experiments gone wrong: the damn signs are everywhere, you can't miss them! Even worse than all that is the detachment with which most people are reacting when they see my wrath; I am talking about family and friends who speak English and/or French, who are well-travelled, who are critics of the general situation, but who have completely given up on such “minor” problems.

True, in the hierarchy of what Syria needs, it may not really belong to Maslow’s bottom pyramid level, nor even to the first two or three, but Syria’s image needs all the help it can get, and it costs nothing to be correct. I’ve seen our famous square written as Omayad, Umayad, Umawyeen, and several other undecipherable atrocities, with no specific translation or transliteration system, or, come to think of it, actual language being used. Often, there is a period after the main name, instead of after the word which is actually abbreviated. Thus, instead of “Omayad Squ.” (as if they couldn’t fit the letters “are”) you usually get “Omayad. Sq” (in a less clear spelling of course).

I’ve seen signs showing how to get to “Beirnt” or, closer to home, to “Salhia.Soqe.” I’ve seen signs leading to a “Governoraite” office or to “New Sham” (the old shams are already all full, they’re building loads more on the outskirts of Damascus). And I’ve seen signs less than a few hundred meters apart using different spellings for an area of Damascus. For example, the spelling of “kafar suseh” (capitalization be damned) is just impulsive as that of our most famous square. But there is a lot worse … a lot, lot worse. Sometimes, things are not only translated or transliterated liberally, but they are transliterated by someone who has only HEARD the real translation of a given name, and who subsequently spells it accordingly. The "playing it by ear" school of translation. Looking for Customs? Who do you hold accountable for this kastom-made catastrophy of a language? (Note also the different spelling, and the liberal capitalization, of the same area shown in the photo above.) How can this be allowed in a major capital like Damascus? How can the numerous ministers, or "responsibles" above, driving by the C streets not feel shame at this most obvious of disgraces amongst many disgraces? How can these signs of incompetence be allowed to remain, and to increase?

Then again, what should we expect from a government which considers SANA to be an acceptable, nay, convincing official agency to represent its steadfast stances, and which dares to publish a rag called Syria Times (which is basically a mistranslation of other official rags) and charge money for it (5 pounds is still money)? What should we expect from a government which establishes a "Syria Media Centre" with great fanfare (and even greater cost, said to be in the millions of pounds - Sterling, that is) in the capital of media, only to close it down a couple of years later, after a publicized change of director, with absolutely no explanation or consideration for its credibility?

Again, I digress. I leave you with a sign which perhaps shocked me even more than most (because I have driven many times past it without noticing it), so much so that I drove back there to take a photograph, looking very suspicious as it was already night. It was taken in front of the headquarters of the supposedly most technologically-savvy and internationally-oriented Syrian gathering of officials and the pedantic wannabes who swarm around them. And with that, obviously, I rest my case.

[ add comment ]

---

This powerful piece by my friend Rana Kabbani covers an issue that most Damascenes, and indeed most Syrians, feel quite strongly about: the criminal destruction of Old Damascus.

I first mentioned it back in March, in a post titled "Damascus and Sham’s heritage are under attack." Rana mentions some quarters of the old city, from where both my parents’ families also originate (‘Amara in our case, all these quarters being in the same area); for the anecdote, my father and Rana’s father were childhood friends, ending up as colleagues much later, and spent many afternoons at each other’s old Damascene houses. My mother’s family still owns property in the areas scheduled for destruction, and the risible compensation to be paid is in fact courtesy of Iran.

See also the BBC's report on this travesty the Syrian regime calls modernization. Old Damascus: A Plan to Destroy Paradise Designated a World Heritage Site by UNESCO more than thirty years ago, Damascus now faces a dangerous hour as construction projects set their sights on replacing the unique with the vulgar and debased by RANA KABBANI The city of Old Damascus is presently threatened by an obtuse and cynical plan that would destroy great chunks of it.

The Syrian regime is trying to push through a "modernization" and "re-development" scheme, which would raze areas dating back to the eleventh and twelfth centuries, including Syria's second oldest mosque, Jami' al-Tawba, of great beauty and historical significance. The company that aims to do this is a regime protégé. The boorish mayor of Damascus, Bishr Sabban, recently described the buildings to be razed as "garbage", not heritage. Like most regime officials, he has been ordered to say (and may, to his shame, actually believe) that the ripping out of the world's oldest city's heart, to replace it with banal and vulgar multi-story hotels, tower blocks, American-style shopping malls and motorways, is a laudable thing.

As a Damascene, with a passionate love for this gem of a city, and with family links to two of the quarters that are presently threatened with demolition, I read this plan as indicative of all that has gone wrong with Syria. The regime's desire to deface or obliterate major aspects of the Damascus past-which it may have little sympathy for, for complicated historical, political and social reasons-is reflective of the impulses of dictatorships everywhere, which deplore anything with patina, with complexity or depth, that harks back to a more sophisticated time than their own. Kitsch is their preferred vernacular.

Syria has been a dictatorship for forty years now. In that time, the country has seen a colossal brain drain of its educated elites and productive middle classes. A growing number of its people are living below the poverty line, as economic surveys sadly confirm. At the same time, there never was so much wealth in the country. It is concentrated, however, in the hands of people with strong links to the regime, some of whom are relatives of the President. These abuse their unchecked power to profiteer from monopolies, inflated commissions on government imports and construction projects, and appropriation of state land and assets. With sinister security services to act as their "business" enforcers, with a compromised judiciary and a corrupt bureaucracy, this new parasitical class has decimated private industry. By forging links to the readily-corruptible remnants of the old mercantile class, they have created a network of front men, middle men and yes-men, who help do their bidding, getting rich on the gravy train as well.

Anyone who challenges these sharks ends up in the regime's dungeons. Riad Seif, a rigorous self-made industrialist turned parliamentarian, was imprisoned for four years on trumped-up charges, for his lone and highly-courageous denunciation in Parliament of brazen corruption at the top. Ever since the Syrian army withdrew-under duress-from Lebanon two years ago, a huge source of illegal enrichment for the regime dried up. New sources needed to be found quickly.

Construction projects-often in joint-ventures with Gulf money or Iranian money-are now in vogue, setting their sights on "tourist" areas all over the country. The projects presently being planned for Old Damascus are an example of this trend, but they may have far graver implications than the already grave ones of destroying Mameluk and Ayyubid heritage sites, which belong to the world and to future generations. One part consists of a political and financial "joint-venture" with Iran, to clear an ancient residential area around the tomb of Ruqiyya, Ali's granddaughter and the daughter of Hussein, to further expand the mosque there, to create a parking-lot, as well as an intrusive motorway for bus-loads of Iranian pilgrims to come directly from the airport to the site by car.

At present, one can reach the tomb only by foot, as one reaches everything in old Damascus-thank goodness-including the Umayyad Mosque itself. The area consists of charming warrens of alleyways, courtyard houses, khans and mosques. These are apparently being bought up by Iran, in order to go under the bulldozer. This would change the ethnicity of the place, which is Arab Sunni Muslim and Christian. Syrians are beginning to be concerned that the "strategic relationship" with the Islamic Republic of Iran that the Assads-pcre and fils-have worked so tirelessly to promote, is beginning to denature their country.

Syria, and Damascus in particular, is a mosaic of cultures, religions, sects and ethnicities, which have managed to muddle along, more or less reasonably, for centuries. The populist militarism of present-day Iran, and its aggressive, born-again proselytizing-religion on the march-leaves the majority Sunni population cold. The regime needs to be made aware of this, if it is to avoid future tensions and tragedies.

Historical factors come into play, too, especially in the ancient and neglected quarters of Old Damascus. The original and now largely-impoverished Damascene residents grumble that the plan to change the area around Ruqiyya's tomb is a belated revenge against Umayyad Damascus-Mu'awiya's court city. Although this can hardly be the case, it shows that passions are running high, especially with the influx of close to a million Shi'a refugees from South Lebanon and Iraq, escaping war, into a city already struggling with poverty, escalating inflation and housing shortages.

The plans would destroy areas, which are living embodiments of Syria's history. Souk Saruja (where my maternal family came from) used to be called "little Istanbul", because that is where the city's Ottoman-serving aristocracy had their houses. It was home to important judges and law-makers. Fawzi Ghazzi penned Syria's first Constitution there-a far more enlightened document than anything to be had in today's Arab world-which the ruling Ba'ath has since traduced and travestied. Qaimariyya (home to my father's family) was traditionally the quarter of the city's scholars and theologians, being a small distance from both the Umayyad Mosque and the Zahiriyya library.

It played a significant role in the fight against the French, organizing strikes, demonstrations and civil disobedience, hosting in its leafy courtyard houses the impassioned meetings of the Syrian movement for independence, and helping its members hide from or escape the wrath of the French army. Shukri al-Quwatli, the country's first democratically elected President, was a son of the area, from neighboring Shaghur.

Al-Manakhliyya, which dates back to the eleventh century, takes its name from a souk for sieves in its midst, which has been trading as a market since Ayyubid times, and is a fasci