memri
August 23, 2006 Special Dispatch No. 1259

Traditionally Moderate Egyptian Intellectuals Reflect on the War in Lebanon: Support for Hizbullah, Criticism of U.S., Israel, & Arab Regimes

August 23, 2006
Egypt | Special Dispatch No. 1259

During the war in Lebanon, three prominent Egyptian intellectuals known for their reformist views expressed support for Hizbullah as well as fierce opposition to the positions of the U.S., Israel, and the Arab regimes.

The following are excerpts from articles by Dr. Sa'd Al-Din Ibrahim, the director of the Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies in Cairo; by Koran researcher Dr. Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd, who was forced to leave Egypt after receiving death threats; and by reformist Islamic thinker Gamal Al-Banna:

Dr. Sa'd Al-Din Ibrahim: Americans are Ugly, the Israelis are Even Uglier, and the Arab Leaders are the Ugliest

In an article titled "The Ugly American and Lebanon, Once Again," Dr. Sa'd Al-Din Ibrahim attacked the U.S.'s support of Israel and wrote that "the Israeli frenzy could not have continued for more than two weeks without direct American aid, and perhaps also its indirect encouragement." He related that while participating in a July 2006 London demonstration protesting the events in Lebanon, he had heard cries calling for "the downfall of the ugly American," and said that these cries took him back 24 years, to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in the summer of 1982. He said that as President Bush was doing today, President Reagan had supported Israel and given it economic, military, and diplomatic aid, with the goal of uprooting from Lebanon the resistance to Israel.[1]

In a follow-up article, Dr. Sa'd Al-Din Ibrahim explained his stand regarding the U.S.:

"The article I wrote last week… provoked many reactions, not just because of its content and of the difficult events that made me write it, but [also] because many of those who liked the article had not expected [such an article] from me personally, as they had believed all of the accusations that the Mubarak regime's newspapers and the tabloids of the [Security Service] Investigation Division had rained down on me, about my being an 'American agent' or a propagator of the Americans' policy and plans in the Middle East…

"First of all… None of those who believed the lies of the official media and the [Security Service] Investigation Division has ever read any book, study, or article of mine from which it would be possible to conclude, directly or indirectly, that I am a propagator of anything American – whether merchandise, policy, or any [American] invention. But they listened, or passed from one to the other, the cud that the official newspapers and the Investigations Division newspapers were chewing…

"Second… Many writers and speakers on satellite television have come to be possessed by the 'American demon,' and the see the 'American ghost' behind every tree and wall… They hold to the theory of the 'American conspiracy' concerning every problem that exists in Egypt, every disaster that befalls the Arab world, and every calamity that occurs in the Muslim countries, from Indonesia to Morocco. I am not among those whose specialty is [such attacks on the U.S.], and those who are addicted to them. I relate to the U.S. in the same way as do many intelligent and upright people of various nationalities and from every group and race.

"The U.S. is a [world] power, and it is the strongest [power] of the post-WWII period… Just like every other country, it has interests, as well as beliefs and values. When its interests are in keeping with its values, the U.S. is at its best (as in the terms of Wilson, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton). However, when its interests stand in opposition to its values, the U.S. prefers its interests, and then it is at its worst (as in the terms of Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush). This is true of the presidents, the government, and foreign policy. As for the American people, it, like the other peoples of the world, aspires to peace, justice, and liberty…

"In 1982, I first published in [the Egyptian government dailies] Al-Ahram and Al-Gumhuriya a series of articles on 'the ugly American.' Those articles provoked at the time many responses in Egypt and in the U.S., to the extent that President Mubarak, his advisor 'Osama Al-Baz, and the late foreign minister Kamal Hassan 'Ali asked me to desist, so as not to pose a threat to relations between Egypt and the U.S. Even one of the experts in attacks on the U.S. was surprised [at my articles], and wrote things in his newspaper Al-Ahali to the effect that he and leftists like himself were the only ones qualified to attack the U.S., and a beginning amateur like myself… had best not burst in onto their turf. The very same thing surprises the Nasserists, the Islamists, and the Marxists in 2006, after the article I wrote…

"The Israelis are ugly just like the Americans who conspired with them, encouraged them, and aided them in 1982. But the Israelis have become 'uglier,' since they repeated the same act 24 years later, in 2006. Over the course of this period, Israel has become a very large military power, very wealthy in its economy, very advanced in terms of technology, but less wise in terms of strategy. In this way, they are like an echo of the ugly American – but he lives dozens of miles distant from the Middle East… whereas the stupid Israeli is surrounded by [Arab] peoples… Every time his Arab neighbors give him an opportunity for [peaceful] coexistence, like Egyptian President Sadat and King Hussein of Jordan did, he wastes it through bloody adventures that ignite hostility towards it among its neighbors, and provokes hatred for its behavior throughout the world… It is as though the 'Israeli' provokes the entire world, and enjoys the killing and the destruction. He doesn't care that he becomes uglier in others' eyes, so long as he is accompanied by, and under the protection of, the 'ugly American'…

"Israel has forgotten, or has attempted to forget, that it was its military occupation of southern Lebanon in 1982 that created the resistance movement called Hizbullah, just like its occupation of Palestine created the Palestinian resistance, which has borne various names, from Fatah to Hamas and Jihad. Hizbullah fought this occupation since 1982, until it forced it to withdraw from 97% of Lebanese territory, [having not withdrawn] only from one small part called the Shab'a Farms… Hizbullah undertook to continue its armed resistance until every inch of the Shab'a Farms was liberated and until the release of all of the prisoners. Since Israel procrastinated on these two issues for six years, Hizbullah captured two Israeli soldiers, in order to trade them for its own prisoners who were still in Israeli prison. Israel saw this as an unjustified provocation and even as an opportunity to respond, to take revenge, and to get rid of Hizbullah. It even claimed that Syria and Iran incited Hizbullah to this action, and it began its all-out attack, not just on Hizbullah bases and fighters, but also on all of Lebanon…

"However, the surprise that embarrassed Israel and the U.S., but gladdened the Arabs, the Muslims, and the world, was Hizbullah's courageous resistance, which has lasted three weeks – up to the very moment this article is being written – against the strongest army in the Middle East, and has inflicted on it fatalities and losses that are unprecedented for it in any conflict with any Arab element…

"As the legendary Chinese leader Mao Zedong said: 'When popular resistance stands firm and does not surrender – it is the victor. When a regular army does not conquer and achieve its objective of destroying the enemy or forcing him to surrender – it is the loser.' Up to the moment this article is being written, and according to Mao Zedong's saying, Hizbullah is the victor and the Israeli army is the loser. This army does not learn; it just destroys, kills, and expels, and thus it is the uglier…"[2]

In a third article on the "ugliness" that he claimed was revealed by the war in Lebanon, Dr. Sa'd Al-Din Ibrahim states that the Arab leadership is even uglier than the U.S. and Israel. According to him, the current war between Israel and Hizbullah has demonstrated anew – in at least two instances – that Arab leaders are "the ugliest of all."

The first instance, he writes, was when "the collusion of several Arab countries with Israel, the U.S., and Britain" became known. "This collusion ranged from official silence – as though what is happening is not going on in an Arab state called Lebanon, but rather on Mars – … to condemnation of the victim. Accordingly, they used expressions like 'irresponsibility' in order to describe Hizbullah's action in which two Israeli soldiers were captured and eight others killed… meaning that Hizbullah had overstepped its bounds and entangled all of Lebanon – the government and the people – in a battle, without having taken into account the position of the Lebanese – this despite the fact that Hizbullah is represented in parliament and is a partner in the government. Even if this were indeed true, is that not a purely Lebanese matter?..."

The second instance in the course of the war in which, according to Dr. Sa'd Al-Din Ibrahim, the Arab leadership proved that it is "the ugliest" was when it attempted to isolate Hizbullah, claiming that its people are Shi'ites and thus are destined for hell. This argument was made in a statement by the mufti of Saudi Arabia, as well as in statements by preachers at mosques in Egypt who hold to the Wahhabi school of Islam. According to Dr. Ibrahim, "the introduction of sectarian dispute [into the issue] has to do with some of the Arab regimes' fear of the strengthening of Iranian influence in the region… In this context, the King of Jordan spoke [in the past] about the danger of what he called the 'Shi'ite Triangle' or the 'Shi'ite Crescent,' and the president of Egypt, Mubarak, did likewise when he said, in April, 2006, that the loyalty of Arab Shi'ites is given not to their countries, but to Iran. This statement, like the Saudi fatwa and the King of Jordan's statement, awakened strong dissatisfaction…

"Whatever the hubris and the barbaric use of force by the 'ugly American' and the 'uglier Israeli,' they at least act this way because, from their vantage point, it serves the national interests of their nations. The Arab rulers [on the other hand] are colluding against their Arab sister states, and they are not acting this way in order to serve the national interests of their countries, but rather in order to serve their own personal and familial interests. To this end, they are prepared to accommodate the demands of the American master and [to obey] his orders, even if the [demands and orders] are for the good of his spoiled daughter, Israel, and even if the price is the blood of thousands of Lebanese dead, injured, and refugees. Thus, in the eyes of their peoples, they are 'the ugliest of all'…"[3]

Gamal Al-Banna: The American Interest is to Destroy any Islamic Entity and to Establish a New Middle East

The Islamic thinker Gamal Al-Banna wrote that the war would indeed lead to the creation of a new Middle East, but it will be one entirely different from that which the U.S. envisioned:

"For the Arab states, the war that was forced on Lebanon is something akin to what the events of 9/11 were for the U.S.

"The first thing that attracted attention… and provoked shock was the intentional cruelty in [Israel's] conduct in the war, the singular objective of which is destruction and annihilation…

"The second thing that deeply affected the public was the U.S.'s position. Israel has repeated precedents of killing, destruction, humiliation, and inflicting agony, but the U.S. outdid it in this war. After it gave Israel the green light for the attack, the U.S. fought off every political or humanitarian effort that intended to lessen the tragedy or treat its humanitarian aspects, and encouraged Israel to continue its war under the pretext of wiping out the Islamic resistance in Lebanon… But Israel destroyed not the resistance, but rather beautiful Beirut and the liberty and culture that it symbolizes…

"Condoleezza Rice wanted this all-out destruction to continue for one or two weeks, until people went crazy and lived like they lived before the first industrial revolution, and until [Lebanese] society collapsed into chaos… out of which, and thanks to which, a new Middle East would arise.

"[American policy] showed that the U.S. has an interest in this war, and that it was it that caused its ally, Israel, to wage it in its name. The American interest is the destruction of any Islamic entity – Hamas in Israel and Hizbullah in Lebanon – in order to realize its old plan for the Middle East… The aim of this policy is to take advantage of the chaos and the deterioration that the war caused, in order for the U.S. to crush the forces of resistance and create a new Middle East.

"The third factor that deeply affected the public… was the stand of the ruling Arab regimes on the war, a stand characterized by stupidity and 'surrender,' and likewise their support for U.S. policy and the attribution to Lebanon of responsibility for the outbreak of the war.

"To these factors one should add the resistance's success in defeating the Israeli army in its first fight with it, [and the fact] that the resistance's missiles succeeded in inflicting punishing blows on the settlers [i.e. the Israelis], and made them taste something of what they are doing to the Palestinians. Likewise, [one should take into account] the courage, faith, and dedication that characterized [Hizbullah leader] Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of this resistance…

"These factors prepared the region for the appearance of a new Middle East, but in a form that the U.S. had not dreamt of, since it will be the opposite [of the U.S.' expectations], and will destroy the bridges on which the current Middle East is built and the alliances with the U.S…."[4]

Dr. Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd: The "Intelligent" Liberals are Afraid of Islam

Dr. Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd attacked those intellectuals whom he referred to ironically as "intelligent liberals" who wash their hands altogether of the resistance and support the stand of Israel and the U.S.: "One cannot continue to remain silent in the face of the discourse of the 'intelligent' liberals and their analysis of Israel's actions, which include destruction, murder, demolition, and the destroying of an entire society, whose name is Lebanon… These 'intelligent people' do not see, or rather do not want to see, anything other than 'the crime of Hizbullah', which [only] exercised its natural right to capture Israeli soldiers in order to trade them for Lebanese soldiers who have remained for a long time in Israeli prison…

"These same intelligent people were driven into a collective 'craze' when the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Jordan and in other Arab countries decided to become political parties and to take part in the 'democratic' game, in accordance with the existing rules, in the shadow of the emergency laws and the restrictions of liberties. The craze turned into a neurosis when the Muslim Brotherhood won 88 seats in [the Egyptian] parliament, despite the cheating, the fraud, and so on.

"In occupied Palestine, Hamas decided to join the ranks of the 'democrats,' and raked in the majority of the Palestinian vote. Once more, the curse of the 'neurotic craze' afflicted the intelligent liberals – for that is not what democracy is, that is not what it should be. The intelligent liberals in our countries want… 'democracy' that will bring them to power, without their having to take it upon themselves to descend to the level of the 'masses,' the 'rabble' – or, in more elegant terminology, 'the man on the street' – and without having to rub shoulders with him and to understand his situation…

"In the rational liberal discourse, which shakes off its [Arab] history and washes its hands of the disgrace of 'resistance' – any resistance – the U.S. and Israel are completely innocent. It is their right to protect their interests and their security, and it is their right to fight against the terrorism that threatens human civilization and brings nothing but destruction.

"As I am a rationalist and one of those who call for rationalism, and as I am also a liberal who has believed in freedom, democracy, and human rights since my earliest youth, I cannot remain silent in the face of this intentional falsification of the values of rationalism and liberalism. The most important characteristic of a rational and liberal intellectual is a sharp sense of criticism, which allows him to criticize himself and to reevaluate his own statements. Thus I am not opposed to true criticism of our history, our culture, and our situation, and I even think that such criticism is obligatory, essential, and vital in order to make progress. However, I am incapable of agreeing with the one-eyed criticism that inspects the facts with only one eye [and claims that] the error is always here, and the truth is always there. This is not criticism, but rather falsification, since it uncritically accepts someone else's ideology.

"Oh rational liberals… you who exercise an exaggerated sense of criticism towards the 'I' and look with total blindness on the other, it saddens me to announce that I am washing my hands of you and your positions. Resistance is not 'adventure', but rather the only existing option at the moment for our peoples, after the [true] face of the modern Arab nation has been exposed…

"You are against Hamas, against Hizbullah, and against the Muslim Brotherhood because of their religious ideology. You are afraid that their growing stronger will lead to the establishment of religious states, but you ignore the actual existence of a state that is not only religious, but also racist, since it is a state for Jews 'only.' In your neurotic fear of the Islamic religion within [the Arab countries], and with your surprising calm towards the politico-religious existence called Israel, you reveal that your liberalism and rationalism are not just phony; they are destructive rationalism. This is American rationalism, in which an idea is correct to the degree that it is useful.

"Sirs, you are afraid of 'Islam,' and not of political Islamism. You are not capable of understanding that the Islamist choice of the peoples is a choice of necessity, and not the choice of free people. The Palestinians voted for Hamas out of desperation [from the] Oslo [Accords], which died without anyone wanting to announce their death, and in an attempt to escape the financial, administrative, and political corruption of the PA…

"Was not the vote for the Muslim Brotherhood candidates in Egypt and in other Arab countries simply an attempt to escape the corruption in the political, economic, and social establishments? What other choice was there in Egypt?... The Muslim Brotherhood is an Egyptian political faction with whom a dialogue must be held… Nobody has a monopoly on the meaning of Islam, but the rational liberals assumed that it was the exclusive property of the Muslim Brotherhood. In order to fight against this meaning [of Islam], they are trying to eliminate the Muslim Brotherhood, and Islam itself, if possible…

"Hizbullah has never aimed weapons at any Lebanese or Arab, and throughout its history, the resistance has made efforts not to hurt Israeli civilians. This last war drove it to change this rational-ethical stance, since Israel is not fighting for the return of its prisoners, but rather is destroying an entire nation – a nation characterized by a pluralism of coexisting [ethnic and religious] groups, as opposed to the Zionist existence… Hizbullah's discourse in the current war is not in essence sectarian or religious, but is rather a discourse of national liberation, a rational discourse known as 'resistance'…"[5]

Endnotes:

[1] http://www.metransparent.com/texts/saad_eddin_ibrahim/saad_eddin_ibrahim_ugly_us_and_lebanon.htm, July 31, 2006.

[2] http://www.metransparent.com/texts/saad_eddin_ibrahim/saad_eddin_ibrahim_ugly_israel_and_lebanon.htm, August 3, 2006.

[3] http://www.metransparent.com/texts/saad_eddin_ibrahim/saad_eddin_ibrahim_ugly_arabs.htm, August 20, 2006.

[4] http://www.metransparent.com/texts/gamal_banna/gamal_al_banna_new_me.htm, August 3, 2006.

[5] Al-Masri Al-Yawm, (Egypt) August 17, 2006.

Share this Report: