Readers these days, like customers in a shop, are always right. They might support or oppose what I write. They might write with the eloquence of Taha Hussein or be as inarticulate as street vendors; yet they remain right. In fact, it is enough to satisfy me that they read, because readers, with the onslaught of the Internet and every other technology, have become a very rare commodity. But... There is always is a “But”, and today, it is about three readers and three e-mail messages commenting on Fatah's conference in Bethlehem. All three are opposed to Abu Mazen, Fatah and the choices of Fatah's members. One message even was signed Abu Ammar, which must be a pseudonym because he attacks the late President's inheritors. My first objection here is that I did not write an article about the conference's results, as I had already written about the preparations that were under way for the event, and then about the controversies within Fatah, and I decided not to write a third article about the issue in less than two weeks. Every reader has the right to belong to one faction or another, and to have the conviction that he wants, provided that he does not get lost on the way there. For instance, Abu Mazen said what we all say about the continuation of the struggle, without excluding armed resistance, and about Arab Jerusalem, as the unified capital that is free of settlements. He refused to relinquish even one inch of the land, and is still refusing to meet with Benjamin Netanyahu, despite all the American and European pressures on him to do so. Nonetheless, Brother Fawzi Barhoum, the spokesman for the Hamas movement, said that the conference and the election of Abu Mazen reflect Netanyahu's tendencies and desires. As such, he ignored the other decisions made in the conference, the stances of Abu Mazen, and the attacks against them made by the Israeli press. We read in Ma'arev for example an article entitled “with moderates of this kind...” meaning Fatah, and that Israel does not need more extremists like Hamas. In Yedioth Ahronoth meanwhile, there was a similar article written by Dov Weisglass, Sharon's aide, entitled “the illusion is now gone” about Fatah's moderation and the possibility of negotiations with the Palestinian National Authority. Also, I have a few dozen letters concerning what I wrote about the Fatah's conference, Abu Mazen and Abu Lutf. Brother Mohammad al-Fattah, for instance, exonerates Mahmoud Abbas from the plot, but does not exclude Colonel Mohammed Dahlan, while Brother Abu Ismail, who is very well informed especially in what concerns American affairs, was asking why should we always squeeze Abu Mazen into one of two sides only, either a conspirator against Abu Ammar, or a leader that does not surrender anything. He adds that while he does not give much weight to Abu Lutf's document, he does not completely exonerate Abu Mazen. Meanwhile, Brother Ayman al-Dalati expresses a view critical of Abu Mazen, and this is his right that I will not discuss with him. However, I plead him out of “courtesy” to be fair, because in his message he writes that certainly “Abbas is not more honest than the Syrians”. This is something that no one said, especially not Abu Mazen. He says in another message: “It is not inappropriate to place the same or common position of President Abbas next to President Assad's, and I do not know why Al-Hayat newspaper tends to place two contradictory Arab positions in the same row; there is in fact an enormous gap between the two.” I want say to brother Ayman, and to all the readers, that the relationship between Syria and the Palestinian National Authority is good, and I have never heard President Bashar al-Assad criticizing Abu Mazen. Also, the Palestinian President told me time and time again about his good relationship with Dr. Bashar, and the good reception the latter gives him in Damascus. What is important here is to not forget that there is a common enemy that does not want peace. Ayman meanwhile, at least agrees with me on another subject, and says that his firm conviction deduced from the Quran is that the veil and the burqa are customs and not God-imposed religious duties. As such, he is supported by another reader, Lulu al-Saghira. She recalls the words of Ayman from a previous published letter where he said “I am almost certain that the Hijab is not a part of religion, because Islam wanted to preserve the customs and traditions among the people until they are changed with time”. Lulu al-Saghira's message was in four small parts, and she says that she used to fast and pray, but without any commitment to an Islamic dress code, until a short time ago. She then writes an account of hazing and harassment, and her fear of people following her while she was taking a walk, and how she would go back home in a worse mood than when she left it. Once again, I want to say that what is important in this issue is the freedom of choice, that God will hold us all accountable, and that he is Forgiving and Merciful. Meanwhile, the reader Majida protests me writing about the novel by Hanan al-Shaykh “the locust and the bird”, without me having read it. She overlooks the fact that I said that there were books that I have read, and books that I will read, including this novel, in addition to books that I will not read. In that article, I began with political books as they are chronologically connected to their subjects, then I wrote about the “locust and bird” and “Yalo” with the hope that the readers who did not hear about their English translations, would read them in the summer like I would. In any case, this reader was a bit “neurotic”, and says the novel is not about scandals, but that it is “Realistic literature, despite the lack of awareness in the thirties”. Once again, she ignored the most important point, because I had focused in the article on the writer's boldness and not on scandals, and the result was that I have received another counter protest. As such, another reader asked “how can you call insolence boldness.... We in the orient are conservative family-based societies, and we do not need scandalous literature as such...I do not accept that insolence becomes boldness.” Are you happy, Ms. Majida? I was trying to promote the novel, no more and no less and you are objecting to my review of the novel even if I read it, and you say, “Literature is not your specialty”. I am very polite but for your information, I did not study journalism, but studied political science and then did my masters in Arabic literature. My supervisor at the American University of Beirut was professor Ihsan Abbas, whom I consider to be one of the greatest teachers of Arabic literature in the twentieth century. When he was absent, I was supervised by Dr. Mohammed Najim, who is like Dr. Abbas in both ability and fame, may God have mercy on them both, and guide you.
