.jpg){kind=small}
mini.jpg)
I saw A Mighty Heart last night, the movie about Daniel Pearl‘s abduction and murder, and I was surprised. First, I liked the movie and expected not to. Second, it was not the anti-Muslim screed I’d expected it to be. If anything was a subject made for exploitation Hollywood style it was this story. An American-Jewish reporter goes to Pakistan to report on the teeming world of Islamic extremism. He goes seemingly with an open mind and American values of inquisitiveness and tolerance. His values are met by jihadi hatred, kidnapping and ultimately beheading. Could you have any better recipe for a suspense potboiler full of leering, evil Arabs?
Yet, Michael Winterbottom the director, chooses to avoid this obvious pitfall (and he faces many others as well). He decides he is going to try to write a story about two idealistic children of the world (Daniel and Marianne Pearl) thrown into the maelstrom of third world poverty, desperation and religious hatred. Despite being tested in the deepest and most painful ways it is possible for a human to be tested, the Pearls both retain their humanity intact. This is a hopeful movie. But its hope doesn’t come cheaply or easily. It is hope wrested from violence and suffering. Perhaps this is the only type of real hope there is–hope based on adversity.
The main element of this film is confusion. Everything and everyone is a swirl of movement and emotions. Hardly anything remains in one place very long. The camera sweeps through the teeming streets of Pakistan’s fetid urban centers providing the full panoply of human energy and misery. The crowded slums actually become a character in themselves in the film. Winterbottom does this in an ingenious way. He doesn’t really have to tell you about the social conditions in third world Muslim countries that serve as the breeding ground for Islamic extremism. No characters have to engage in long conversations about it to explain it to the audience. The camera does it for you.
But there is one element I felt the filmmaker didn’t explore fully enough. You have to admit that the decision by a young American Jewish journalist to accept an assignment in Pakistan, hotbed of some of the most rabid anti-Israel, anti-western sentiment in the world, strikes one as quixotic or perhaps even nuts. Why did Pearl do it? What were his reasons for taking this assignment? What was the Wall Street Journal’s thinking in making this assignment?
I’d like to know more about Daniel Pearl. What did he believe both as a journalist, a Jew and human being. What were his private thoughts about the imams, sheikhs and jihadis he covered in Pakistan? The movie doesn’t covey much of this and I wish it did more. It would’ve explained much to me that is lacking in the motivations of the key characters.
On a less momentous note, I wish the character of the Pakistani police inspector had been more explosive and energetic. The role as written portrays a genial, humane, soft-spoken man. What about someone who shrieks, who loses his temper, who hits people, who curses, who is wily, but still retains his humanity? Personally, I think it would’ve added to the drama of the situation.
I was struck by one element of the plot. At the end in voiceover, Marianne Pearl tells us that just before he was beheaded Daniel looked into the camera and said he was a Jew and that a street in Bnei Brak (Israel) is named for his grandfather, who founded the town. This is Pearl reaching back into his Jewish soul for something he is proud of, something that will mark his life, something he can leave after his death for others to know what was important to him as he faced his fate. It was also the ultimate act of rebellion against his captors–saying to them: “you can kill a Jew, but my grandfather helped build a Jewish country and it will live on after me despite your hated and violence.”
I am grateful that A Mighty Heart didn’t lapse into parody or propaganda. It portrayed a confusing, multi-faceted event with admirable nuance and emotional complexity.
It should be remembered that Africa too has been plagued by tribalism, colonial exploitation (far worse than the Arabs have experienced) . . . and the population there is not wrapped up into the rage and self-pity that the Arab masses feel and which is strongly reinforced by their media, both “free” (Al-Jazeera, for example) or state-controlled. Similarly, the Far East, although very different than Western societies, have managed to improve in the field of human rights and economic progress.
This reminds me of something Hannah Arendt used to say:
What public opinion permits us to judge and even to condemn are trends, or whole groups of people – the larger the better – in short, something so general that distinctions can no longer be made, names no longer be named.
I’m afraid that categories like “Africa” and “the Far East” are close to useless when we are talking about the sentiments of millions of different people and the way their media behaves. Parts of Africa have experienced worse exploitation than the Arab world, but other parts have in fact been quite free of the sort of sustained political interference the Arab world
has had to put up with because of its oil resources. Parts of “the Far East” have made less economic progress than many Arab countries. Generalisations like this don’t help us understand anything.
As for talk of rage and self-pity, I should like to know how much actual experience of the Arab world you have.
…. we can only include that a basic pathological societal inertia is holding the Arab world (and NOT necessarily the entire Islamic world-do not confuse the two) back.
I have three things to say to this:
1) Where did you get your “we”?
2) When you say “do not confuse the two”, you create the rather unfortunate impression that I have trouble making the distinction. I am an Arab, and a journalist who has worked for years trying to impress the distinction (and the overlap) upon Western journalists. I do not have trouble making the distinction. That is precisely why I noted that the Pearl film
is set in Pakistan, which I have also covered extensively as a journalist. What is more, I would insist on more distinctions – between Arabs and Arabs, Africans and Africans, etc – than you have made so far.
3) I am afraid that I regard the idea of pathologies (a medical term) that inhere in people according to their ethnic origins as unacceptable. The factors that hold Arabs back are many and varied and include cultural, societal and political problems. None of these problems are “inevitable” or “inherent”. So no, the conclusion you come to is far from being the only
one possible.
imjudy asks richard:
Or do you view the UN Charter of Human RIghts as a “Western” document which it is not fair to compare to Arab standards?
I cannot presume to speak for Richard, however it is worth pointing out that it was Rene Cassin (a Frenchman) who felt that the charter should not attempt to encompass the world’s women as this would draw resistance from predominantly Muslim countries, and Bedia Afnan (an Iraqi woman) who insisted that the charter must explicitly include equality for women.
Richard-when I stated that there is are significant “pro-Democracy movements”, you pointed out that many states around the world are not democracies. You misunderstand what I said–I am well aware that Russia and many countries are not democracies…but I was referring to MOVEMENTS, i.e organized groups lobbying for years or even decades for liberal democratic reforms and human rights. I am aware there are a few in the Arab world, e.g. the Ibn Khaldum group in Egypt (I believe that is what it is called), but these groups have little public support. In almost all Arab states, the only large opposition movements are Islamic and they don’t have true democracy and human rights as their main objective, e.g. the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Algeria had a truly free multy-party election in 1990 and what was the result?…a bloody civil war. Same in Iraq….the election merely exacerbated existing religious and clan tensions that were repressed in Saddam’s period, but existing just under the surface.
Regarding the rage and self-pity the Arabs seen to nourish, it was claimed “these exist in Africa as well”. NOT AT ALL THE SAME THING. A poll you might have seen a few days ago in the New York Times said a large majority of Africans are cautiously optimistic about the future. As I pointed out, Africa has a lot more reason to be angry at Western culture and the White man, but they DO NOT indulge in blaming others for their predicament, and their political and religious leaders don’t go around encouraging violence and suicide bombings against whites, or Europeans or Americans because of the injustices they suffered in the past. Africa also has significant pro-democracy movements in many countries which have had significant successes in reforming many countries that were not democratic. In the Far East, Taiwan and South Korea managed to reform repressive anti-Communist regimes into real democracies. India, which was under British colonial rule for centuries and which suffered from traditional values and attitudes such as the caste system (similar to the clan loyalties of the Arab world) and governmental corruption, still managed to create a functioning democracy. Please explain to me why not one of 20+ Arab states, which were under European colonial rule for a maximum of a few decades can’t seem to do this. Yes, I know that they were under Ottoman rule for a long time, but the Ottoman homeland, Turkey, today is an Islamic democracy. As a matter of fact, in places like Egypt, Iraq and other places, European influence led to the building of semi-democratic institutions like a free press and a parliament (although the parliaments had little or no real power), yet when Nasserist or Ba’athis pan-Arabism swept them away leaving the suffocating dictatorships like Saddams’, Egypt’s, etc. Thus, blaming outsiders for the poor condition of the Arab world is just making excuses for bad leadership in all these countries.
I am aware there are a few in the Arab world, e.g. the Ibn Khaldum group in Egypt (I believe that is what it is called), but these groups have little public support.
I assume imjudy is talking about this:
http://www.eicds.org/english/publications/saadarticles/2005/despotism.htm
And we can see almost immediately that Dr Ibrahim does not dismiss the Islamists as a valid source of democratic discourses.
Algeria had a truly free multy-party election in 1990 and what was the result?…a bloody civil war.
This is a bowdlerising of the historical record. What caused the war was the refusal of the state apparatus to relinquish power to the democratically elected legislature, not the fact of elections themselves. As for talk of clan tensions in Iraq, I’d like an example.
As I pointed out, Africa has a lot more reason . . . and their political and religious leaders don’t go around encouraging violence and suicide bombings against whites, or Europeans or Americans because of the injustices they suffered in the past.
“In the past” would seem to be the key words here. Can you name an African country where the injustice is 1) ongoing and 2) clearly supported by American money?
India, which was under British colonial rule for centuries and which suffered from traditional values and attitudes such as the caste system (similar to the clan loyalties of the Arab world) and governmental corruption, still managed to create a functioning democracy.
But the caste system still exists, as does voting according to clan allegiance and rampant corruption! The idea that democracy involves a turning away from all these things is given the lie precisely by the Indian experience. India also has plenty of terrorism.
Please explain to me why not one of 20+ Arab states, which were under European colonial rule for a maximum of a few decades can’t seem to do this.
Well clearly it isn’t to do with “societal inertia”. India has plenty of that too.
Yes, I know that they were under Ottoman rule for a long time, but the Ottoman homeland, Turkey, today is an Islamic democracy.
This is made to sound like a fabulous fait accompli. Yet Turkey has also in the 80-odd years of the republic experienced rule by the military, frightful persecution of minorities, torture, persecution of leftists and Islamists. The democracy is not as secure as this rather trite statement would suggest. Only recently the chief of staff of the armed forces felt he was within his rights to interfere in the appointment of the president. And Turkey does not consider itself “an Islamic democracy”.
How the pattern that imjudy describes – of quasi-democratic institutions under European tutelage being replaced by nationalist command regimes in the immediate post-colonial period – is different from the African or Latin American experience I don’t know. To say that functioning democracies haven’t emerged is quite different from saying that something inherent in Arabs prevents them from doing so. I presume that Lebanon isn’t a functioning democracy by imjudy’s definition – and the main obstacle to this is a system of communal representation devised by … Europeans.
Oh, and the Algerian election referred to took place in late 1991, not 1990.
The Algerian National Assembly elections of 1991 were cancelled by a military coup after the first round, triggering the Algerian Civil War
The war was not the outcome of elections. It was the outcome of the cancellation of elections by the military. And did France take the side of the voters or the military? I can only assume the former, given the “inherent” commitment of French society to democratic norms. Alors! Ce n’est pas comme ca? Quel dommage.
Yes, I noted the same problem with imjudy’s comment about Algeria. But there’s a similar problem here. It was not the Iraqi elections that exacerbated inter-religious tensions in Iraq. They were already superheated by the botched American occupation of Iraq which did nothing to alleviate such tensions in the immediate aftermath of the toppling of Saddam. We had ample opportunity to attempt to work with Iraqis of the old regime who might’ve provided some continuity in the new one. Instead, we swept all the Baathists and the former Iraqi army officers out & attempted to start fr. scratch w/o knowing where to turn or what we were doing.
Some reading:
http://www.eicds.org/english/publications/reports/Annual-Report-EN07.pdf
I would recommend pages 23-25. The whole thing is 218 pages, and I shall be very interested to see how much of it is about clan systems in Arab countries.
Maher-you keep eluding the point I am making. Yes, India has intercommunal violence, Yes there is violence and anti-democratic governments in Africa. Yes, Turkey has had a war with the Kurds and difficulties in developing democracy. But the point is that none of the states or regions I have mentioned have someone like the Saudis and other oil-rich sheikhs spreadiing their poisonous antisemitic and anti-Western propaganda in networks of mosques and other communications media around the world. Neither have an extremist ideology committed to overthrowing the world system. Neither have a belief that their religions have to be spread around the world, by force if necessary. Now, you are going to jump up and say “it is only a minority of Arab/Muslims extremists that believe these things”. So then what are the moderates doing to counteract these extremists? Take independent television Al-Jazeera. They spread extremist ideas around the world. The point is that the general feeling in the West is that the majority of the Arab world has at least some sympathy for the extremism and terrorism that we see coming out of that part of the world. It was Arab/Muslim extremists that carried out 9/11 and Muslim extremists that did the 7/7 attacks in London.
And a big cause of this is the disfunction condition of the Arab states who can’t seem to deliver national economic development and whose leaders seem to think blaming the US and Israel for all their problems will get them off the hook (e.g. Qaddafi saying that doctors and nurses sentenced to death in the HIV case were “Zionist agents”).
Maher-you keep eluding the point I am making.
No I don’t. I keep asking questions about your reasoning, none of which you have so far seen fit to answer, whereas I have quoted you at length.
But the point is that none of the states or regions I have mentioned have someone like the Saudis and other oil-rich sheikhs spreadiing their poisonous antisemitic and anti-Western propaganda in networks of mosques and other communications media around the world.
And your contention is what? That this is caused by them being Arabs? That it is caused by their attachment to the clan system? What?
Neither have an extremist ideology committed to overthrowing the world system.
Do the Saudis have this? I can’t say I had noticed. Once again, I would point out the Pearl movie is set in Pakistan, formerly part of British India. It was in India under British rule that the Khilafat movement and the Deobandi school of Islam first emerged. It was in India under British rule that Abu al-Ala Maududi declared jihad to be “the sixth pillar of Islam” and founded Jamaat-i-Islami. Were all these people secretly Arabs?
The point is that the general feeling in the West is that the majority of the Arab world has at least some sympathy for the extremism and terrorism that we see coming out of that part of the world.
My point is that “general feeling” is not a sound basis for conclusions about what is going on in the Arab world. Can you find a survey of public opinion in the Arab world that bears this view out? The way that people in the Arab world view “extremism” is certainly different from the way people not in the Arab world view it. As I have said already, this is to do with ongoing political realities, not inchoate rage or self-pity.
It was Arab/Muslim extremists that carried out 9/11 and Muslim extremists that did the 7/7 attacks in London.
And the conclusions you draw from this are what? That there is something particularly screwed up about Arabs? Your second example doesn’t involve Arabs. It involves young British men of South Asian descent who attended training camps in … Pakistan.
Are you starting to see my point?
Please don’t try to generalise about the Arab world using Gaddafi as an example.
And my point, for those other than imjudy who might still be reading this exchange, is not that there is something inherently screwed up about Indian and Pakistani Muslims or their culture, either. It is that looking for “pathologies” in a particular culture is itself a misguided approach. Those who attempt to say the “pathology” lies in the common religion of the two cultural groups will be back to “confusing the two”, something imjudy has already warned us against.
And a big cause of this is the disfunction condition of the Arab states who can’t seem to deliver national economic development and whose leaders seem to think blaming the US and Israel for all their problems will get them off the hook
If this is an attempt to explain why young men resorted to terrorism in the attacks against Britain, Madrid, the United States and Bali, it is laughably inadequate and has more holes in it than a golf course. A brief examination of the life of Mohamed Atta or Ziad al-Jarrah would be enough to dispel this fog.