On the third of this month, I wrote a column which I began by saying that Iran's strength does not frighten us; the weakness of the Arabs frightens us. In the article, I criticized the shortcomings of Arab states vis-à-vis Israel and its racism, leaving the field open for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Even though the article criticized Iran and its president, the essence of it was a criticism of Arab states. I received a long letter from a Lebanese politician who defended Iran, which is his right. I published some of what he wrote and responded to him on the 12th of the month. Then, I traveled to Dubai and then Jordan, and returned to London to find letters on the same topic, and others that have nothing to do with it, saying literally that I was a “small-time agent” of Syria and Iran, and that “I will not be satisfied with western media until it becomes a mouthpiece of Hamas and Hezbollah.” How can I be something and its opposite at the same time? British diplomacy is famous for exercising, on purpose, what our friend Clovis Maksoud calls “positive ambiguity.” A British politician once read to a colleague of his the speech that he was going to deliver in “the mother of Parliaments.” The colleague described the speech as frank and eloquent, even though he did not know whether the politician was for or against the issue in question. The politician thanked his colleague warmly, because that is what he wanted in the first place. I am not a graduate of the British school of diplomacy, nor am I smart enough to see readers get lost in what I write. I am a naive product of the third world. I learned to not write in the style of the great essayist Manfalouti, or Taha Hussein. I could not do such a thing, even if I tried; I write in a simple, correct style, with short sentences; in other words, the comprehensible language of daily journalism. There are readers who are very smart and perceptive; one of these amateurs would comment on an article written by a professional, then come out with new ideas or correct and modify things in such a way as to make the writer ask how he could have missed all of those opinions. However, another reader, whom I mentioned at the beginning of this column, had his own preconceptions. He did not read what was written, but seized on the title in order to express his opinion, downplaying any other standpoint. Sometimes, he would accuse the writer of treason, as if it were in the power of Arab journalists to commit such an act, if they wanted to. The strangest part in all of this is that I wrote an article on 26 February, of about 60 lines, in defense of Dubai after the international financial crisis. I began it with a verse to the effect that tribulations help one distinguish his friends from his enemies. I was trying to respond to the campaigns of those envious of Dubai and prove that Dubai was able to confront the crisis. I cited western information about the success of the emirate and wrapped up by saying that the crisis might be useful in seeing the people of Dubai come back to earth, after they had long thought that they had wings and could fly… While in Dubai last week, I was surprised by local colleagues who gave me a copy of an article published by Emirates Today, by a writer who, judging from his photo, is a young man who used the verse as a title for his article. He commented on an article that supported Dubai from the standpoint of seeing its people come back to earth. We all want to fly, and some of us might think that one day, we will be able to, but then the world sends us back to earth. The aforementioned writer supported Dubai and its people, many of whom are my friends, including Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashed. I do not know how one could misread such an easy and clear text. I do not believe that the young writer intended to make such a mistake; perhaps it was an innocent one. Moving to another topic, namely the visit by Pope Benedict XVI to the Holy Land: this took place while I was traveling and I did not write about it. Instead, I compiled a file on the visit and will return to it when the opportunity arises, although I received many letters about the Pope's visit, of which two stand out. Nasser Tabbaa said that a number of young people from Jordanian Christian tribes called him in order to organize a demonstration against the Pope's biased statements toward the Israeli enemy. Frankly, I felt that the Pope was sympathetic to the Palestinians; he spoke about their suffering and their right to an independent state, and criticized the racist separation wall. He was under tremendous pressure by the Israelis, who repeated the false accusation about his service in the Hitler Youth and attacked him once again for excommunicating a bishop who denied the Holocaust. Thus, I liked his statements, or at least found them to be better than I had expected. Professor Mazin Qumsiyeh sent me a letter about what he wanted from the Pope, explaining with academic precision the suffering of the Palestinians under occupation, and how their homes are being razed and how they are subjected to separation and isolation. Leaving the letter aside, I would like to talk about Dr. Qumsiyeh himself. I have followed his work ever since he taught at Yale and Duke in the US, and until he relocated to the Palestinian territories. He is a thinker and an activist; his efforts in monitoring Israeli crimes and the activity of the pro-Israel lobby are of the highest standards. I once nominated Mazin Qumsiyeh for an award and I will do so once again. He is a thinker of the highest caliber and the Palestinian cause, along with Arab causes, is in need of someone like him. http://www.j-khazen.blogspot.com/
