Contradiction and Hypocrisy in ‘Saudi Arabia Exposed’

Contradiction is common in many governments, and the Middle East is no exception: interpretations of the Qu’ran seem to have secret agendas and rules apply only to plebians, not the rulers (cue Gaddahfi and family partying it up with expensive booze, while alcohol was officially illegal in Libya). Nowhere do contradiction and hypocrisy reign supreme, as uchecked and unscrutinized as the royal Al-Saud family, as  in Saudi Arabia.

“Their behavior does not reach the self-concious level of hypocrsy, of believing one thing and doing another, for it is a set of dissonant beliefs that they do not even recognize coexist at the same time.” (p. 93)

So remarks John R. Bradley in Saudi Arabia Exposed: A Kingdom in Crisis, an aptly-named book which provides a first-hand inside look at Saudi Arabia’s people, culture and policies that goes beyond the usual news headliners that the Western world reads. The book uncovers many issues and realities that often get lost in the women’s-rights and Al-Saud and Wahhabi rhetoric (although he does discuss these as well).

I hate the West, I love the West….I hate the West, I love the West…

The most amazing realities Bradley uncovers involve the young Saudi adults (men, of course) that he teaches. One young man, Fahd, doesn’t want his siblings to meet his ‘Western guest’ because they will be yelled at for associating with infidels and be made fun of at school. “Of course, I think it’s stupid. But what can I do?” is Fahd’s reply when Bradley challenges him to stand up to such xenophobic behavior. The idea of someone being made fun of for having a foreign guest is ridiculous, although in the Saudi’s defense it’s not like Americans are simply innocent in our treatment of people different than us (look at the Trayvon Martin case).

19-year old Mohammed is an equally pampered and isolated young man living in his own private wing of the house who is an outrageous study in hypocritical extremes. Mohammed read’s Al-Qaeda political magazines and yet eats nothing but American junk food.He sit’s in online chatrooms, first defending Palestine and Islam and then taking time out to tease lesbianson other chat sites. He obliviously refers to the hypocrisys in his own life when he says, “They had everything [the 9/11 terrorists] and they gave it up for Allah.” Indeed, it can only make one scratch their head andwonder how a person who is so “confident” in his beliefs and who prefers to speak English (“A language he loved and was desperate to improve his proficiency in)” (p. 89) can, at the same time, support and admire people who made it their life’s mission to kill Americans, who denounce the very culture he also enjoys.

How can this hypocrisy exist? In Saudi Arabia it reaches extreme levels, namely because these youths admire an organization that aims to kill people, but the love-hate relationship with the West, and particularly America, is apparent in other non-Muslim countries. Witness in France: the French youth might laugh at America like their parents, but they still stand in line at McDonald’s, copy hip-hop style and blast our Top 40 music in their clubs. Youth around the world are similar simply because they embrace American music, style and movies and demand freedom and the right to be themselves (both which are at the heart of American culture), but non-American youth seem to be much more focused on American politics than young Americans themselves, as witnessed to how they let their opinions of our government taint their views.

Nevertheless, the idea that the person sitting in front of you sharing a cigarette and tea with you is also someone that cries for the  9/11 “martyrs” is rather discomforting, a truth that Bradley admits:

“It was difficult not to be insulted, for was not the implication that I, and others like me, are dirty, dangerous, contagious, unsafe?” (p.98)

This is an unsettling feeling that one gets being around people who are in some way quite different than yourself: there’s always a slight feeling that a divide exists, that the dominant group is somehow not as yielding as it should be. I myself have experienced this many a time, in different contexts. Why am I here, if I’m so different, if my views are so bad? you think.  Mohammed’s answer to this question is that the author is “different” from other Americans.

Why is he different? Because he attempts to create a dialogue between two cultures that view each other often warily? Because he dares to go beyond his religious and ethnic social group? (Oh, what a concept!) “I somehow was an exception, perhaps as a useful guest or even as a protected subordinate,”  Bradley hypothesizes. The reasons run the gamut (and, when considering Fahd’s response, it’s important to note that he is willing to ‘risk’ his own reputation to host his horrible house guest) but Mohammed’s is the best: “I get to know our enemy better.” (p. 99)

Flower Power Men

“The revelation that if one travels into the Asir mountains to find Al-Qaeda supporters, one ends up encouintering men who wear flowers in their hair and cultivate a passion for perfume.” (p. 65)

A “flower youth” in Saudi Arabia, sourced from facesofthearth.tumblr

The passage  Bradley devotes to Saudi “Flower men” was tantalizingly short (or at the very least, devoid of  a much-desired photo). The idea of grown men wearing wreathes of flowers in their hair a la little flower girls at a wedding is, well, intriguing, especially when one considers that feminity is discouraged in men. As Bradley is quoted above, more of that juxtaposition/contradiction that was mentioned before is blatantly evidenced here, where in the same land die-hard fundamentalists cohabit with men whose

“Headbands of these faun-like young men were a riot of fresh and dried flowers showing their vitality and character. Friendly and giggling continuously throughout a brief conversation, they finally scampered away, swinging their thighs and glancing back suggestively over their shoulders.” (p. 64)

Vibrant wreathes of flowers as men’s hair pieces seems positively boring when one considers the much-more lascivious behavior of the youths Bradley describes above. Again, it is kind of hard to imagine such open-minded men living  in the land of Wahhabi die-hards, but apparently it is perfectly okay for men to make open passes at each other, as long as every one agrees to look the other way, which leads us to…..

I’m Gay and They Know it

“The holding of hands and even exchange of light kisses among men is carried normal” (p. 154)

Sourced from articles.dailynynews.com

Men holding hands or putting their arms around each other is not restricted to friendships in the Middle East: in Egypt, I was (pleasantly!) surprised to see young men doing this with their friends, because in our macho tough-man American culture, no man can hold hands with his friend without being called gay and ‘freaking out’ his friends. In most male friendships in the Arab world, this behavior is simply akin to that which girls do with their girlfriends and probably stems from the fact that in some places, male-female contact is quite limited, particularly in Saudi Arabia. Bradley expounds the theory that an ”all-male world made if anything more of a man out of a young man than the promiscous mingling with women, which many felt had a polluting, emasculating influence” (p. 161).

You can almost see the terrible logic behind such a theory (why is acting like a woman so bad? To paraphrase Madonna, it’s as if you’re saying being a girl is degrading). But because this seems to be a dominant theme in Wahhabism, men are stuck with men, and inevitably some of these men become Gay-or, at least,  take a stab at it because they have no chance at relations with a woman.  Jeddah is host to several gay discos, a fact I was surprised to learn, as dancing is forbidden under Wahhabism as  surely is the type of music that would be playing at  a disco; how on Earth did anyone even have the guts to build them in a country where alcohol is illegal? The idea of a disco in Saudi Arabia is just another example of the many contradictions of the country, and begs the question: what if women wanted a (obviously) women-only disco?

Only then would the state take notice: because they were forced to (again, that also begs the question: WHY is the state taking a blind eye?). Why are people content to just look away from something that, if asked about an interview, they would publicly condemn? The fact the government denies such acts is perhaps not so strange only when one brings into context the idea Bradley observes in which the people deny

“….just as they state that Islam treats all Muslims as equals as they casually exploit foreign Muslims because they happen to be from South Asia.” (p. 157)

Demeaning Demeanors

The fact that many Saudi Arabians look down upon upon their own Muslim “brothers and sisters” says a lot about warped perceptions and how the true meaning of the Qu’ran is abused and propaganda’d for even an individual’s agenda. Indian Muslims in retrospect are viewed no differently than Arab Muslims in the Qu’ran, and yet the thousands of Indian, Bangladeshi and Pakistani workers who turn up in the country looking for work are treated like  the garbage they’re forced to sweep off the streets. The abuse their fellow Muslims inflict on them is particularly surprising when one considers the positions of other foreigners-and non-Muslims at that-in the countr

According to Bradley, Americans are at the top of the food chain, even higher than Saudis themselves. That either indicates that the Saudi’s are majorly trying to suck up to the USA or that they’re selective in who they decide to show their renowned hospitality for. Saudis, Europeans and other Arabs follow (in that order), which perhaps suggests that the Saudi’s are financially motivated in their relations than religiously (again, not what you’d expect from the land of Mecca). South Asians (such as Indians)are at the bottom of the list (I couldn’t help wondering where  other cultures not mentioned (such as Africans or Asians) would show up on this racist hierarchy, or if they even live  in Saudi Arabia).

Snooty demeanors don’t end with the racist organizing of social groups, either, in Saudi Arabia. Much like their spoiled US neighbors, the Saudis highly frown upon “what they consider demeaning work such as taxi driving” (p. 131) and refuse to hold such menial jobs–or, in fact, hold any jobs at all. Indeed, the same issue that occurs here in America, where nobody wants to do the laborious jobs such as farming, carpentry, plumbing, or menial jobs such as being a waiter, is occurring in Saudi Arabia. Why does this phenomena start to occur? Because a society becomes so materialistically wealthy that it’s members decide they’re too good to do anything, even if they’re sorely lacking money and are about to be thrown on the street? Like Americans, the Saudis are lucky because they do have people willing to take on these menial tasks: foreign workers happy to have any job, even if they don’t get paid for several months. But how can one have a just society where most of the workers are treated  little better than slaves?

To Conclude: Will the Al-Saud soften their colours?

Like any other people, the Saudis are overshadowed and unfairly grouped with the ruling government and religious establishment, as Saudi Arabia Exposed shows us. Saudis like to speak English, go to clubs, dress non-traditionally, debate the state and-in the case of the Flower Men-really break traditional molds. Saudi culture is not black-and-white, rigid and unchanging, as one might have thought. Bradley includes an interesting quote from the infamous T. E. Lawrence, and it is one that, in light of this discussion on contradiction and hypocrisy, is particularly fitting:

“They were a people of primary colors, or rather of black and white….They were a dogmatic people, despising doubt….They knew only truth and untruth, belief and unbelief, without our hestiating retinue of finer shades….Their thoughts were at ease only in extremes….” T.E. Lawrence in Seven Pillars of Wisdom (1926) (p. 93)

Lawrence spent  a good deal of his life living and intimately working in the Middle East, so it should be safe to say that he was fair in his analysis. When it concerns religion, especially the religious establishment, then yes, Saudis-and religious people throughout the world, for that matter-come across as extremely black-and-white, sure of their religion and the morals that it expounds. Good and evil are strictly laid out in religion, and even those grayer areas are “ignored,” doubt outlawed. Perhaps the Saudi government and Wahhabi officials want to rule in black and white because it makes the country easier to control, but I do believe that the Saudis are more “colourful” than that and hopefully (as we have seen recently with women’s rights) the establishment will lighten up and this intriguing country can open up.

S-L-M

The ‘What-ifs?’ of the Middle East

There are a lot of ‘what-ifs’ bouncing around the Middle East at the moment: speculation and hypothesis are rampant, but even these are subject to constant change and modification. Witness Syria, which renegged on it’s ‘peace plan:’ civilians continue to die each day. Or consider the Muslim Brotherhood, which has officially thrown it’s hat into the presidential election ring after consistent hem-hawing. News giant CNN has even jumped onto the speculation bandwagon, with articles on ‘Why American’s Should Care About Syria’ (which delved into the possible consequences of both pro-action and inaction in Syria) and ‘What if Israel Bombed Iran?’ which starts with,

 ”Imagine that you wake up tomorrow morning and discover that during the night. Israeli planes had conducted a bombing raid on Iran. How would your world have changed?”

 In honor of the sort of vague wave of speculation and uncertainty that has rooted itself in the present climate of the Middle East (replacing that wild wave of rioting and violence, although rioting and violence are obviously still continuing in certain countries), let’s take a look at some wild-card, vague what-if possibilities, because, as Kate Capshaw so cheesily reminds us in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, anything goes!

“Anything Goes” from Indiana Jones

The negative what-ifs

> What if Salafis overtook the Egyptian government?

Egypt’s Military rulers have pretty much made sure that this won’t ever happen, since they recently disqualified several promising presidential candidates from both the Salafist and Muslim Brotherhood parties. A strong Islamic rule over Egypt thus seems unlikely in the near future, but anything goes in Egypt, where protests seem to ignite every other day and people (a.k.a. the Military government and the police) keep pulling a fast one on the general public. However, if, perchance, this did happen, or a Muslim Brotherhood candidate decided to run less moderately than his party has been appearing to be as of late, the results would be possibly disastrous for Egypt, at least on an international level. Would tourism go back to pre-revolution times, if strict dress was required and Egypt’s clubs and beach resorts disappeared?

 >What if oil disappeared from Saudi Arabia/Middle East?

Ok, so this one isn’t happening relatively soon, but it’s worth throwing it out there anyway. Saudia Arabia itself is not the heyday country of endless public spending that it used to be, back when the oil was first discovered. In some of these countries, oil is the only thing keeping them afloat in the global economy. Take away the oil, and what do they have? Weak economies that don’t even produce food, let alone exports; unskilled (and, in the case of Saudi Arabia, unwilling) workers; and a lack of any other resources. Some of the Arab countries don’t even have natural water supplies, which makes the situation even more precarious. If the despotic and new-regime governments have the people’s (and their own) interests at heart, they should start boosting other sectors of the economy (once the rioting subsides).

>What if Iran bombed Israel?
CNN’s article discusses the possible outcomes of Israel bombing Iran. But what about if Iran somehow managed to bomb Israel? Would there be full-out retaliation (providing that Israel’s weapons weren’t hit?) The USA, in either scenario, would likely get involved-how could they not, seeing as supposed nuclear weapons are at stake and Israel is so closely tied with our government?-but this scenario, out of all the rest, would affect the world the most. Oil prices would probably go up, the Middle East would probably explode (with celebrating? with shame?) into even greater turmoil, and Iran would certainly become even more of a pariah than it already is.
>What if Bashar Al-Assad doesn’t step down?

This is the biggest question of all, and is being asked on a daily basis by the international community. It doesn’t seem likely that the USA/NATO will intervene. The United Nations probably won’t, either; after all, it’s been over a year now and al-Assad is still hanging in there. It seems unlikely that the Syrians will cave in, but a good fact to point out is that, unlike in Libya, where the rebels were strongly against Gaddhafi loyalists, there doesn’t seem to be a huge split between pro-Assad citizens and the protesting body.

…..And now the positive ‘what-ifs’
 
>What if women were granted equal rights?

Would men lose rights? Would children suffer as their mother’s joined the workforce, gained hobbies, spent less time at home? Would houses go uncleaned and fester, would food go uncooked, would families break down and split apart? Would men have more sex, or less? Would society’s morals scatter to the wind? Would immorality reign? Would women become more competitive and self-absorbed? Would Islam be insulted? Would Middle Eastern society, in effect, cease to exist? No, no, no and, oh, no! There really are only positive benefits to this eternal ‘what-if.’

 
>What if Israel gave Palestinian’s the right to govern themselves and withdrew?

 At the moment, this seems highly unlikely, given that France’s Le Monde reported that both countries are at an extreme impasse and unwilling to even talk. What with the constant hunger strikes and international media attention, Palestine on any level seems an impossibility. But if Israel did experience a coup de coeur and decide to give freedom to it’s Palestinian brothers, I could only hope that the Middle East would rejoice, and that Muslims and Christians could live side by side as they did in the past (kinda seems impossible in today’s climate, but if it was possible then, it’s possible now!)
 
>What if Ahmadinejad was no longer president of Iran?

I don’t think it’s a stretch that if the Iranian government was replaced, that Iran would probably embrace freedom and reopen it’s doors to the rest of the world. Is it solely Ahmadinejad that embodies what was started by Khomeini and the Islamic Revolution? Of course not, but it seems that the Iranian government rallies around a central figure to dominate. If revolution did occur in Iran, I believe it would be better organized and a lot more peaceful than the other Arab Spring Revolutions, because the Iranians are proud of their heritage, their religion, and culture and I believe that in the aftermath of such a revolution, that they would quickly unite to form a new, stable government.

All of these what-ifs are important questions. Are my speculations

realistic or not?

Who knows? When it  comes to the Middle East au moment, anything

goes!

S-L-M

A Circle Has No Beginning in MidEast Politics

“Calm will be reciprocated with calm, fire will be reciprocated by fire,”

commented IDF Chief of the General Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz. The idea of reciprocation–otherwise known as that ages-old “eye for an eye” rule that was established in ancient Babylonia-remains a popular concept in the Middle East, no matter one’s religion. Lt. General Benny Gantz, an Israeli, was referring to the recent rocket-launching between Israel and Palestine, a situation which classically reproduces the whole “she said, he said” theme and has one pondering the question “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?”

Problematic, isn't it? Or is there a beginning? Sourced from resistanceisfruitful.com

The answer is that a circle has no begining. There seem to be an awful lot of circles in the Middle East right now: cycles of violence, poverty and oppression that we see repeating themselves in the same fashion, over and over again. Time and again Palestinian militant groups like Hamas will set off terrorist attacks against Israel; Israel will likewise respond with it’s military prowess. Time and again innocent people across the Middle East die because of retaliation measures taken up by their governments/the people in charge. I think it’s time for us to look closer at the circle. Are those really circles we see, with no true beginings or ends, or do they actually start somewhere?

“Circle arguments,” to coin a new phrase, are those arguments in which both sides will forever point the blame at each other, forever unwilling to back down or admit wrongdoing. (Perhaps you are saying to yourself right now, that sounds like most arguments! To me, politics is nothing but circle arguments). Circle arguments deny any traces of a true begining, as neither side will agree to a common starting point, and they certainly prevent any end point from ever being reached. Although admirable in other aspects of society, circle arguments–or the “eye for an eye” rule–have no place or bearing in government and politics.

Essentially, following reciprocitiy or “an eye for an eye” basically eliminates the chance to forgive; it only enhances the competitition. And do the governments of the world really need any more competition than they already have? Competition eliminates any possibility of peace, and even if world peace will never be acheived for a multitude of reasons to lengthy to discuss here and now, it is still imperative and honorable to aim for it. Many Americans would probably say that invading Iraq and Afghanistan was an “eye for an eye” measure, a proper retaliation for the events of 9/11. But was it really neccessary to subject entire countries to years of struggle, poverty, and terror based on the events of that one day? 9/11 was a tragic moment in history, a moment that should have humbled the entire human race; but it did not merit an eye for an eye approach. Did the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan really help America, apart from ridding the world of Saddam Hussein? Did they really make Americans feel more comfortable and et ease with our worldly image? If anything, retaliation only hurt America more.

The “relationship” (if one could call it that) between Israel and Palestine is a never-ending circle of retaliation and finger-pointing, as both sides try to prove their righteousness. Both sides have acted inhumanely, disgustingly. Both sides have every reason to be angry–but, one must consider: is there a start to their circle? The creation of Israel seems like an obvious start to a circle of hatred and violence, but it is of course a tricky begining, for no one alive today was around at the time of the takeover of the Palestinian state and, therefore, one cannot blame any Israeli today; in fact, if anyone was to blame for the start of violence in this little, ancient corner of the Old World, it would be Britain and those who brought the state into being.

Most recently in the news, an American soldier went on a killing spree and gunned down 16 Afghanis, among them women and children. Immediately, Afghanis declared “retaliation” against the Americans for this act of supreme cruelty. Aha, here we have the “circle argument,” the “eye for an eye” motif again, and again we must ask is it really worth it? Will the Afghanis truly be satisfied by killing American soldiers in afghanistan? No, they will not; this act will not bring back the dead, The act of one deranged man should not be cause to attack his fellow countrymen; by declaring retaliation against Americans/America, the Afghani’s are only weilding the stereotyping and racism paintbrush (so very popular in society) which deems that one person is responsible for all those of the same nation/ethnicity. One man does not represent the whole of America; nor did the terrorists of 9/11 or any other day represent the whole of Middle Eastern Muslim populations. Rather than learn to forgive (or at least recognize the difference between one person and his brothers) the Afghani rebels would rather bring about more violence and fire.

The conclusion? Fight fire with fire in your own private battles, but when it comes to the security and prosperity of an entire nationhood of people, let the people keep their eyes, even if you feel differently. For if the whole world is blind, who can we turn to?

Links:

1.Shaky truce appears to end along Gaza-Israel border, CNNWire Staff, CNN
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-13/middleeast/world_meast_gaza-israel-airstrikes_1_gaza-militant-groups-gaza-borders-palestinian-resistance-factions/2?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST

The End of Gaddafi, the Start of a New Libya

Being away from the computer for a mere 24 hours shows that a lot can happen! I returned home from NYC to find out that Colonel Muammar Gaddafi had been killed, thus punctuating the end of over-long era.

The fate of Gaddafi–the first of the Arab Spring dictators to be killed- is one that all dictators who rule with an iron fist (are there any who don’t??) must know is always a possibility down the line. True, Ben Ali of Tunisia managed to escape whatever fate the Tunisians had in store for him by fleeing to Saudi Arabia. Hosny Mubarak of Egypt was arrested, stripped of his millions and his dignity as he was wheeled into court. Will he be punished by death, like Gaddafi? Gaddafi’s fate might seem like the worst punishment, but in a sense it isn’t. Mubarak certainly has it worse as he is forced to sit chained in the grille box that criminals sit in in court: that level of humility is high. Ben Ali, although “free,” is exiled from the country of his birth and everything that implies–certainly not a light sentence. It makes one wonder: how does it feel to be a former leader removed from power by the citizens you once ruled who came to loathe you?

Alas, little sympathy can be spared for such figures, as they have run their countries into the ground economically, had dissenters silenced and/or murdered and basically used their power for corruption. These are people who appear to have little empathy. Wasn’t Saddam Hussein still cursing the Americans just before he was hanged, saying we’d all go to hell? You would think that he might have felt a bit of remorse for what he had done, seeing that if he hadn’t been so greedy in the first place he wouldn’t have become reviled, captured and executed. I don’t suppose there’s ever been a dictator who actually did good for their country.

The downfall of a dictator does not automatically mean that a country is “saved” and liberated. Egypt is struggling with it’s military rule. Iraq is a country still engaged in war, and torn apart. Did Libya “win it’s revolution,” as President Obama said? Yes, they might have gotten rid of their eccentric dictator  but the battle has really only begun. Now is their chance to create the Libya that they have been waiting for.

Good luck!

S-L-M