Isn't it Time for Us Arabs to Rationally Think of the Future?
When a nation's options are narrowed by dramatic developments, it is left with two choices: gloating or denial...
Both affirm that this nation has resigned itself to a life on the margins of history.
We Arabs currently constitute a strong majority in West Asia and North Africa. Our territories are home to some of the world's most significant natural resources; they are by most of the ancient world's seas, and are part of the most important trade and civilization routes known to humanity.
After the First World War, as borders and the balance of power were shifting, ideologies shaped the equations of the next phase in the "game of nations," and it had been assumed that we would keep up with the transformations.
We should have noticed, after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, which had spanned most of the Arab region, from Iraq to the Algerian-Moroccan border, that new interests, circumstances, and priorities had emerged. However, neither we nor others managed to grasp these shifts in time. That is why the Second World War erupted, changing things and setting new rules for the game.
As for us Arabs, we failed to process the implications of partitioning the Levant and the Nile Valley or what was happening in the Maghreb!
We failed to grasp how the Balfour Declaration would change things on the ground, especially in the context of a global Cold War that divided the world into two camps. The conflict among the old European colonial powers, and later between them and the two rising giants - the United States and the Soviet Union - accelerated the Global South toward independence, and gave rise to "Third World socialism," beginning with China.
Iran, for its part, underwent a remarkable transformation as Britain and Russia jockeyed for influence. In 1925, officer Reza Pahlavi overthrew the Qajar dynasty and established the Pahlavi state. He ruled until 1941, when the Russians and the British removed him because of suspicion that he had been sympathetic to Nazi Germany, replacing him with his son Mohammad.
The son, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, understood the rules of the game with the major powers. He played well for a few years, before choosing to align with the United States and his difficult neighbor, Atatürk's Türkiye, during the Cold War.
Despite their ancient rivalry, Türkiye shared with Pahlavi's Iran not only a commitment to secularism, but also a desire to join the West, as seen with the "Baghdad Pact." Likewise, Atatürk's Türkiye coexisted, for a while, with Zionist Israel, whose establishment fueled anti-Western sentiment in more than one Arab country.
As we know, military juntas began emerging in the 1950s. The Soviet bloc backed their revolutionary policies. Thus, the rift widened, first within the Arab world itself, and second, between the Arab world and the "regional triad" that supported and was supported by the West: namely, Iran, Türkiye, and Israel.
This state of affairs continued until Pahlavi's secular Iran was ousted by Khomeini's "clerical revolution", and until Atatürk's secularism in Türkiye was undermined by Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who aspired to combine "caliphate rule" and Turkish nationalism. As for Israel, once defined by the Histadrut and cooperative socialism, it has become a model of racist, theocratic fascism.
Currently, the Israeli-Iranian war, and Türkiye's silent, calculated role in the Fertile Crescent, seem to have caught the Arabs offguard. They find themselves powerlessly watching their region being "reassembled" before their very eyes.
And today, the most that some of them - those who have conveniently forgotten the rabid belligerence of Benjamin Netanyahu - can do is gloat out of childish spite. Is cheering the army that destroyed Gaza and killed its children, merely out of spite toward Iran, not a reflection of paralysis and an utter disregard for the future?
Conversely, denial has become a comfortable refuge for segments of the Iranian regime's support base, who turn a blind eye to its actions.
Here, I claim that our duty is to think in terms of other - plausible this time - options. Personally, I am convinced that defeating Israel is virtually impossible: it is nothing more than a front for the United States. Until Washington is persuaded that aligning fully with Tel Aviv is not inevitable, the Israeli fascists and their allies will continue to choose America's "leaders" and drag the US into fighting their wars.
Incidentally, the "marriage of convenience" between hardline Christian fundamentalists and Jewish communities was consolidated by Evangelicals like the pastor Jerry Falwell, founder of the Moral Majority movement, and extremist Jewish right-wing groups - both economically and religiously - toward the end of the Cold War amid Ronald Reagan's rise.
At the time, their greatest common denominator was hostility to the Soviets and the global Left. But after the collapse of the Soviet Union, as Samuel Huntington observed, they were united by their hatred of "political Islam." This tactical alliance reached its peak with the emergence - or fabrication - of ISIS-like movements.
Now, these movements are about to expire. Meanwhile the fundamental contradictions - theological and ethnic - between the two opposing camps of arrogant extremists, Jewish and Christian, are surfacing, with each claiming a monopoly over religious truth, virtue, and salvation.
Recognizing this fact, proceeding accordingly, and examining the implications and consequences would be a thousand times more useful than indulging in the negative, foolish reactions of a bygone past that will never return!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
14 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Tunisia sentences ex-President Marzouki to 22 years in absentia
A Tunisian court on Friday handed down a 22-year prison sentence in absentia to former President Moncef Marzouki, a fierce critic of President Kais Saied, on charges of undermining state security, raising the opposition's fears of an escalating crackdown against critics. Marzouki, who was president from 2011 to 2014, accuses Saied of establishing an authoritarian regime after dismissing parliament and ruling by decree since he seized almost all powers in 2011. Saied defends his actions as necessary steps to stabilize Tunisia. This is the third ruling against Marzouki, after a court ruled last year to imprison him for eight years and four years before that in various other cases. Commenting on the ruling, Marzouki said from his exile in Paris: 'I say to these judges: your rulings are invalid, and you are invalid ... you will be tried soon.' 'Democracy will return,' he added. Earlier on Friday, another court sentenced Sahbi Atig, a senior official in Ennahda, the country's main opposition party, to 15 years in prison on charges of money laundering, his lawyer said. The 15-year sentence was shorter than some sentences handed down recently. In April, a court sentenced a string of opposition leaders, businessmen and lawyers to prison terms of up to 66 years, on conspiracy charges. Most of the leaders of political parties in Tunisia are in prison, including Abir Moussi, leader of the Free Constitutional Party, and Rached Ghannouchi, the head of Ennahda - two of Saied's most prominent opponents.
Arab News
16 hours ago
- Arab News
Exiled former Tunisia leader sentenced to 22 years: reports
TUNIS: A Tunis court has sentenced exiled former president Moncef Marzouki in absentia to 22 years in prison for offenses related to 'terrorism,' Tunisian media reported on Saturday. Four other defendants, including his former adviser Imed Daimi and former head of the national bar association Abderrazak Kilani, were also handed the same sentence late Friday. A staunch critic of President Kais Saied who has been living in France, Marzouki had already been sentenced in absentia to 12 years in prison in two separate cases, one involving 'provoking disorder.' The latest ruling came after a press conference held in Paris, during which he, along with Daimi and Kilani, sharply criticized state institutions and members of the Tunisian judiciary, reports said. Marzouki, who served as Tunisia's third president from 2011 to 2014, said in a statement the ruling was 'surreal.' He said it came as part of a 'series of verdicts that have targeted some of Tunisia's finest men and continue to provoke the world's mockery.' Tunisia emerged as the Arab world's only democracy following the ousting of longtime ruler Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in 2011, after it kicked off the Arab Spring uprisings. But since a sweeping power grab by Saied in July 2021 when he dissolved parliament and began ruling by decree, rights groups have warned of a sharp decline in Tunisian civil liberties. In April, a mass trial saw around 40 public figures, mainly critics of the authorities, sentenced to long terms on charges including plotting against the state. Other media figures and lawyers also critical of Saied have been prosecuted and detained under a law he enacted in 2022 to prohibit 'spreading false news.'
Al Arabiya
19 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Battle of Bunker Hill: US commemorates 250th anniversary of ‘great American battle'
As the US marks the 250th anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill, it might take a moment — or more — to remember why. Start with the very name. 'There's something percussive about it: Battle of Bunker Hill,' says prize-winning historian Nathaniel Philbrick, whose 'Bunker Hill: A City, A Siege, A Revolution' was published in 2013. 'What actually happened probably gets hazy for people outside of the Boston area, but it's part of our collective memory and imagination.' 'Few 'ordinary' Americans could tell you that Freeman's Farm, or Germantown, or Guilford Court House were battles,' says Paul Lockhart, a professor of history at Wright University and author of a Bunker Hill book, 'The Whites of Their Eyes,' which came out in 2011. 'But they can say that Gettysburg, D-Day, and Bunker Hill were battles.' Bunker Hill, Lockhart adds, 'is the great American battle, if there is such a thing.' Much of the world looks to the Battles of Lexington and Concord, fought in Massachusetts on April 19, 1775, as the start of the American Revolution. But Philbrick, Lockhart and others cite Bunker Hill and June 17 as the real beginning, the first time British and rebel forces faced off in sustained conflict over a specific piece of territory. Bunker Hill was an early showcase for two long-running themes in American history — improvisation and how an inspired band of militias could hold their own against an army of professionals. 'It was a horrific bloodletting, and provided the British high command with proof that the Americans were going to be a lot more difficult to subdue than had been hoped,' says the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Rick Atkinson, whose second volume of a planned trilogy on the Revolution, 'The Fate of the Day,' was published in April. The battle was born in part out of error; rebels were seeking to hold off a possible British attack by fortifying Bunker Hill, a 110-foot-high (34-meter-high) peak in Charlestown across the Charles River from British-occupied Boston. But for reasons still unclear, they instead armed a smaller and more vulnerable ridge known as Breed's Hill, 'within cannon shot of Boston,' Philbrick says. 'The British felt they had no choice but to attack and seize the American fort.' Abigail Adams, wife of future President John Adams, and son John Quincy Adams, also a future president, were among thousands in the Boston area who looked on from rooftops, steeples and trees as the two sides fought with primal rage. A British officer would write home about the 'shocking carnage' left behind, a sight 'that never will be erased out of my mind 'till the day of my death.' The rebels were often undisciplined and disorganized and they were running out of gunpowder. The battle ended with them in retreat, but not before the British had lost more than 200 soldiers and sustained more than 1,000 casualties, compared to some 450 colonial casualties and the destruction of hundreds of homes, businesses and other buildings in Charlestown. Bunker Hill would become characteristic of so much of the Revolutionary War: a technical defeat that was a victory because the British needed to win decisively and the rebels needed only not to lose decisively. 'Nobody now entertains a doubt but that we are able to cope with the whole force of Great Britain, if we are but willing to exert ourselves,' Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend in early July. 'As our enemies have found we can reason like men, now let us show them we can fight like men also.'
