Desicritics Comments on The End of U.S. Dominance In The Middle East - What Dominance?

Comment by Ruvy in Jerusalem

Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:12:48 EST

Liam, I'm not commenting on your age at all. The best announcers and newsreaders in a generation, Bob Edwards and Carol Stamberg of National Public Radio in the United States, started when they were 25 or so. One of the best selling books of 1969, "The Strawberry Statement," was written by a college student at Columbia University. It became a movie from which the only memorable line was an anonymous crowd repeating endlessly, "the whole world is watching, the whole world is watching," while cutting to the view of a camera. Nevertheless, I agree with Ramzy Baroud. You should pull your age off of your bio. That is solid writing advice from a pro. You come across as a good journalist. You are a good writer. I'm trying to be helpful here, not critical. If I were just trying to be critical, I would have taken issue with what you had written in the article (to the degree that I felt I disagreed). I haven't done that at all. The Arab publications that have published your work like your editorial perspective. That is why you are there. As for different streams of Islam, try visiting the site of Sheikh Professor Abdulhadi Palazzi, a Sufi scholar. I'm not sure where you can get good information on the tribal and clan nature of Arab society. If you live here, you learn very fast that various Arab villages are usually composed of one clan. When I studied Iranian and Arab politics, it was made clear to me that tribal chieftains play a large role in Arab society, and therefore Arab politics. In some instances it is seen in the structure of the government. For example, "consultative assemblies" or "consultative councils" in Arab sultanates usually started out as collections of tribal or clan chiefs that the sultan (or whatever the ruler is called) had called together to consult on issues of state. As to all the other subjects I mentioned, you can google up the subjects and get data, plenty of it. As I told you, you needn't agree with me - that is not my goal. But you should have a solid background of knowledge behind you. Anamika, There are Jewish tribes and clans, but in Israel (and the rest of the west) clans have no formal acceptance and little informal importance. The Jewish clans that lived in Iraq and elsewhere in Arab or Turkish ruled countries had more formal authority. A lot of that authority has disappeared here in Israel, for good of or for ill. I'm sorry, Anamika, but I do not have time to be racist or condescending when trying to help a fellow writer, and that was my purpose in writing to Liam. I do not know if you notice, but I generally make very few comments at DC about events that occur in the sub-continent, and try to keep them away from the huge body of details I am ignorant of.

Comment by Anamika

Mon, 18 Dec 2006 04:35:30 EST

Liam - agree with your editor. Your age should not be mentioned because unfortunately you will be judged by that instead of the quality of your writing. And that is a shame! Ruvy - "tribal and clan nature of Arab society"? Which "Arab" society will that be? Jordanian, Palestinian, Syrian, Lebanese, Egyptian or Saudi? Or is that Druz, Bedouin, etc? Strange how such a HUGE number of cultures, traditions, histories are essentialised as "Arab" society? ALL societies have divisions and relationships but the use of tribe/clan seems to be limited to those "othered" by the West. The same "clan and tribe" features distinguish the Jewish populations as well - not only in Israel but elsewhere in the world. "Clan and tribes" are major issues in Europe - as the dissolution of Yugoslavia showed us. And as ethnic tensions in various western European countries also proves - Spain, UK etc have all faced "white" clan/tribe tensions - of course these get classified by the West itself in other terms. Because clan/tribe is the preserve of nonwhite, "backward" people? US has its own system of clan/tribe differences and heirarchies. To apply "tribal and clan" solely to nonwhite, nonWestern societies is an act of hypocrisy and implicitly racist. Finally - Liam, given AIPAC's strength and tightly interlocked politics/funding nature of US polity, don't think we will see any change in US positions on Israel/Palestine issue although we will probably see US finding ways to pull out of Iraq. But here's hoping.....

Comment by the idiot

Sun, 17 Dec 2006 22:08:16 EST

Liam, Good to see your articles being published in so many Arab/Islamist media outlets. Your articles would surely be snapped by al-Jazeera for good money, which is one of the most popular and rich news media. These, with those of the Islamic world, are the only media that represent the sole truth and rational views which goes exactly opposite to most of the stupid and lies-ridden media of the West. So, good to see many from the West, frustrated with the lies, stupidty and hypocrisy of the Western media, are allying with the honest, rational and truthful media of the Arab world. In monetary terms also, they beat almost any other.

Comment by Liam Bailey

Sun, 17 Dec 2006 17:25:15 EST

Ruvy, Firstly this article and others of mine have been published by Arabic Media Internet Network and Garowe Online Somalia. The editors of two Arab publications may just be better judges of how much I need to learn. My articles on Middle East and Arab affairs have also been published the Palestine Chronicle, the Palestinian Return Centre, Aayaha and many more, check out my blog (linked to my name) for my full port-folio. Secondly, when you criticise an article of you give examples from the text of where, in this case further learning would be beneficial to the article. It lets people see that you're criticism's are based on something more than you're own somewhat entrenched and some would say bigoted views. You and I have had a good relationship in the past, but you're comment is the most condescending claptrap I have ever read. I mean hit the books Kid, come on. Ramzy Baroud, an excellent Middle East writer and Palestine Chronicle editor advised me not to share my age with my readers because I come across as a good journalist and should not be judged based on my age. He also said I am an excellent writer, who should and will be much more widely read. You're comment showed me what he meant. Older people who read and don't agree with my article, but can't actually find anything wrong with it have a simple area to aim for, my inexperience. I will admit I have a lot to learn, but who knows everything. What is clear from my rapidly growing port-folio is I know enough and am open enough and quick enough to learn sufficiently to write competent articles. What more does a writer, of any age, need?

Comment by Sanjay

Sun, 17 Dec 2006 17:01:59 EST

Ruvy, as always, Europe has been the main scales-tipper to decide whether or not the Islamists succeed or fail. As the Romans say -- who profits? Europe has been the prime beneficiary of the rise of Islamist extremism. Europe is the one supporting Iran from the shadows, despite the latter's ever-increasing meddling in Iraq and Lebanon. Europe continues to see Islamism as a flanking weapon against its adversaries and rivals. Europe will continue to support the rise of Islamism, until Europe itself begins to feel its adverse effects. By then, it will probably be too late for them. As the architects of 2 World Wars, the Europeans have an uncanny knack for getting themselves in over their heads, and then having to be bailed out of trouble from outside. This time will be no different.

Comment by Ruvy in Jerusalem

Sun, 17 Dec 2006 16:40:51 EST

I'm sorry Liam. You write with the typical ignorance of most journalists who have never been here. There are a number of basic facts that you need to understand before attempting to tackle issues in this part of the world. 1. You need to understand the tribal and clan nature of Arab society. 2. You need to understand the background, purpose and role of the Council of Foreign Relations in the United States and its sister think tank in the UK in terms of the foreign policies of the two countries. 3. You need to understand how Moslem society is divided, and how Islam is really divided and what streams of thought flow from what sources to create what ideologies. 4. You need to understand the hierarchical nature of American society and the role that its "great families" (i.e Tafts, Roosevelts, Rockefellers) play in its polity and how that relates to its economy. 5. You need to comprehend the role that historical hatreds and animosities play in any society. In this instance, writing for Desicritics is very helpful; you have Hindus who still are resentful of the Moslem dominance of their country centuries ago, and Moslems who feel very defensive on the one side, and proud (of having a Moslem state or two on the Indian sub-continent) on the other. And you have centuries of built-in resentments on both sides. This is just a tiny bit of the nature of the knowledge you need at your fingertips to begin an intelligent survey of how things work here. Once you have all that at your fingertips, you need to look at the idea that religion and politics can be combined and sometimes you can get belief driven politics. I'm not szaying you necessarily need to agree with me on all these things. But their lack is evident in the writing. HIT THE BOOKS, KID!

Comment by the idiot

Sun, 17 Dec 2006 05:48:32 EST

Bailey Said: "Saddam would undoubtedly have been easily defeated. As he was 2003, but the occupying U.S or U.S/U.N forces would have probably had the support of the Kurdish minority and Shia Majority. Giving the Sunni's no choice but to join the new diplomatic efforts or be left out of Iraq's democratic future. As oppose to miss-trust for Bush Jnr by Shia and Kurd's after being lied to by his dad before him. And resentment because of the massacres his lies led them into. I believe had Bush Snr done this Iraq would have been a stable democracy by now, certainly closer than has been for decades." It's a gem of a thought. Keep up Mr. Bailey. You have a great future in the career you are after.

Comment by Sanjay

Sun, 17 Dec 2006 03:26:28 EST

Now that the US has removed the Baathist establishment from power, it has uncorked the genie from the bottle. Now Iraq is doomed to fracture no matter what. All the King's horses and all the king's men won't be able to put Iraq back together again. And in truth, it was never a real unity state to begin with, but merely a patchwork forced together under a colonial shotgun wedding.