About Last Night

[Students at Beirut Arab University Participate in International Day of Climate Action; Image From 350.org] [Students at Beirut Arab University Participate in International Day of Climate Action; Image From 350.org]

About Last Night

By : Maya Mikdashi

Last night the sound of gunfire punctuated the Beirut soundscape. Supporters of the anti-Syrian and majority Sunni Future Movement clashed with members of the pro-Assad and Sunni Majority Arab Movement. The fighting, which was most intense around the Beirut Arab University, continued until the early hours of the morning.

The area around the Beirut Arab University is mixed. For the last several decades, “mixed” used to refer to Christian and Muslim co-habitation in this city, but today it is increasingly used to describe areas where Sunni and Shiite Muslims live side by side. This shift, or more accurately this proliferation in categorizing self and other encompassed in the term “mixed,” reflects the shifting sociopolitical landscape of Lebanon, a country that is said to be composed of minorities. Of course, categories always determine demographics. After all, a majority of Lebanese residents are women, Muslim, urban dwellers, and working or lower class. But these identifications, these categories, are not the vehicle of political incorporation into the state, its institutions, and its services. Thus, Lebanon is a country of minorities, as long as the minorities are always based on the category of “sect.”

Yet, if we step out of the shallow of increasingly entrenched definitions of difference encircling the city and its invisible borders, we can think more deeply about the word “mixed.” We can see that the area where fighting broke out last night, around the Arab University, is in fact an incredibly diverse part of the city. The reason is simple: it is one of the more affordable reputable universities in the country. After all, not everyone can, or wants to attend American University of Beirut (AUB) or the Lebanese American University (LAU). It may surprise some to know that Ras Beirut, where AUB and LAU loom large, is not in fact the only hub of college life in the city. I know this not because I have made some sort of extra effort to discover “other” parts of Lebanon or Beirut—although I have been asked countless times by others to “show me” what lies outside of the borders of the Ras Beirut comfort zone. I know this because I grew up in Tariq al Jadidah, where members of my family still live, and where generations of them have attended the Arab University since its establishment in 1960.

Tariq al Jadidah is not on the periphery; it is one of the cities` most densely populated and highly politicized neighborhoods. It is home to a quarter million Lebanese citizens and thousands of Palestinian refugees. What happens there is not an aberration of life in Beirut; it is one reflection of it. And that is why last night`s fighting is truly terrifying. Because it is not a violent incident or a warning: it is a funeral dirge for the future.

The local, regional, and international news coverage of last night`s armed clashes was largely silent about the demography of Tariq al Jadidah other than to point out that it is “Sunni.” The fact that the most vicious fighting took place at the gates of a university where thousands of students attend classes daily went unremarked. Around the Arab University students, faculty, and staff from all parts of Lebanon live, work, and study. In fact, the institution of “the university” is supposed to serve as a place where the very categories of self and other can be interrogated. But in Lebanon, elite universities offer a sectarian mixing to the country`s elite, and more affordable universities offer this same mixing to the non-elite classes. And there is a chasm between each of these “mixed” student bodies.

If similar fighting had broken out between the pro-Syrian regime Syrian Socialist Nationalist Party (SSNP) and the anti-Syrian regime Mustaqbal Party at the gates of AUB, the reaction of the news media, both local and international, would be different. Protests would be organized, editorials would be written, and social media would be ablaze protesting the threat to the dignity and sacrosanct nature of university life. But this recognized university life is the purview of a select elite. The majority of Lebanese families can barely afford the tuition of the Arab University, one-fourth the cost of its more renowned counterparts.

At this moment, when the guns around a university in Beirut still stink of gunpowder, we must insist on solidarity, not discourses of difference or anthropological curiosity. It is not enough to speak the language of the state and claim sectarian solidarity in the face of sectarian violence. We must insist upon the grammar of class, and the conjugation of economics. We need a deep understanding of what the word “mixed” does, or could, entail. The clouds of smoke rising around one of the few affordable and well-regarded private universities in Lebanon affect everyone. The violence is not something that is happening “over there” in the Sunni ghetto. It is happening here. In Beirut. In Lebanon.

 

  • ALSO BY THIS AUTHOR

    • Maya Mikdashi, Sextarianism: Sovereignty, Secularism, and the State in Lebanon (New Texts Out Now)

      Maya Mikdashi, Sextarianism: Sovereignty, Secularism, and the State in Lebanon (New Texts Out Now)

      A convergence of so many things, starting with a conversation in a grad school class about religious conversion in the Middle East. The consensus in class was that this was considered apostasy, and not only illegal but dangerous in most of the region.

    • ألا يكون الرَّجل الفِلسطيني ضحيّة؟ جَندرة الحُروب الإسرائيلية على غزّة

      ألا يكون الرَّجل الفِلسطيني ضحيّة؟ جَندرة الحُروب الإسرائيلية على غزّة

      نصحو كل صباحٍ على تعداد قتلى جَديد: ذبحت آلة الحرب الإسرائيلية مئة أو مئتي أو أربعمئة أو ستمئة فلسطينيّ. تعكس الأرقام أعلاه عدة معلومات: أغلب أهل قطاع غزّة، أحد أعلى المناطق كثافة سكانية في العالم، لاجئون من فلسطين التاريخية.

    • Beyond the Lebanese Constitution: A Primer

      Beyond the Lebanese Constitution: A Primer

      All constitutions are flawed, even (or especially) those that are treated as particularly sacrosanct—such as the US Constitution. The recent protest movement in Lebanon, which began on 17 October 2019, has generated renewed interest in the Lebanese constitution—with a lot of what might be called “constitution talk” by both protestors and the political class. In this article, I focus on two issues that have renewed and stimulated much interest in the constitution: calls for (1) the removal of sectarian representation in parliament; and (2) a unified personal status law. I also offer a short history and ideological reading of the Lebanese constitution, stressing its contradictions. I end with a series of questions that push our political imagination beyond the constitution in its current form and toward a new social contract, one that actively responds to many of the protestors’ demands.

American Elections Watch 1: Rick Santorum and The Dangers of Theocracy

One day after returning to the United States after a trip to Lebanon, I watched the latest Republican Presidential Primary Debate. Unsurprisingly, Iran loomed large in questions related to foreign policy. One by one (with the exception of Ron Paul) the candidates repeated President Obama`s demand that Iran not block access to the Strait of Hormuz and allow the shipping of oil across this strategic waterway. Watching them, I was reminded of Israel`s demand that Lebanon not exploit its own water resources in 2001-2002. Israel`s position was basically that Lebanon`s sovereign decisions over the management of Lebanese water resources was a cause for war. In an area where water is increasingly the most valuable resource, Israel could not risk the possibility that its water rich neighbor might disrupt Israel`s ability to access Lebanese water resources through acts of occupation, underground piping, or unmitigated (because the Lebanese government has been negligent in exploiting its own water resources) river flow. In 2012, the United States has adopted a similar attitude towards Iran, even though the legal question of sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz is much more complicated and involves international maritime law in addition to Omani and Iranian claims of sovereignty. But still, US posturing towards Iran is reminiscent of Israeli posturing towards Lebanon. It goes something like this: while the US retains the right to impose sanctions on Iran and continuously threaten war over its alleged pursuit of a nuclear weapon, Iran should not dare to assume that it can demand the removal of US warships from its shores and, more importantly, should not dream of retaliating in any way to punitive sanctions imposed on it. One can almost hear Team America`s animated crew breaking into song . . . “America . . . Fuck Yeah!”

During the debate in New Hampshire, Rick Santorum offered a concise answer as to why a nuclear Iran would not be tolerated and why the United States-the only state in the world that has actually used nuclear weapons, as it did when it dropped them on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki- should go to war over this issue. Comparing Iran to other nuclear countries that the United States has learned to “tolerate” and “live with” such as Pakistan and North Korea, Santorum offered this succinct nugget of wisdom: Iran is a theocracy. Coming from a man who has stated that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools, that President Obama is a secular fanatic, that the United States is witnessing a war on religion, and that God designed men and women in order to reproduce and thus marriage should be only procreative (and thus heterosexual and “fertile”), Santorum`s conflation of “theocracy” with “irrationality” seemed odd. But of course, that is not what he was saying. When Santorum said that Iran was a theocracy what he meant is that Iran is an Islamic theocracy, and thus its leaders are irrational, violent, and apparently (In Santorum`s eyes) martyrdom junkies. Because Iran is an Islamic theocracy, it cannot be “trusted” by the United States to have nuclear weapons. Apparently, settler colonial states such as Israel (whose claim to “liberal “secularism” is tenuous at best), totalitarian states such as North Korea, or unstable states such as Pakistan (which the United States regularly bombs via drones and that is currently falling apart because, as Santorum stated, it does not know how to behave without a “strong” America) do not cause the same radioactive anxiety. In Santorum`s opinion, a nuclear Iran would not view the cold war logic of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) as a deterrent. Instead, the nation of Iran would rush to die under American or Israeli nuclear bombs because martyrdom is a religious (not national, Santorum was quick to state, perhaps realizing that martyrdom for nation is an ideal woven into the tapestry of American ideology) imperative. Santorum`s views on Iran can be seen one hour and two minutes into the debate.

When it comes to Islam, religion is scary, violent and irrational, says the American Presidential candidate who is largely running on his “faith based” convictions. This contradiction is not surprising, given that in the United States fundamentalist Christians regularly and without irony cite the danger that American muslims pose-fifth column style- to American secularism. After all, recently Christian fundamentalist groups succeeded in pressuring advertisers to abandon a reality show that (tediously) chronicled the lives of “American Muslims” living in Detroit. The great sin committed by these American Muslims was that they were too damn normal. Instead of plotting to inject sharia law into the United States Constitution, they were busy shopping at mid-western malls. Instead of marrying four women at a time and vacationing at Al-Qaeda training camps in (nuclear, but not troublingly so) Pakistan, these “American Muslims” were eating (halal) hotdogs and worrying about the mortgages on their homes and the rising costs of college tuition. Fundamentalist Christians watched this boring consumer driven normalcy with horror and deduced that it must be a plot to make Islam appear compatible with American secularism. The real aim of the show, these Christian fundamentalists (who Rick Santorum banks on for political and financial support) reasoned, was to make Islam appear “normal” and a viable religious option for American citizens. Thus the reality show “All American Muslim” was revealed to be a sinister attempt at Islamic proselytizing. This in a country where Christian proselytizing is almost unavoidable. From television to subways to doorbell rings to presidential debates to busses to street corners and dinner tables-there is always someone in America who wants to share the “good news” with a stranger. Faced with such a blatant, and common, double standard, we should continue to ask “If Muslim proselytizers threaten our secular paradise, why do Christian proselytizers not threaten our secular paradise?”

As the United States Presidential Elections kick into gear, we can expect the Middle East to take pride of place in questions pertaining to foreign policy. Already, Newt Gingrich who, if you forgot, has a PhD in history, has decided for all of us, once and for all, that the Palestinians alone in this world of nations are an invented people. Palestinians are not only a fraudulent people, Gingrich has taught us, they are terrorists as well. Candidates stumble over each other in a race to come up with more creative ways to pledge America`s undying support for Israel. Iran is the big baddie with much too much facial hair and weird hats. America is held hostage to Muslim and Arab oil, and must become “energy efficient” in order to free itself from the unsavory political relationships that come with such dependancy. Candidates will continue to argue over whether or not President Obama should have or should not have withdrawn US troops from Iraq, but no one will bring up the reality that the US occupation of Iraq is anything but over. But despite the interest that the Middle East will invite in the coming election cycle, there are a few questions that we can confidently assume will not be asked or addressed. Here are a few predictions. We welcome additional questions from readers.

Question: What is the difference between Christian Fundamentalism and Muslim Fundamentalism? Which is the greater “threat” to American secularism, and why?

Question: The United States` strongest Arab ally is Saudi Arabia, an Islamic theocracy and authoritarian monarchy which (falsely) cites Islamic law to prohibit women from driving cars, voting, but has recently (yay!) allowed women to sell underwear to other women. In addition, Saudi Arabia has been fanning the flames of sectarianism across the region, is the main center of financial and moral support for Al-Qaeda and is studying ways to “obtain” (the Saudi way, just buy it) a nuclear weapon-all as part and parcel of a not so cold war with Iran. Given these facts, how do you respond to critics that doubt the United States` stated goals of promoting democracy, human rights, women`s rights, and “moderate” (whatever that is) Islam?

Question: Israel has nuclear weapons and has threatened to use them in the past. True or false?

Question: How are Rick Santorum`s views on homosexuality (or the Christian right`s views more generally) different than President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad`s or King Abdullah`s? Can you help us tease out the differences when all three have said that as long as homosexuals do not engage in homosexual sex, it`s all good?

Question: Is the special relationship between the United States and Israel more special because they are both settler colonies, or is something else going on?