Category Archives: nationalism

Imagining the 1973 War

By Diana Saverin

JERUSALEM – This past weekend, I headed to Cairo to see pyramids and ancient ruins. While I did gape at 5,000-year-old artifacts, look into the seemingly boundless Sahara desert, and float down the Nile, my touristy adventure couldn’t escape certain political surprises.

Everywhere in Egypt, people speak of the war with Israel from October, 1973. In Israel, it is called the Yom Kippur War. In Egypt, it’s a national holiday. On October 6th, Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack on Israel on Judaism’s most holy day, Yom Kippur. While I am no expert on the war, my impression of it from Israelis was that Egypt and Syria were able to get farther than usual due to the timing of their attack on the first day, and it was an intelligence mistake not to know and prevent the war before the attack that led to unnecessary casualties, but that within days Israel was able to take back the lead as usual. Almost three weeks after the attack, Israel was 40 kilometers from Damascus, and 101 kilometers from Cairo. The peace Israel eventually made with Egypt through the Camp David Accords and Israel’s giving back the Sinai is emphasized as an example of Israel’s concessions for peace.

In Egypt, though, the war was a victory. Every Egyptian I spoke with brought up the war. Streets are named after October 6th. It was described to me multiple times as the most proud moment in modern Egyptian history. In the military museum, several murals and descriptions of the war would make one think that the Egyptians slaughtered and humiliated the Israelis. In descriptions, though, Israel’s name isn’t even mentioned. Allusions to the “phantom,” “the enemy,” and “the planes with blue stars” describe the apparently disgraced Israeli army as the valiant Egyptian army showed the world the courage of the Egyptian people, and won back the Sinai after the 1967 6-day war.

While the reality probably lies somewhere in between the two narratives, I was struck by the overwhelming fanaticism with the war in Egypt. In Israel, it’s another war amongst the many in the past 60 years: the War of Independence in 1948, the Suez Campaign in 1956, the 6-day war in 1967, the Yom Kippur War in 1973, the 1982 Lebanon War, the First Intifada in 1987, the Second Intifada in 2000, the Second Lebanon War in 2006, and the Gaza War in 2008.

As I received a huge hug from an Egyptian after saying that I knew about the victory of the 1973 war, I was inundated with the sense of the impossibility of objectiveness in this conflict. Maybe it’s the same with others as well, but Israel’s 60-year existence has been so densely filled with complicated events, not to mention the history stretching back at least 2,000 years, that one can pick facts to support almost any opinion. It’s impossible to not to have any opinion, I know that my interpretations of events is often clouded by fierce biases, but these systematic and dialectic viewpoints reveal the divides and lack of mutual understanding throughout the conflict.

Egypt and Israel have made peace, but the vastly different narratives reveal a greater trend with Israel and all of its neighbors. These mass inconsistencies pose a threat to any sustainable peace, and put future generations on both sides in danger of growing extremism.

Leave a comment

Filed under conflict, controversy, culture, Middle East, nationalism, Overseas Bureau, violence, war

Culture and the Cup, Dispatch 4: Paris

algerian flag

One of France's spirited supporters of the Algerian team is interviewed after France loses to South Africa on June 22. (Parker/TYG)

By Charlotte Parker

PARIS — “Defeated by chaos,” “Disaster,” “Journey to hell and back.”

The headlines would be funny if their meaning didn’t carry real implications for France. They reference, of course, the country’s humiliating first-round elimination from the World Cup, an outcome caused by a Molotov cocktail of big egos, large salaries, and lack of national pride on the part of the players. World Cup fever still reigns in France, but alas it’s not the delirium of dreams. Instead, it’s a frenzy built of disillusionment and vituperative bitterness. Newspapers are just the beginning; even President Sarkozy called a special meeting to discuss the situation.

The flop potential of Les Bleus was first hinted at in their third preparatory match before the actual Cup began, when they lost to China. My host father turned off the match in disgust and said something along the lines of, “this doesn’t bode well.” Indeed, France went on to tie Uruguay, and then lost to Mexico.

I watched that match on a giant screen at the “FIFA FanFest” area set up under the Eiffel Tower (nice view). The place was absolutely packed, but among the rowdy crowd there almost seemed to be more Mexican that French supporters. Even more surprising was the number of Algerian flags, knotted around young men’s necks like capes. Here they were, in Paris, presumably born in France, watching France — and yet they didn’t root for France.

By the time les Bleus faced off against South Africa on the 22nd, most people had already lost interest and pride. I don’t totally blame them — the team had imploded, refusing to practice as protest against the expulsion, by Coach Raymond Domenech, of one of its players (I won’t go into much detail here, as the story is all over the media). The captain refused to sing the national anthem.

Nonetheless, I found it rather upsetting that the public at the FanFest arena booed when the camera panned to Domenech. When South Africa won, most of our fellow match-watchers erupted in joy.

What happened? In 1998, the team was fondly referred to as “Black-blanc-beur,” or “black-white-arab,” a nod to its diverse makeup. When they won the Cup, it seemed a victory for the new, ethnically varied French identity. A friend’s host mother said she couldn’t go out into the streets for weeks without being hugged by her joyful countrymen. Now, the comportment of the players — 13 out of 22 of whom are from immigrant backgrounds — brings into question how strong that national identity actually is. I suppose it remains to be seen if the lack of patriotism belonged simply to one group of bratty football players, or if it is an indicator of the situation of immigration and society in France in general.

Since the Cup started, I’ve been fascinated by the “Algeria Factor.” As I’ve mentioned, Algeria fans (until Algeria’s elimination — thanks to a last-minute defeat by the US!) were by far the most visible fans of any team, arriving at the FanFest arena hours before matches, faces painted and flag capes waving. Of the 5 or 6 Algerian men I talked to, all barmen at various cafes where I watched a few matches, every one — whether born in France or Algeria — supported Algeria. My friend’s host brother, born in France of a French mother and Tunisian father, and calling himself French, was also supporting Algeria. I’m sorry Algeria is out of the running because I would have loved to see how an Algerian victory was greeted by people here; it would have made an interesting contrast, I think, to the utter failure of France.

One lesson learned from the approximately 14 hours of soccer I have watched over the past week: “football” really does have the power to both divide and to unite, to humiliate as well as to burnish national pride. I’m sad for France, and concerned by the cracks in what has seemed to me (from my Metro observations of cultural co-existence, at least) a society that welcomes immigrants, and in which those immigrants are happy to belong.

But I have also been made proud of my own country, which is not a feeling I have often experienced. The spark with which the US played these first two rounds of the Cup brought us a little closer to the rest of the football-obsessed world, I think. I will always remember the feeling of quiet satisfaction that passed over me when one of the Algerian men with whom we were watching the US-Algeria match began to root for the US towards the end of the game, when the determination to win on their part was just so gloriously evident.

If we can get them to root for us in soccer, maybe there’s hope…

Leave a comment

Filed under conflict, controversy, Culture and the Cup, Europe, nationalism

What is the “Muslim or Islamic World”?

by Jennifer Parker

What is the “Muslim or Islamic World”? This widely accepted expression presumably implies the collection of countries whose official, dominant, or major religion is Islam. At Yale, a prominent Professor teaches a literature course entitled “Classics: The Arabic-Islamic World.” The University also offers a class on Maghrebi literature and culture, “focus[ing] on the relation between the Islamic world and the French colonial experience.” However the casual usage of “Islamic or Muslim World” implies an ignorance about the phrase’s troubling connotations, origins, and implications.

The modern “Muslim World” is extraordinarily diverse—geographically, politically, ethnically, linguistically, and religiously—consisting of countries as disparate as Nigeria, Iran, Bosnia, Turkey, Bangladesh, Eritrea, and Indonesia. Therefore, the expression is also misleading, as several of these aforementioned countries (and others) are probably not meant to be included in the “Muslim World.” Islam, as practiced in the “Islamic World,” varies greatly within and among the different countries. In Iran, the vast majority of Muslims are Twelver Shi’ites, whereas Turkey is essentially a secular nationalist state. And although Islam factors significantly into many of the politics and national identities of this “World,” the term understates powerful (and often competing) non-religious affiliations. The Kurds, Palestinians, and Shi’ites probably feel stronger ties to their respective ethnolinguistic group, nationality, and religious denomination than as members of the “Muslim World.” If pan-Islamist movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries had achieved their political and religious goals, the “Islamic World” might be a more accurate description today. But ultimately, pan-Arabism and various nationalist movements gained more popular support.

The “Muslim World” perpetuates destructive Orientalist narratives: namely the West and the Orient are antithetical; all Oriental/Islamic societies are fundamentally similar; and there is inherent “clash” between “Western Civilization” and the “Islamic World,” as Samuel P. Huntington argued. Is the “Muslim World” fundamentally different from the non-Muslim world? Nope. Does Islamic theology and dogma unite this “World,” creating a cohesive unit, with singular goals and strategies? Definitely not.  In the “Muslim World,” does Islam permeate all facets of life? No. Islam is a powerful, important way of life for millions of people around the world, but  the “Muslim World” can not –and should not– be studied, understood, or referred to as a collective.

Jennifer Parker is a junior Modern Middle East Studies major in Silliman College.

3 Comments

Filed under media, Middle East, nationalism, religion