Setting off on More Travels
I am leaving tomorrow for Beirut for several days and then will be heading to the Jabal Druze and later Dayr ez-Zor with my father who has just arrived for a visit, so I may not be reporting much for the next week. I have written up a long essay on Alawites -- who they are and what they believe.
My wife things I shouldn't publish it because Alawite authorities will be upset, religion being such a touchy subject here and Alawite beliefs so different from Sunni beliefs. Karfan at Syria Exposed had a number of respondents to his last post on Alawites, all of whom were wondering what an Alawite believes. One commenter writes that I should be kicked out of the country because I have an agenda to divide Syrians along religious lines! Oh dear. This is what happens every time religion is raised, someone things you are being a splitter. Better not to talk about it at all and remain in ignorance of each other. No knowledge, no real acceptance of the other, no real freedom.
SYRIA: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES EYE RAILWAY UPGRADEAdnkronos International, Italy - 5 hours ago... 6 April (AKI) - Two European countries - Germany and Romania - are ready to invest in a major strategic project to upgrade and expand Syria's rail network ...
EU Trade Pact with Syria Stalled Over LebanonSwissinfo, Switzerland - Apr 4, 2005DAMASCUS (Reuters) - The European Union will not sign amuch-delayed trade and aid pact with Syria unless Damascuspulls all forces out of Lebanon and does not ...
Study: economic relations between Syria, GCC states of vital ...Middle East North Africa Financial Network, Middle East - 5 hours agoDAMSCUS, April 6 (KUNA) -- The economic relations between Syria and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states are considered of great importance as Syria's ...
Gadhafi and Gorbachev are lessons for AssadDaily Star - Lebanon, Lebanon - 19 hours agoBy Rami G. Khouri. Syria is being driven, and is driving itself, into a very difficult corner, with fewer and fewer realistic policy options as time passes. ...
Syria's Assad lauds Turkey for resisting US pressureArab Times, Middle East - 4 hours agoTurkey's President Ahmet Necdet Sezer plans a state visit to Syria on April 13-14 in spite of US fears it could send the wrong signal at a time when Syria is ...
Publication: Washington Post; Date: Apr 5, 2005; Section: The Editorial Page (I thank Ray Close for sending this article.)
"Listen To Arab Voices"
by Marina Ottaway
The writer is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
The third Arab Human Development Report, finally released by the U.N. Development Program after a lengthy controversy, should be required reading for Bush administration officials and for anyone interested in promoting Middle East democracy. The report reveals a complete acceptance of democratic principles and a complete mistrust of the Bush administration’s efforts to promote democracy. This mixed message is at the heart of the conundrum the United States faces in pursuing a policy of political change in the Mideast.
The report, authored by a group of prominent Arab intellectuals (many of whom embraced Arab nationalism and Arab socialism in the past), represents an unambiguous embrace of liberal democratic ideals. There are no “buts” and “ifs” in the report, no claim that Arab countries need to develop their own form of democracy in keeping with the cultural specificity and conditions of the region. There is no claim that each country must be allowed to proceed toward democracy at its own pace and in its own time, or that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict must be settled first. On the contrary, the report addresses and rebuts all such claims, concluding instead that liberal democratic values are not Western but universal, and that change must come now.
This part of the report will be music to the Bush administration’s ears, but it will be soured by the strident anti-Americanism of other sections. The report is critical of U.S. policies, denouncing the occupation of Iraq and the unstinting support for Israel as setbacks for Arab human development. Furthermore, the report exudes mistrust and hostility toward the Bush administration, doubting the sincerity of its commitment to democratization in the Arab world.
The strong criticism of the United States and Israel delayed the publication of the report for more than six months. Arab governments also come in for pointed criticism in the report, but concern about their reaction was not the cause of the delay. Rather, fearful of adding more fuel to the fire of U.S. criticism of the United Nations, the U.N. Development Program wavered and even considered having the report released not under the U.N. imprint but under that of a nongovernmental organization, or of its authors.
The report will undoubtedly be criticized by some U.S. officials, who will focus on its negative assessment of American policies. But, like the 2002 and 2003 reports, the new document will also be seized on by the Bush administration as proof that Arabs are embracing democracy and that U.S. policy in the region is helping further the will of the people, not imposing an alien system on the Arab world. It is a foregone conclusion that President Bush and administration officials will quote freely from the report in their speeches. And, as they have done in the past, the report’s authors and many liberal intellectuals will denounce such references as a cynical exploitation of Arab aspirations by a government that, in their eyes, has shown no regard for Arab interests.
Despite its hostility to U.S. policy, the report admits that pressure from the outside, particularly from Washington, may help the cause of political change in the Middle East. The authors do not believe that the United States shares the Arab goal of a true political, cultural and economic renaissance leading to human development in its fullest meaning - epanouissement is the curious term used in the report. They believe that the Bush administration has narrow goals: getting rid of particularly offensive and hostile regimes and cajoling old authoritarian allies such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia to introduce some reforms to make themselves more presentable. But even such limited goals, the authors grudgingly admit, could help the process of change in the Middle East.
It is important that the Bush administration recognize this reluctant admission that something good could come from U.S. policy as a real change on the part of Arab reformers, and that it not jeopardize chances for cooperation by attacking the report and punishing the U.N. Development Program for allowing its publication. The United States has been able to get rid of Saddam Hussein on its own, and it may be able to intimidate Syria to withdraw from Lebanon. But to build democracy, it must work with Arab reformers, even if they remain hostile and suspicious. Political reform pushed by Washington is second best for these Arab reformers; working with Arab reformers who criticize the United States as harshly as their own government is second best for the Bush administration. It is probably as good as it is going to get for both sides in the foreseeable future.
29 Comments:
Josh,
For what it's worth, I think you should definitely publish your article on the Alawites. We need to break this taboo. As a Syrian, I can attest that though we live in peace with each other, most of us also live in ignorance of each other's beliefs. This is particularly true with respect to such sects as the Druze, Alawites, Ismaelis and others, often described as 'batiniyeen' (roughly: secretive).
This not-so-blissful ignorance and the deliberate and conscious avoidance of discussing these sects/religions and their beliefs has given way to mostly-erroneous, but widely-held notions about the beliefs of their followers. This, in turn, causes and compounds the feeling of distrust that might exist deep down among the various communities.
Having said that, I urge you to do a lot of research and to qualify your essay a lot, as there are many different off-shoots and sub-sects within the Alawite sect, and their beliefs range widely, accordingly.
Though I'm a Sunni myself (by birth and lineage only; a non-denominational by belief), I think the Sunni community needs to open up and accept that other sects don't necessarily share all of its beliefs, and that this is OK. Further, it's important for Sunni leaders not to monopolize religious truth and virtue. If Sunni leaders are calling for political openness and tolerance today as a step toward inclusion and democracy, they can begin by promoting religious openness themselves, so that the Syrian tradition of tolerance and co-existence that we all brag about can be instituted on the right foundation - namely, respect and appreciate for one another, based on knowledge and understanding of each other's beliefs. This issue applies not just for the Alawites, but also for the various other religions and sects within Syrian society. These religious communities and traditions are part of the religious and cultural plurality of Syria that can be a source of wealth and strength, if invested well, and a source of trouble and weakness if exploited. Opening this subject up in an academic and objective manner can clear the mystery and misconceptions surrouding other communities and their beliefs, and can be a step toward sectarian 'reconciliation' and a contribution to national unity.
Finally, as a non-Syrian academic (and hence, a non-stakeholder), you are probably a better person to begin to write about such important and sensitive issues than any Syrian - regardless of denomination.
I look forward to reading your essay! Meanwhile, safe travels.
Firas
Josh,
For what it's worth, I think you should definitely publish your article on the Alawites. We need to break this taboo. As a Syrian, I can attest that though we live in peace with each other, most of us also live in ignorance of each other's beliefs. This is particularly true with respect to such sects as the Druze, Alawites, Ismaelis and others, often described as 'batiniyeen' (roughly: secretive).
This not-so-blissful ignorance and the deliberate and conscious avoidance of discussing these sects/religions and their beliefs has given way to mostly-erroneous, but widely-held notions about the beliefs of their followers. This, in turn, causes and compounds the feeling of distrust that might exist deep down among the various communities.
Having said that, I urge you to do a lot of research and to qualify your essay a lot, as there are many different off-shoots and sub-sects within the Alawite sect, and their beliefs range widely, accordingly.
Though I'm a Sunni myself (by birth and lineage only; a non-denominational by belief), I think the Sunni community needs to open up and accept that other sects don't necessarily share all of its beliefs, and that this is OK. Further, it's important for Sunni leaders not to monopolize religious truth and virtue. If Sunni leaders are calling for political openness and tolerance today as a step toward inclusion and democracy, they can begin by promoting religious openness themselves, so that the Syrian tradition of tolerance and co-existence that we all brag about can be instituted on the right foundation - namely, respect and appreciate for one another, based on knowledge and understanding of each other's beliefs. This issue applies not just for the Alawites, but also for the various other religions and sects within Syrian society. These religious communities and traditions are part of the religious and cultural plurality of Syria that can be a source of wealth and strength, if invested well, and a source of trouble and weakness if exploited. Opening this subject up in an academic and objective manner can clear the mystery and misconceptions surrouding other communities and their beliefs, and can be a step toward sectarian 'reconciliation' and a contribution to national unity.
Finally, as a non-Syrian academic (and hence, a non-stakeholder), you are probably a better person to begin to write about such important and sensitive issues than any Syrian - regardless of denomination.
I look forward to reading your essay! Meanwhile, safe travels.
Firas
Just wnt to say, as a Syrian I think we absolutly need to know more about each other and just accept that we are not all the same, and just accept each other!
If we keep our ignorance and hatred just under the surface without talking and dealing about it, it will explode sooner or later and may distroy Syria.It is so stupid to even mention than talking about these problems will divide Syrians, we allready are! and it will get worse if we don't deal with it!!By the way. Dicators have allready done a good job dividing Syrians further and further...Creating a fear of an explosion, so that we accept them thinking they , strong dictators as they are, can keep Syria stable and unified. But that will just make things worse and if we don't deal with it...well, just ignorig the problem does'nt make it go away. And we are fools to think Syria is as stable as our media says. Look at this interesting article (in arabic) :http://www.thisissyria.net/levant1.html#16
As a Syrian-American, I think it would be great if you could publish your paper. My family is Sunni, fairly observent Damascenes (although my parents and I are quite secular). When I visit Syria, I get into some great arguments. Ignorance promotes sectarianism (and a false sense of superiority!!). It would be great if you publish, because Sunnis could learn to open up and be a bit more accepting, and Alawites maybe could get over their fears that all Sunnis hate them. We need to appreciate our own diversity.
Moreover, I'm just damn curious intellectually. I find the variety of religious identities / histories / etc.. in Syria and Lebanon to be really fascinating. I've done some reading on the subject, would love to do more. By the way, is there anything published on the Yezidis?
I also agree with Basil and all the others about publishing the essay. I'm also very curious about the Yezidis. I've read an article about the Iraqi Yezidis and how they get persecuted. From what I understood, I think their religion has nothing to do with Islam, Christianity, or Judaism, yet at the same time it's a monotheistic religion. They might be influenced by Zoroastrianism, but I'm not sure about this.
If anybody has any link or information about them, please post it.
@Firas: Do you have more information about the "batiniyeen". I've never even heard of that term or (religion)?
George Mason University
The Center of World Religions Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution
Is Proud to Co-Sponsor with
The Syrian Public Relations Association
Damascus, Syria
A Talk by Hind Aboud Kabawat
Religious Tolerance in Syria
And the Building a Culture of Peace
Partner at KDB and Associates and a Board member of the Syrian Public Relations Association
A Discussion Moderated by Marc Gopin will follow
Thursday, April 14, 5pm, 7pm
Truland Building, Room #555
3330 N. Washington Blvd.
Arlington, VA
For parking suggestions and metro instruction, please go to:
www.gmu.edu/departments/crdc/directions.html
RSVP(acceptances only)Dena Hawes(703)9934473
"I look again and again at the pictures from your ancient synagogue, deura europus, and i just think of one word, home, and how brilliant you and your whole culture is at making people feel completely like family. I can't imagine anything else that the world needs more of. So we must find ways for your people to get the wealth that they deserve, and you will teach us about welcoming people home".
*A message sent by Marc Gopin after his visit to Syria in January 2005, Marc, who is is a Professor of World Religions, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution Director, Center for World Religions, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University. W.D
www.hindkabawat.com
Winds of Change in Syria: An In-Depth Report
by Dr. Marc Gopin, Director
Despite the tragic assassination in Lebanon and the political fallout from it, there are reformers in Syria who are being ignored in current Western policy. Let me share with you some astonishing events that took place in January that have not yet been made public in the West. The events I am about to describe to you were reported on national television, national radio, and major national newspapers, but the story has yet to be told outside of Syria.
In between speaking at two seminars in Israel in January 2005 regarding the future of peace in the region, I slipped out of the country into Jordan and then into Syria without telling anyone except my wife and a couple of colleagues who helped me across the border. It was a difficult crossing for a few reasons, including the fact that my ears were injured by the overseas flight, I was sick, and I had to therefore take a complicated land route with two passports. I had worked with an extraordinary Syrian/Canadian attorney by the name of Hind Kabawat who I had met at the World Economic Forum. She planned with me an unprecedented private and public set of engagements in Damascus, raising publicly for the first time in forty years the subject of peace in the Middle East.
We raised these issues through the lens of culture and religion, a less threatening approach than pure political discourse, and, most importantly, I would raise these issues as a scholar of conflict resolution with a cultural background as a religious American Jew. Whatever my abilities may be in public speaking and private dialogues, the fact is that this effort was so politically complicated that only a person of political talent like Hind could have pulled this off. She displayed a fascinating combination of intense national pride, deep commitment to peace, political savvy and public relations know-how that really should be studied as a textbook example of how to open up dialogues of civilizations when they have been closed for generations.
We were breaking boundaries and taboos on public discourse in this political environment, but at the same time it was from a cultural and religious perspective that allowed for a broad ethical discussion on shared values and an attempt at a shared vision of the future. Most important of all, everything was approved at the highest levels even though all the engagements remained officially unofficial. Wreaking havoc on my academic categories of analysis, I never understood the boundaries of what was official and what was unofficial. For example, I was greeted at the border by a representative of the Minister of Information, who gave me an official talk summed up by the words, "...our President has offered a full peace to Israel and normalization of relations, and we are waiting to hear from Prime Minister Sharon." It was as if I was supposed to respond to that in some official way. The discourse was strangely formal for an informal event, and yet it was accompanied by a sense of warmth and hospitality that never ceased for the entire eight days that I was in Syria. In fact this hospitality was the defining and most hopeful characteristic of the Syrian people that could form a basis for a thaw in relations with traditional adversaries.
My mouth dropped upon hearing the words of this ministry official because I was hardly coming as an official. These were also the last words I expected to hear from a Syrian governmental representative--I was just hoping to be tolerated in Damascus--and yet I was being treated like a king after having great difficulty getting over the Israeli border. We sat at the border in a massive single room building set up for V.I.P.'s, surrounded by high walls, ornate couches and chairs, presented with the requisite bitter coffee, and two massive side-by-side portraits of Hafez and Bashar Assad staring me in the face.
One rather cynical former American diplomat told me before I left the U.S., "Take in Old Damascus, it is quite a sight, but the Syrians will bore you." It was already turning out to be the most intriguing cultural odyssey of my life, and I immediately sensed why American and Western diplomacy had failed to penetrate this extraordinary, intricate, if troubled civilization. I could sense right away the ancientness of this culture, the diversity of its people, the arrested glory of so many past civilizations, and the embarrassing hints of poverty adjacent to past grandeur. I sensed from this official's speech, and many other things that I would learn in eight days of private talks, that President Assad was looking to extricate Syria from the burdens of recent history and to recapture ancient glories. He was looking to re-enter history after the Cold War's devastating isolation of his country. He was searching for glory not as a conqueror of lands but as a leader of an ancient culture trying to open up Syria to the world. The question was how to do this given entrenched interests standing in the way.
The main public dialogue on Thursday night, January 6, 2005, excerpts of which were nationally televised, was attended by three hundred distinguished guests, government officials, artists, professors, professionals. It took place in the most prestigious building of Damascus, the Assad Library, and guests included the American, Canadian, and Swiss ambassadors, the Syrian ambassador to the U.S., assistants to President Assad and representatives of various ministries, especially the Ministry of Information and the Ministry of Expatriates, in addition to many professors, professionals, and officials from Lebanon.
The event was preceded and followed by television, newspaper, and radio interviews, and it was done from the beginning with the approval of President Assad. Nothing of this sensitive a nature would have proceeded without his approval. In fact, his aides asked some of the pointed questions after the talk, and we were very pleased to send his wife, as well as about fifteen other officials who I met that week, a copy of my book on the role of religion and culture in the future of peace in the Middle East.
The atmosphere of the public dialogue, simultaneously translated between English and Arabic, was electric in many ways, with great anticipation of how a public dialogue would proceed with three hundred people on the most sensitive issues of war and peace. This is not an easy task anywhere in the world, let alone in this unprecedented encounter. I was treated with immense respect, but, at the same time, some in the audience had the opportunity to vent a great deal of anger at what they saw as the victimization of Syria and the Palestinians. Others expressed deep appreciation for my willingness to come and listen. We had a great, tough dialogue. I knew I was setting myself up for a great deal of anger because I made it clear to the audience that I was a religious Jew and I quoted many times from the Bible and Talmud.
Those two hours of questioning were among the hardest of my life, in terms of dealing constructively with anger, and with a delicate balance of agreement, sympathy, solidarity, honest confrontation, positive vision. I withheld many things I had to say to some of the more angry statements. I knew the political leadership was watching every word to see if this experiment of public dialogue between civilizations would fly and be a precedent, and I knew the American ambassador was watching too. As if the pressure was not great enough, the host and everyone else expressed through word and deed their sense of astonishment, nervous fear, hope, that something utterly new was happening.
The words that Hind Kabawat said publicly by way of introducing me were far more important than mine because she is an insider/outsider/reformer to the culture. She is the kind of catalyst that can change history nonviolently because she is from within the privileged group that leads the country, and yet she is an agent of change.The question hovering over the entire trip was would the West listen to her words, would the West engage a complicated Syria and support its best reformers, or would it cynically ignore her and others. Would it see the side of President Assad that is honestly trying to make change, or would it focus instead on the supporters of Hezbollah and other violent incursions in the region.
I was troubled all along by the blithe way in which the West is often divided up between those countries who tend to intimidate troubled cultures into compliance and submission, and those who simply take advantage of troubled cultures while pursuing selfish objectives. Where is there room in diplomacy and statecraft for the strengthening of reformers is the question that preoccupied me.
I was amazed to watch history unfold there on that Thursday night. For me speaking there was a very tough assignment, but I try not to dwell too much on momentous occasions because it would negatively affect my ability to be spontaneous. It was my friends and hosts, however, that made me feel the trepidation, the historic weight of the event, and it started to terrify me by the end of that night. What right do any of us have to interfere this way in another culture, I asked myself. What right do we have to put people at risk this way? Ever since the talk on Thursday night, this question became my number one pre-occupation: would everyone who made this event possible be safe, or would they incur the wrath of an Old Guard who did not want change? Before the talk I was driven to move forward as if by a magnet drawing me in, but immediately afterward it was as if I awoke to what I had done, and who I may have put at risk.
Despite the fears, I am convinced of what I saw in Syria in the course of so many private meetings. I saw some winds of change at the heart of this extraordinary culture, winds that the West is missing or failing to take advantage of. In fact, my biggest problem since I left Syria was that no one in Israel believed that the event actually took place, nor that a religious Jew would be treated this way in the capital of Israel's fiercest foe. Fortunately we made a videotape, and yet the sense of disbelief remains palpable. I said this to one Syrian, and she said in a generous way that is typical of the culture, "It's ok, we could hardly believe it ourselves, how could we expect others to believe it."
A number of people both during the session and afterwards expressed enormous gratitude to us for stimulating this first-ever public debate and discussion. Almost as important were at least six or seven beautiful dinners, hosted by prominent families throughout the city, including one at Hind's house, attended by officials, reformers, many doctors, and some problematic wealthy individuals. This lasted over the course of eight days in which many discussions ensued on the most vital topics regarding the future of Syria and the region. We had an interesting time managing my Kosher needs, all the while ordering vegetarian food wherever possible. My greatest challenge was not any anti-Jewish prejudice but rather how secular this culture is; rituals of religious practice were not easily explained. It reminded me very much of Tel Aviv and Manhattan, and I found it humorous and strangely gratifying as a religious scholar to be opening up a bridge between secular civilizations in Syria, Israel and the U.S.
We also visited over a period of days with Sunni and Shi'ite leaders as well as Christian leaders. The hospitality and friendliness was absolutely astounding, and I did not feel a single hint of anti-Judaism the entire time, only a feeling of sadness that most of Syria's Jews were no longer there. I knew well the history of Jewish tragedies there in the recent past, but these were people most of whom knew the old Jewish families, and several had kept up with those families in Brooklyn and elsewhere. This was a diverse culture that had been torn asunder and drained by the Arab-Israeli wars, as well as the Cold War.
The Shi'ite leader, Sheik Shahadi, was astonishingly tolerant, describing to me a life and a set of writings committed completely to religious pluralism. When I admitted to him that I was a rabbi he was astonished and said that there is only peace when a rabbi (hacham) participates in the deliberations, truly an unnecessary compliment that shocked me in its generosity of spirit. I have attended hundreds of interfaith events in my life, it is my business as it were, or my academic specialty. No one ever said that to me, and the last place I expected to hear that was in Syria, and yet there it was. I have always felt as an analyst that the Arab/Israeli wars had triggered a great deal of anti-Judaism, but that it was thin, a political weapon not a foundation of culture. A much more complicated challenge of anti-Semitism lies at the heart of European culture in the West and Wahabism in the East. There was not an idea I expressed that Sheikh Shahadi was not saying at the same time. Hind was translating between us, and at one point she could not believe that I said something in English and the Sheikh said something in Arabic at the same time and it was the same spiritual idea. None of these Syrian religious encounters touched directly on political matters, and I was keenly aware that everyone I was with was viscerally opposed to Israeli policies regarding the Palestinians. Yet, I sensed how much everyone wanted an end to war and the beginning of normal relations even with Israel.
All this touched me deeply, even as I was fully aware that Hamas and Islamic Jihad offices were hidden somewhere nearby in Damascus. I slept each night in a four hundred year old Christian home, enveloped in the atmosphere of the ancient Old City, a city inhabited continuously for over thirty thousand years. I was very close to the gate where Paul preached just two thousand years before, and yet it never escaped me that I was in the heart of a city that had been at war for my entire life with my ancient homeland, with Israel, and therefore a threat to my cousins and family members there. I lived with paradox at every moment. At every moment I was aware of intense generosity, unbelievable respect, gratitude to me, far more respect than I received in Israel from fellow Jews, and yet we were in this no man's land of history, Jew and Arab, struggling for friendship, solidarity, even unity of purpose. I sensed their passion for a new, free, prosperous Syria, and it is that yearning that I addressed in my speeches and talks, because for me these were legitimate moral and spiritual yearnings of an ancient and proud people who had blessed the world thousands of years ago with its first languages and arts. But Hamas was still down the street, and I can never be blind to the complex reality in which even the most hopeful and courageous people, religious and secular, civilians and officials alike, must live and function.
Syria has some serious problems with entrenched interests keeping reformers from moving forward. After extensive interviews with key figures, I am convinced that Bashar
Assad is serious about reform, even if his methods of proceeding forward are agonizingly slow. We are missing the key signals, and also not thinking through the ways to quietly help move things forward. The U.S., Japan, and other investors should seize the opportunity at this time in history to find a creative way to support the reformers in Syria, including President Assad, and they should learn who to support, who not to support, and who to try to pressure through negotiations into change. Some of the worst offenders there were clever enough to get American contracts in Iraq even as Congress is slapping the whole country and culture with sanctions.
Blanket condemnations and boycotts of a society of 18 million people are useless and just create solidarity with the hardliners in their midst. The enormous power of American economic might should be used judiciously and skillfully, not as a blunt instrument. No matter how busy U.S. congressmen may be getting reelected, serving local constituencies, and doling out funds that affect the lives of hundreds of millions of people in the U.S. and around the world--and I respect the challenge they face--confronting any foreign society with a blunt instrument is foolish and always backfires. A subtle, informed and morally defensible approach to confrontation is called for here.
There should also be a secret channel created to the military and security services. I had several conversations about this in all three countries. Today we stand at a stage of relationship between Jordan and Israel, for example, in which there is actually a five-year old society of former generals who meet regularly. Almost all of those generals are now leading peacemakers who have the unique political cache of being able to influence military and security thinking.
There is no way to move forward in opening up closed states without some in the military starting to buy into the startling, utterly radical notion that you can have a strong military that is also beholden to democratic safeguards and civilian control. That is the essence of democratization, and yet we never think creatively about how to quietly cultivate this stance within militaries and police forces that need to change. We cannot expect President Assad to go it alone, to magically and single-handedly move entrenched economic/military interests forward. We need to help this along in quiet ways, in economic ways, in political ways of creating strong incentives and rewards. The evolution of military and police forces is essential to any substantive change that moves toward liberalization.
Another missing ingredient between the U.S., Israel and Syria is imagination and vision. So many people in Syria, in the middle East in general, feel stuck, with no way out, no way out of poverty for average people and no way to escape an impoverishment of their culture. So many in America and Israel are plagued by fear of terror, of the nightmares of what the world can do to them, but these nightmares can stifle the very tools of finding a way forward. We tried to offer a vision of the future, one in which an open Middle East would be a boon for Syria in particular but also for the whole region, and for Muslims, Jews and Christians across the world. The country is just waiting for millions of tourists to discover so origins of several civilizations. Old Damascus is a goldmine of civilization and yet it is empty of tourists. I believe in our lifetimes that this will change radically, but it must be a vision that everyone, East and West, embraces.
There is something to tourism that addresses human needs at much deeper level than we imagine. Tourism addresses our need to wander, to find more than one home, to return to places of ancient origin. I sensed a longing in Syria, for example, for the land of Palestine, a romantic recollection of a previous century in which Syrians freely roamed East and South. Some will call this imperialism and a wish to conquer Israel, and for many in the current circumstances perhaps that is the case. But it is also a longing for home and belonging. Tourism and open borders are deeply human, ancient, nonviolent forms of conquest and ownership. There is a way in which people around the Middle East, including Israelis, long for that openness and wandering to ancient homes. We need a nonmilitary imagination of how everyone can do just that, how everyone can reach Jerusalem and the ancient Holy Land without violence or conquest, and how Jews and Christians can visit ancient roots across the region. This was the vision that we shared that night in Damascus, and it is a vision that is both spiritual but also profoundly material, a way to generate new prosperity and dignity for populations that might otherwise be carried away by the false promises of ultra-nationalism and religious fascism.
One of several mistakes I made in Syria was speaking too much about religious conflict. They are proud of the fact that there is more freedom of religion in Syria than most places in the Middle East, a place in which secular people and women have absolute equality of opportunity. In fact, a refrain from many Arabs over the last few years is the fact that the United States and the West have attacked the two places in the Middle East that had the most freedom of religion, and the most equality for women, Iraq and Syria, while siding with Saudi Arabia which has single handedly invested billions of dollars undermining traditional Islam's approach to issues of tolerance. They see a religious American administration, aligned with conservative Christian efforts to spread the Gospel globally, also making an alliance with Saudi Arabia, the most aggressive state in the region that proselytizes for radical Islam, and then America attacks the two places that are secular! They wonder what kind of collusion of religious extremisms is at work here. Now I know the readers will be astonished and say to themselves that these folks are just ignoring Saddam's genocides, Syria's horrific slaughter of innocents in Hamas, and the support for key terrorists groups. But it is worth hearing this perspective from educated people who live in the Middle East. Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood do not really affect their own lives in Syria, and Syrian citizens cannot begin to understand an American society championing democracy and freedom that would side with those who are ushering Islamic extremism into the Middle East. No one is naïve about the power of oil and therefore why America would coddle Saudi Arabia, but the outrage at this hypocrisy is palpable, really it is beyond words--and I am speaking about the rage of democrats. It seems that everyone, here and there, is caught in the web of state interests that turn a blind eye to the devastations of religious extremism, its incitement, its imperialism, and its terrorism.
The Syrians I met tend to underestimate the danger in their own midst of Islamic extremism, and that it is only extreme state control that is holding it back. We heard reports while I was there of clerics in the countryside urging young Syrians to go and kill any foreigners in Iraq. My friends there remind me of many in the U.S. and in Israel who never wanted to face the power of religious passions, and the vital strategic importance of marshalling those passions for democracy and human rights, not shunting aside religious issues. They underestimate the devastating price that all states are paying for using religious passions--Muslim, Jewish, and Christian--when it is convenient and then being crushed by the unleashing of those passions as they backfire on states. Yet it was hard to argue with the moral outrage felt there by those who had heard from many Iraqis streaming across their borders, tales of serious abuse by American soldiers. Unfortunately this reality tempered any sense there that the clerical extremists advocating war in Iraq needed to be confronted. On a certain level my friends there are absolutely right, Syria really has a remarkable level of religious pluralism and equality for women. At another level, however, they will need to confront these challenges eventually in much the same way the every state in the region needs to.
Democratic reform is yearned for in Syria by many people, there is eagerness for normalization of relations with Israel, let alone the U.S., if and only if the historic wrongs to the Palestinian people are addressed, a new era of dignity and equality emerges, and the Syrian people themselves are actually freed to live a new life. The one thing holding back reform, supporting hardliners and corrupt individuals, is the ongoing hostilities. Thus we are left as always with the chicken and the egg, reform needing peace and peace needing reform.
We stand at a dangerous and hopeful crossroads in the course of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Despite all the good news and the obvious course of de-escalation, Israel could, for the first time in its history, experience a Jewish violent fracture in its identity which must keep Ariel Sharon and the Likud, the great designers of aggressive Jewish nationalism, awake at night. Many feel that it would be political suicide for him to open right now an Arab/Israeli track, specifically with Syria, specifically involving giving back the Golan. Yet can the Palestinian/Israeli track proceed with Hezbollah, a client of Syria and Iran, doing everything it can to disrupt the peace process, even threatening the President of Palestine's life, according to some intelligence sources?
What Assad needs most, what Sharon needs most to avoid derailment, what Abbas needs most, what America needs most, is not the immediate start of Syrian/American/Israeli negotiations, but a palpable thaw in relations, a firm direction away from belligerence by proxies, and toward gestures of political and economic improvement that can set the stage for a new relationship between Syria and the West, as well as new relationship between Israel and the Arab world. This is the order of the day and it cannot wait.
Everything I saw and heard in Syria suggests to me that there is an address for peace there, a partner in generating a new future for the Middle East. But it is a beleaguered partner, a partner that is still suffering the after effects of Cold War political and military structures, in addition to being at the mercy of widespread anti-American and anti-Israeli popular feelings that might be ameliorated by a conscious Western effort to demonstrate a new set of rules for engagement between Israel and Arab populations and between America and Arab populations. What the U.S. and Israel rightly expect in return is a slow and steady about-face on the use of terror by proxies as a pressure tactic against the West. The much needed bargaining between the sides on these issues is self-evident, but only actions of trust-building with Syria's Assad can set the stage for this. The next step then in an impending thaw must be working out what those bilateral actions will be. I have reasonable hope that the diplomatic corps of the United States, Israel and Syria are up to the task, and that other forward thinking Western diplomats will lead the way with innovative ideas.
©Marc Gopin, 2005
Dr. Gopin can be reached at crdc@gmu.edu.
All nice and well. Unfortunately, nothing will move on the Syrian-Israeli front in the near future.
The fact of the matter is that Sharon has neither any incentive nor the required political capital to negotiate with Syria seriously.
On the other hand, Assad is calculating how to endure the debacle in Lebanon, while building an anti-Kurdish (an implicitly anti-American) front along with Iran and Turkey (President Sezer is expected in Damascus in about a week, though the Turks would seek to balance this with compromises on use of their air bases by the US military.
I would like to share the author's enthusiasm. But any peace between Israel to its neighbors goes through Washington. As long as the Syrians are on a collision course with the US Israel would not dare (even if it actually wanted)to negotiate seriously with Damascus.
Only a strategic abandonment of the Syrian anti-American posture in regional and international affairs might lead to hope for an Israeli-Syrian peacefil settlement. Syria definitely does not seem to be heading in that direction.
Safe travels, Josh.
Josh,
Publish anything you want about any religion in the Middle-East. We Lebanese (and also Syrians), have to create a better multi-sectarian society until we feel that true secularism is attainable. The Alawis have two MPs in Northern Lebanon, and a significant presence in the Sandjak area, thus considering them a "Syrian" phenomenon is not true. Also, the different sects of Shia across the area have a rich history. The Alawis trace their origins to Ibn Nusayr, himself a contemporary of the late Hamdani princes of Aleppo. People like me, still unable to accept the "small" split of 1724 dividing our Antiochian Community in two branches, are in an auto-critic of our own church. So, let it be: publish your material. We have grown up, I hope. Note that on the subject of Syria being anti-American and the Kurdish issue, Syria has much less to lose than Iraq, Iran, or Turkey. And, the problem today is that the US of A administration is anti-Syrian, a far more important factor than the Syrian position vis-a-vis the US of A. Indeed, the administration in Syria, during and after Hafez Assad, has been pragmatic.
Bashar oh Bashar
Bashar El Assad , I tip you my hat
Hafez was a lion but you're a pussycat
He set the Chair on which you sat
Occupied Lebanon and you got fat
Quite an achievement thats plain to see
From Doctor to Dictator at Thirty Three
You run the country,thats clear to me
Khaddam's been around since you were three
But don't you worry and never ever fear
Nor tremble at night and don't shed a tear
What you studied in London, practice here
Your dad was farsighted but you are near
Syrian Occupation of Lebanese soil
Was your fathers greatest toil
Through all the parties he tried to embroil
But now that pot has started to boil
And though you may struggle and try to create
To turn our dear Lebanon into a Syrian state
Despite all the meddling by your regime of hate
Its lovely to know that you've come too late
The Lebanese Peoples time has come
To rise from beneath the Syrian thumb
Your father is dead and you are dumb
Now we'll kick your ass to kingdom come !!
WW.LEBANONJON.COM
I find it hard to give much credibility to Marc Gopin's article.
If he was a guest of the government, how come he had to sneak into the country?
He says there was an honest dialogue between Syrians, but gives no content.
Lots of people are covering Syria. If something like this was telecast, we would have heard of it.
I think he made the whole thing up in an effort to influence US policy.
Why would an American Jew make the whole thing up to influence American policy for the better treatment of Syria?
Dr. Gopin,
I found your comments very interesting but I want to raise the following points:
Sectarians strains are stronger than ever in Syria. Hidden but ready to explode.
Most of the people you met are probably part of the 'elite' of the country. They are people with higher education and political knowledge and capable of more rational thoughts.
Democratization in Syria is the only solution on long term, even the government must know that. They know this situation cannot be maintained forever. Unfortunately as long as nobody can come up with a strategy allowing for a smooth transition to a more liberal government (and I recognise that it's not easy) nothing will change. Jordan and some Gulf countries are doing well in this Here lies the greatest problem for Syria : how to transition without risking civil unrest/persecution against minorities.
Equitor, Dr. Gopin did not post on this site, that was just a copy of an article he wrote.
First off, i know that you are lebanese from your profile and that you have much experience with your country's sectarian tensions. However, you must realize that Syria is totally different from Lebanon when it comes to religious sects. 70% of Syrians are Sunni Muslims. There is no question as to the majority sect in Syria, unlike in your lebanon. Also, 10-15% of Syrians are Christians. Syria is thought to be the middle eastern country that Christians feel the most welcome in. These Christians would not be persecuted either since they are very much allied with their Muslim brothers.
That means that with the 70% Sunni Muslim majority there is really no risk of sectarian warfare in Syria. In lebanon, Christian and Muslim sects were equal in size for many years. This led to a horrible, brutal civil war.
You say that sectarian tensions are ready to explode. I think that statement is ignorant of the true situation. As Karfan, an alawite from the blog Syrian exposed, said, there will be no civil war if the regime falls. That is just a scare tactic. The Syrian people have had secularism pushed on them for the past 60 years, they will not go back now.
The history of the syrian republic proved that securalism is an utopia ,it was the secular regimes(especially thanks to the sectarian policy of the dictator assad) which fanatacized the communities and damaged many of the past multi religious and ethnic conviviality but not yet destroyed.
On the other hand, Syria is not Lebanon or Iraq ,Syria has an homogeneous population and its kurdish minority(10%) hasn't geographical unity nor mountains as the kurds of Iraq,Iran and Turkey.
Most lives in 2 separate regions on the Turkish Syrian border line , in Aleppo and Damascus.
It's also true that they suffered from discriminations and are deprivated from many of their rights and this injustice must be resolved quickly.
From Salahadine to Brahim Hanano ,the kurds in Syria deserve our respect,administration and are integral part of our identity.
The history of the syrian republic proved that securalism is an utopia ,it was the secular regimes(especially thanks to the sectarian policy of the dictator assad) which fanatacized the communities and damaged many of the past multi religious and ethnic conviviality but thank God not yet destroyed.
On the other hand, Syria is not Lebanon or Iraq ,Syria has an homogeneous population and its kurdish minority(10%) hasn't geographical unity nor mountains as the kurds of Iraq,Iran and Turkey.
Most lives in 2 separate regions on the Turkish Syrian border line , in Aleppo and Damascus.
It's also true that they suffered from discriminations and are deprivated from many of their rights and this injustice must be resolved quickly.
From Salahadine to Brahim Hanano ,the kurds in Syria deserve our respect,administration and are integral part of our identity.
" Haidar said...
Why would an American Jew make the whole thing up to influence American policy for the better treatment of Syria? "
Gopin sounds like a leftist. American leftists, even the ones who are jewish, are anti-Israel and pro-Arab.
Josh,
I am not here for your or my politics ,I am here to tell you that I have send you an email to landis@ou.edu we have something in common ,our sincere love for Syria the land and the people un fragmented .
I hope this is the right email. meet you there ,safe trip back home , and hope you had a good time with your dad .
No wonder Doctor Gopin was totally seduced by the Syrians. It happens to all those who discover this country and its people after having left aside their prejudices and fears.
Let's hope he spreads the message.
The last time I went to Syria (it has been YEARS), I was told by very close friends that to survive in Syria you have to have an Alwaite "friend". If it is business, good job, or just to prevent "mafia" people from intimidating you! Whenever they (our friends) come to Lebanon, they tell my family how Sunnis are oppressed but can’t say it in the open. I don’t buy that Syria is “secular”! Alwaites are less than 20% of the population, but they control the country! I don’t think this is healthy. For a country to defend itself from outsiders, the people inside should feel belong to it, not second class citizens. If you get a good job, or can open a business, or no mafia will bother you regardless of your ethnic group or religion, then you are living in a secular country. I don’t think that Syria is secular!
Ghassan wrote ,Alwaites are less than 20% of the population, but they control the country.
They are between 7 and 10 %.
Ghassan wrote,I was told by very close friends that to survive in Syria you have to have an Alwaite "friend".
He means an Alawi officer because most of the alawis are still poor and not all of them support the criminal assad.
It would be fair to say that Sunni's enjoy their share of power and corruption in Syria.
WW.LEBANONJON.COM,
That's the most moving Homage to Hafez I have ever read.
I agree; we have to work WITH Arab reformers to get anything done... we shouldn't try to ride roughshod over those who have influence in the Arab world, even if they ARE "hostile and suspicious."
To LebanonJon and Nafdik
Because your site lacks any credibility or worthy reading hence lacking even minimal attention from online users, does not mean you must advertise your site. If you need traffic, do your dirty work elsewhere.
I am not the angry Arab but I find this blog very interesting and to the point:
http://angryarab.blogspot.com
I think before demanding to know what the alawis beleive you should understand something.
The alawis, like the ismailis and other shiite or non shiite sects, are batinis or gnostic sects.
the term gnostic is related to relegious groups that thrived all around the hellinestic world at different periods during antiquity, for instance pythagorians.
gnostic means a religion with an order and that you can only learn by entering this order and being tought increasingly important secrets as you advance.
This is how batini sects are organised too. batini means those of the interior.
They learn there religion roughly in the same way as the ancient gnostics and, basing themselves on the holly Koran, use the principle of takeya. This is the islamic principle allowing muslims to pretend another faith than theirs in order to avoid persecution. ( the soorat of al omran I beleive)
so this is batini..now what about the alawis in particular.
The alawis hold the Koran as their holly book. They pray five times a day and fast during ramadan..muslim enough.
some of them feel free to drink wine, they are not really interested in pilgramage to mekka..not very muslim.
They have very strong and even extreme shiite beleifs.
They beileive in reincarnation and in saints, so a rather superstitious version of official islamic rites. But also a tradition much more related to the ancient philosophies and religions of the region.
here. I hope you are not frightened by us. I can not tell you much more..it is a secret!
i am with an open discussion, but i think that we are not ready to dicuss such sensetive matters before we get to know how to discuss, and what are the rules of disscussion.
it's truly important to know each other, because i think that our ignorance will help to split us, and open the way to some racist and fundementals utterings .
Post a Comment
<< Home