A millennium of isolation

The late theologian Yunus Khalis

By Jamal Khashoggi, Saudi Arabia’s authoritative political analyst, author and kingpin of the impending Al Arab TV news channel, writing in Arabic today for the mass circulation newspaper al-Hayat

I sat on the floor opposite the late Mawlawi Yunus Khalis, God bless his soul, in a modest abode in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border area.

It was 1989 and I wanted to pick the Afghan theologian-cum-commander’s brains about democracy and elections.

It was the period when the Afghans and their allies in Islamabad and Riyadh were looking for the best way to seal the Afghans’ jihad with a glorious victory and a happy ending that would bring peace, harmony and prosperity to the people of Afghanistan after the Soviets’ defeat there.

Afghanistan’s political map was very simple.

It was based on power, money, arms, mobilization and special links to the region’s various intelligence services.

Since all these elements were readily available to all and sundry, each of the Afghan parties could claim the measures of supremacy and leadership.

The result was chronic discord among Afghan leaders interspersed with “plebeian” clashes and mysterious assassinations, which impeded the “happy ending” of the Afghan jihad.

Afghans lacked the culture of “elections.”

Prevailing were the old traditional tools of mass mobilization and clout on parochial, tribal, sectarian or ethnic grounds.

Once political Islam entered the scene, partisan ideology followed – until it also fragmented among the sides.

Someone suggested “elections” as a solution. The question was how? Who would oversee elections in an untested environment and a war-torn country?

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who proposed the elections, was himself a political party leader. He did not have everyone’s trust.

Being hungry for power, he did not hesitate taking “exceptional measures” – assassinations for instance – to settle his differences with others.

But there were more vital questions concerning elections and democracy, which is what I heard from Mawlawi Yunus Khalis when he criticized voting as the key instrument of democracy by saying: “How can you equate the ballot of the virtuous scholar with the ballot of the immoral evildoer?”

The question was akin to our surroundings. It belonged to a world of yore and had nothing to do with the present except for the two-wheeled Doshka heavy machinegun sitting on the roof, next to a relaxed turbaned fighter overlooking the valley.

On the valley’s opposite side, exhausted government soldiers were taking a breather from a decade-long war.

The Afghans never agreed an answer to the theologian-cum-commander’s question and did not opt for elections to settle their differences, keeping up their internecine strife until this day.

Yunus Khalis did not study at the Sorbonne or work in international organizations.

He was a religious scholar who studied at a Haqqania maddrassa (religious school), which formed most Taliban leaders.

The school offers simple and direct answers to modern-day problems revolving around two concepts of halal (lawful, based on the Quran) and haram (forbidden by Islamic law) with minimal diligence, reflection and insight.

The result was the Taliban’s failure and ceaseless conflicts in Afghanistan.

Going back to our Arab world, which is relatively more “advanced” than Afghanistan and where liberals and rights advocates have been championing democracy and human rights, we find that 30 months into what we dreamt up as the Arabs’ spring, democracy has hit rock bottom. The ruling elites are wary of it -- of its results rather -- and the marginalized forces have almost lost confidence in it.

But, as Winston Churchill once said, democracy is better than those other forms of government that have been tried. In the Arab republics, democracy is better than a military coup mounted by a “nationalist officer” keen to put his country on the right democratic path.

The “nationalist officer” will always resort to exceptional steps, having applied them in the first place -- by using force instead of the constitution -- to inaugurate his rule. Problem is exceptional steps always hinge on interest and politics. Decisions made outside the rule of law are justified as being “well-intentioned,” except that they open the door to new problems.

Moreover, the outcome of exceptional steps is neither assured nor predictable. The call for a demonstration in support of a step can produce calm, victory and empowerment. But it could also end in bloodletting that leaves an open wound in the nation and its people’s body.

Democracy could turn out the wrong president or a one-sided parliament. But democracy has inbuilt corrective mechanisms that can go as far as impeaching the president and disbanding parliament.

There’s always room for a “second chance” in a democracy. But the second chance under extraordinary measures depends on the whim of the “nationalist officer.” As an individual, the latter is apt to make right and wrong decisions and to be swayed by his entourage and circles.

The big question raised at the onset of the Arab Spring is decidedly apropos: Why did its high winds sweep the republics and caress the monarchies as a breeze?

The answer lies in the republics’ social contract, which states: “The people are the source of all powers.”

Fact is the people discovered that the “nationalist officer” is the source of all powers. The find infuriated them. They revolted at a historic moment and have yet to mollify.

Democracy takes pride of place in the social contract. But it was defaced and turned into a “décor” by regimes prior to the Arab Spring.

Today, Arab liberal and secular forces are disfiguring democracy beyond recognition after it worked in political Islam’s favor. They shelved their “revolutionary purity” and accepted to go along with rationed democracy.

Is political Islam the problem of democracy in the Arab world? Or is an authoritarian culture permeating Arab minds?

These are hypothetical questions that need not be raised or answered. Neither political Islam will disappear, nor will authoritarianism prevail again.

What is certain until further notice is that we will learn democracy the hard way – by trial and error and by bitter experiences that is.

Our masses will face off and we will test rationed democracy, exclusion and forgery pending an awakening liable to challenge all this and persist in the endeavor, assisted by the force of history.

These are the same aspiring forces that took to the streets in Tunisia, Yemen and Egypt two-and-a-half years ago despite their torment and frustrations.

Some came from political Islam, despite its tribulations and immaturity. Others came from “deep states” that refuse to give up and go away. And the rest were trying to find their way after a millennium of isolation.

After Sandy, a hurricane to slam the Arab world

Hurricane Sandy on October 25 (Wikipedia)

By Ghassan Charbel, editor-in-chief of al-Hayat daily, writing in Arabic

I watched in awe superstorm Sandy wreak havoc across the U.S. East Coast. I saw homes in ruin, flooded streets, cars floating downstream and boats stacked atop one another. TV screens kept everyone informed about Sandy’s powerful gusts and storm surges, the human and material losses it was causing and its likely impact on the impending Election Day.

Nature’s power can at times be so destructive and devastating as to wreck all Man’s endeavors and inventions and send them spinning.

But despite the killer-storm pounding New York and other places into submission, I felt envious. The Americans have a state, a president and a Congress to legislate and oversee the executive branch. They have fire brigades, civil defense authorities and a president to declare “major disaster” areas, where the number of deaths is nowhere near the daily quota of massacre and suicide fatalities in our cheerful capitals.

A guilty conscience nagged at me for focusing on a distant hurricane. So I switched back to TV channels focusing on Damascus, Maarat al-Nouman, Beirut, Baghdad, Sana’a and other such “disaster” cities.

Watching the news leads me to believe a megastorm is moving to the Middle East, where it could change long-established maps and sweep regimes and countries, precipitating rivers of blood in the process. The gusts of wind and rain gathering ahead of the hurricane’s landfall are the following:

1.   The Israel-Iran war did not break out yet, but we’ve seen some of its preambles; the assassination of scientists; the targeting of tourists; the bombing of Iranian weapon and ammunition depots in Sudan; and the sending from Lebanon of an Iranian-built drone to fly over Israel. The drone’s mission shows Iran at Israel’s doorstep via Hezbollah. It also confirms South Lebanon will flare up on the outbreak, or eve, of the war. It’s difficult to imagine the United States staying out of the fray, if only because Iran’s expected retaliation will necessarily undermine American interests in the region.

2.     It’s not difficult, however, to imagine the explosive nature of the ongoing conflict in Syria. The Iranian regime cannot tolerate concomitant defeats on her Syrian and nuclear fronts. Iran will most probably play all her cards to protect her Syria outgrowth and nuclear ambitions. This war will be more dangerous than the Iraq War for many reasons, given the looming war’s multiple theaters.

3.   The worsening of Sunnite-Shiite relations is unprecedented. A look at the situations in Iraq, Lebanon, Bahrain and other places will suffice. Bloody flashpoints are sprouting across borders.

4.     Despite the “spring” nature of the early stages of the uprising in Syria, the blood-soaked conflict there cannot be dissociated today from the crisis among Syria’s constituent elements or the fate of Iran’s nuclear program or the Sunnite-Shiite estrangement.

5.   The fact international borders are no more sacrosanct is noteworthy. Whenever turmoil besets a country, it becomes a magnet for roving fighters who proceed to impose their ways, colors and slogans on events, creating unsightly scenes incompatible with “spring.” At the same time, masses that overthrew despotic rulers are disappointed to see the new powers that be sailing to the past, not the future. Add to these masses’ disenchantment the growing despair from the international community’s empty rhetoric of a two-state solution.

Everything suggests the hurricane is approaching. The Arabs are the more vulnerable side in the region. That’s why they are in the eye of the megastorm. The settling of Iranian-Turkish accounts on Syrian soil is evident. Iraq has clearly failed to mend its national unity. Lebanon is insisting on defying the monster storm. Jordan is frantically fumbling around its borders.

Poor hurricane Sandy – it barreled a U.S. region and left. It might still look like a breeze compared to the hurricane about to pummel our lands in the absence of safety valves. It is no exaggeration to say the Arabs can expect to be hit by a hurricane. They are already in its clutches. 

When Beirut’s old Bliss Street epitomized the Arab world

The late Nadia Tueni

Each street in Beirut has a story to put across and the older the street the more stories it can pass on.

Beirut was best described in a poem written in French by Nadia Tueni (1935-1983).

Born to a Lebanese father and a French mother, she was the 1973 Académie Française poet laureate. Lines I paraphrased from Tueini’s poem titled “Beyrouth”:

… In Beirut, each idea lodges in a house

In Beirut, thoughts and caravans are disgorged…

Whether she is a nun, a witch

Or both…

Whether adored or cursed…

Whether soaked in blood or holy water

Whether she’s guiltless or murderous

Phoenician, Arab or a touring car…

Beirut is the Orient’s last sanctuary

Where Man can always don the color of light

No place in Beirut is a greater repository of “thoughts and caravans” than Bliss Street of old. Its nerve center was the modest Faisal Restaurant. The now-defunct eatery was indeed the “last sanctuary” for the pan-Arab intelligentsia.

The street is named after Dr. Daniel Bliss, the American missionary who founded the American University of Beirut in 1866. It runs in a straight line for hardly a kilometer along one side of the AUB campus. It starts at the university’s Medical Gate, goes past its Main Gate and ends at Ras el-Khatt, or “end of the (tramway) line.” But the tramline connecting Furn el-Shebbak to Manara at the tail end of Bliss was discontinued in 1963.

The Bliss Street marker for nearly 50 years was Faisal Restaurant. Its fame peaked between 1950 and 1970, when it became the unbound melting pot for the cream of Lebanese and Arab society. Students, activists, scholars, intellectuals and politicians all met unhindered at Faisal’s (frequently in my presence and involvement) to debate cataclysmic events swamping the Arab world. Among them:

• Fallouts of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and exodus of 750,000 Palestinian refugees to neighboring Arab states;
• Assassination of Jordan’s King Abdallah (1951);
• Death of Saudi Arabia’s King Abdelaziz Al Saud (1953), ouster of King Saud (1964) and his replacement by King Faisal;
• Accession to independence of Libya, Oman, Sudan, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Kuwait and South Yemen;
• Military coups in Syria (1949 through 1970), Egypt (1952), Sudan (1958, 1964, 1969), Iraq (1958), Yemen (1962), Algeria (1965) and Libya (1969);
• Rise of Egypt’s Gamal Abdel-Nasser (1952) and his death (1970);
• Nationalization of the Suez Canal (1956) followed by the Suez Campaign;
• Algeria’s War of Independence (1954-1962 );
• Revolt in Lebanon and US Marines’ deployment in Beirut (1958)
• Birth and later (1961) collapse of the merger between Syria and Egypt in the United Arab Republic;
• The Arabs’ loss of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), Gaza, Sinai and the Golan Heights to Israel in the 1967 war;
• Birth of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in 1960 and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) four years later;
• Egypt's military adventure in Yemen;
• Election of Yasser Arafat as PLO chairman (1969) and “Black September” (1970) in Jordan;
• “War of Attrition” (1968-1970) between Egypt and Israel along the Suez Canal;
• Sequels of the 1955 “Baghdad Pact,” the 1957 “Eisenhower Doctrine” and the 1970 “Rogers Plan.”

It is claimed that if someone asked for directions to the Main Gate, the answer came, “Facing Faisal’s.” Another legend suggests that when Gamal Abdel-Nasser in his heyday wanted to gauge the Arab street mood, he would ask to be briefed on the atmosphere at Faisal’s.

Throughout the Fifties and Sixties, center stage at Faisal’s belonged to the soft-spoken Monah el-Solh, Lebanon and the Arab world’s tireless éminence grise.

The late Nabil Khoury

No writer captured Faisal’s relevance to the Arab world better than Nabil Khoury (1929-2002). He was the brilliant journalist, communicator, essayist and author next door. In the midfifties, he and his wife Marcelle rented a flat right above ours in the Faddoul Building close to the Commodore Hotel in Ras Beirut. I was still at university then, but he was already working his way up to become head of programming at Radio Lebanon. He set up and edited a women’s magazine, al-Hasna’, and served as editor in chief of Lebanon’s leading political weekly, al-Hawadeth, before moving out to Paris. In 1977, he launched from Paris a prestigious pan-Arab magazine, al-Mustaqbal. I saw him last when I visited his plush Paris offices around that time.

Shortly after the Lebanon civil war brought down the curtain on Faisal’s in end-June 1978, Nabil Khoury wrote a succinct commentary of fewer than 200 words. It read more like an obituary of the Arab world than a graveside eulogy of the restaurant.

My translation from Arabic of Khoury’s piece titled “Faisal Restaurant”:

Freedom of Speech was the favorite food at Faisal’s…

Reading a book was immaterial. More important was to hear what was said about it at Faisal’s…

No one was judged an author or journalist before being recognized as such by Faisal’s inner circle. It was easier to win a degree from AUB across the street…

You entered Faisal’s as a student, spending your first years as a listener before you were allowed to join the dialogue

Dialogue in the morning…

Dialogue at noontime…

Dialogue in the evening…

All the paradoxes of the Arab world, all its [political] parties and their ideologies, and all its VIPs… used to hang violence [in the cloakroom] alongside their coats before entering the civility of dialogue

You met a hundred people in Arab capitals who would tell you, “I know you from school or university”…

You met a thousand who would say, “ We know you from Faisal’s”…

It was the Arab world’s biggest [political] party…

It was the Arab unity that foundered…

It was the pan-Arab parliament… that is now on its deathbed

It was the unborn Arab democracy

It was the backbone of a nation stretching from the [Atlantic] Ocean to the [Arabian] Gulf -- a place where the revolutionary rested and the big shot dropped a size

So long as you were outside [Faisal’s] you dreaded speaking, but once inside… you were secure

It’s the Arab world that slipped away with no one present to bid it farewell…

No one hurled a funeral flower at its internment because most were either faraway or exiled…!

But tens of thousands mourned it with tears

It was the last bridge, the bridge of no return.

Tewfik Saadeh founded Faisal’s around 1919. He was a native of Ain Saadeh, a village in Lebanon’s Metn district.  The name "Ain Saadeh" refers to the town's natural spring and means "Spring of Happiness." On his death, ownership of the restaurant passed to his son Farid.

The night of Gen. Fuad Chehab’s election as president of Lebanon on 31 July 1958, ending by it the 1958 uprising, Farid invited me for a drink in Brummana. On the way back to Beirut in his car, we were stopped at a militia barrier near Sinn el-Feel and asked for our IDs. The militiaman who checked Farid’s ID told him, “You can go.” The one who checked mine told me, “You’re under arrest.” An exchange between the pair then went like this:

-- “Why are you arresting the passenger? The driver (Farid) is Christian and from Ain Saadeh.”

-- “This one here is Moslem and from Mazraa and you want me to let him go?”

-- “We leave together or stay together,” Farid told the men manning the barrier. A typical Lebanese compromise was reached: we would be escorted together under arms and placed under house arrest at the nearby home of Farid’s widowed mother. After 18 hours there, the Lebanese army took over and dismantled militia barriers throughout the country. We were free to go.

Farid married and settled late in life after living for several years in a first floor flat almost above Faisal’s. He was a charming bon viveur. He liked his liquor, enjoyed card games (Bido, Poker and Quatorze), appreciated sports cars (he drove a stunning 1955 Ford Thunderbird convertible) and loved Spanish women, which is why he was so fluent in Spanish. Funding that lifestyle drove him to sell part of Faisal’s title to George Baroody, who steadied his hand. The latter also took over the day-to-day management of the restaurant with help from his brother Elias Baroody and a quasi-accountant, Emile Shu’aib.

Faisal’s four lasting waiters were an ageing Michel, a burly Ameen, a wily Nayef and an amusing Anwar. They were the AUBites’ friends, consultants, food advisors, and small moneylenders on occasion.

One sidesplitting story about Anwar: He was serving three regulars sitting around a table for four. All asked for Turkish coffee. One wanted it “sweet,” the other “medium” and the third “without sugar.” Anwar disappeared for a few minutes and came back with three cups and one cezve (ركوة). He served the student who wanted coffee “without sugar” first. He then shook the cezve gently and served the “medium” before giving the cezve a good shake and serving the “sweet.” He explained later that he did not stir the sugar at all when preparing the coffee. He thought it was easier to let the sugar settle at the bottom of the cezve and control the degree of sweetness with a shake.

(More faces and places on the old Bliss Street in the next post) 

Putin’s take on the Syria crisis

President Vladimir Putin (right) and RT anchorman Kevin Owen

Russian President Vladimir Putin yesterday gave his first post-inauguration interview to Russia Today (RT) TV Channel.

He spoke in depth with RT anchorman Kevin Owen ahead of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Vladivostok.

The whirlwind interview covered military, political, economic and social issues of domestic and international concerns. They ranged from Barak Obama and Mitt Romney, to U.S. plans for a missile defense system in Europe and the global economy, to corruption and drugs, to Pussy Riots and group sex.

You can read the full English transcript of President Putin’s wide-ranging interview with RT by pressing here.

But here is what he said about the different aspects of the Syria crisis:

KEVIN OWEN: Ok, thanks for explaining that. We're going to come back to APEC a little bit later if we may, but you touched on another big subject in headlines, the horrendous events that have been unfolding in Syria over the last 18 months now. Russia' position has been steadfast all the way along the line. Here you've said there should be no foreign intervention and it should be the Syrian people who do the deciding and it should be done through diplomacy. However, that's a great idea, but day in day out innocent lives are being lost on both sides. Is it time for something more than talking? Should Russia be reassessing its position maybe now?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: How come Russia is the only one who’s expected to revise its stance? Don’t you think our counterparts in negotiations ought to revise theirs as well? Because if we look back at the events in the past few years, we’ll see that quite a few initiatives of our counterparts have not played out the way they were intended to.

Take the examples of the numerous countries ridden with escalating internal conflicts. The US and then its allies went into Afghanistan, and now they’re all looking forward to getting out of there. If there’s anything on the table, it’s the issue of assisting them in withdrawing their troops and hardware from Afghanistan through our transit routes.

Now, are you sure that country has been stabilized for decades to come? So far, no one is confident about it.

And look at what’s going on in Arab countries. There have been notable developments in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Yemen. Would you say that order and prosperity have been totally ensured for these nations? And what’s going on in Iraq?

In Libya, there are in fact armed clashes still raging among the country’s various tribes. I won’t even mention the way the country had its regime changed: this is a separate topic. What concerns us, and I want to emphasize this once again, is the current hostilities in Syria. But at the same time, we are just as concerned about the possible consequences of certain decisions, should they be taken.

In our opinion, the most important task today is ending the violence. We must urge all the warring parties, including the government and the so-called rebels, the armed opposition, to sit down at the negotiating table and decide on a future that would guarantee security for all of the stakeholders within Syria. Only then should they get down to any practical measures regarding the country’s future system of governance. We realize that this country needs a change, but this doesn’t mean that change should come with bloodshed.

KEVIN OWEN: OK, well, given the facts regarding Syria that you see on the table now, what is the next step? What do you realistically think is going to happen next?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: We told our partners we would like to sit down together at the negotiating table in Geneva. And when we did, together we charted a roadmap for further action that would help bring peace to Syria and channel the developments into a more constructive path. We received almost unanimous support and shared the results of the talks with the Syrian government. But then the rebels actually refused to recognize those decisions; and many of the negotiating parties have also quietly backed down.

I believe that the first thing to do is to finally stop shipping arms into the warzone. We should stop trying to impose unacceptable solutions on either side, because it is a dead-end. That’s what we should do. It is that simple.

Luckily, we generally enjoy friendly relations with the Arab world, but we would like to stay away from sectarian conflicts in Islam, or interfere in a showdown involving the Sunnites, the Shiites, the Alawites and so on. We treat everyone with equal respect. We also get on well with Saudi Arabia and other countries; I have cultivated a warm personal relationship with the guardian of two Islamic shrines. The only underlying motive behind our stance is the desire to create a favorable environment for the situation to develop positively in years to come.

KEVIN OWEN: What are your thoughts about the United Nations and the way the United Nations has reacted particularly in Syria. There's been criticism that it's failed to deliver a unified front if you like and has become more of a figurehead organization. Do you share that view?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Quite the contrary, I would say. My take on the issue is the absolute opposite of what you have just said. If the United Nations and the Security Council had indeed turned into a mere rubberstamping tool for any one of the member states, it would have ceased to exist, just like the League of Nations has. But the reality is that the Security Council and the UN are meant to be a tool for compromise. Seeking to achieve it is a long and complex process, but only this hard and tedious work can yield us fruit.

KEVIN OWEN: Understood. Mr. President, another question I'd like to ask you - a number of Western and Arab nations have been covertly ... with supporting the FSA, the Free Syrian Army - indeed, some of them are doing it openly now. Of course the catch here is that the FSA is suspected of hiring known Al-Qaeda fighters amongst their ranks. So the twist in this tale is that a lot of those countries are actually sponsoring terrorism, if you like, in Syria, countries that have suffered from terrible terrorism themselves. Is that a fair assessment?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, whenever someone aspires to attain a much-desired end, any means will do. As a rule, they will try and do that by hook or by crook – and hardly ever think of the consequences that will follow. That was the case during the Afghan war after the Soviet Union in 1979 sent its troops to Afghanistan. At that time, our current partners supported a rebel movement there and basically gave rise to Al Qaeda, a United States pet project that later targeted its creator.

Today some people want to use militants from Al Qaeda or some other organizations with equally radical views to accomplish their goals in Syria. This policy is dangerous and very shortsighted. But in that case, one should unlock Guantanamo, arm all of its inmates and bring them to Syria to do the fighting – it's practically the same kind of people. But bear in mind that one day these people will get back at their patrons and eventually end up in a new prison, one that will very much resemble the camp off the Cuban shore. I would like to emphasize that this policy is very shortsighted and is fraught with dire consequences.

KEVIN OWEN: I'd like to broaden that a little bit now, a little bit wider from Syria. You touched upon Syria. Syria is in the middle of a civil war, we're seeing conflicts in Bahrain and in Saudi Arabia. Ok, things are a bit calmer in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia -- you mentioned it just now. But standing back from it overall, all the troubles that we've seen in the Middle East, all the turmoil there - has it been at all for the good or for the bad, where does it put that region now?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, we can discuss this into the small hours and still run out of time. For me, it’s a clear fact that these events are historically logical and follow from these states’ development. The leaders of these countries have obviously overlooked the need for change and missed the ongoing trends at home and abroad, so they failed to produce the reforms which would have saved the day in due time. All these events simply logically stem from this background. Whether this is a blessing or a curse with many negative implications, is now too early to say.

In any case, the lack of a civilized approach, the high level of violence has so far stood in the way of building any sustainable political structures, which would help solve economic and social problems in societies hit by those events. This is what causes a lot of concern over the future situation, because the people in these countries, who have had enough of their previous regimes, clearly expect the new governments to begin with tackling their social and economic problems in a competent way. But with no political stability, these problems cannot be solved.

Nothing bright in Syria or the Arab world

Destruction in Homs (Photos from bbc.co.uk)

Two of my favorite Arab columnists reflect today on the Syria war and the pan-Arab notion of time.

The two themes, by Samir Atallah and Imad Adeeb writing separately for Saudi daily Asharq Alawsat, are disparate but somehow in parallel.

Judge for yourself.

Samir Atallah writing:

Historians agree the Twentieth Century was humanity’s deadliest: 178 million people killed in its open and collateral wars, two World Wars and one Cold War that is still carrying on in other ways.

Historians have yet to disclose the number of fatalities in the Arab century that kicked off with the 1914 global war before going through 1948, 1967, 1973, and the scores of border, bilateral and civil wars in-between.

But the current Syria war is the most layered, both regionally and internationally, since the Ottoman Empire’s collapse and the resulting reconfiguration of the region’s map as per the Sykes-Picot Agreement.

Arab activists used the names of Mark Sykes and François Georges-Picot to justify their eradication of all forms of development, freedom and progress. While Arabs were inflicting oppression and humiliation on themselves, the world was during the same period making its way from slavery to dignity.

In any case, none of the previous wars had as many contradicting and overlapping factors as the Syria war with

Iran playing a key role for the first time since the Persians retreated to the boundaries of modern-day Iran

Turkey playing a crucial military, political and kismet-determining role since the closure of Turkish schools in Tripoli, Beirut and Damascus, and

Russia playing her most vital role since waking up one morning to hear an Egyptian former lieutenant (Anwar Sadat) ordering the army that won World War II to leave because “the Americans hold 99 percent of the cards.” Until this very day, no one knows exactly why (Sadat) withheld the remaining one percent.

There are political roles (in Syria) for America, Europe, Russia, China and Iran and a number of variants of a military role for each.

For the first time since World War I, there is also a confessional and sectarian flavor to the war.

For the first time since World War II, there is serious talk of partition as well.

And, for the first time since Sykes-Picot in 1916, there is a feeling that the map of Sykes and Picot could be reconfigured.

In the meantime, no one is counting casualties of the Arab century’s wars since Arabs don’t usually figure in life-and-death statistics. Remember the famous words of (one-time Syrian president) Amin al-Hafez, “Our women are fertile and give birth,” when he could have said instead, “Our schools are first-class, our laboratories are top-level and our plants are up and running.”

The war that started “in” Syria is now “on” Syria. It might not be the last of the Arab century’s wars or its high point. It has not yet reached 75,000 fatalities as in Libya or a quarter of a million as in Algeria or Lebanon. But it certainly stands out as having the greatest ramifications and implications.

The headline on Alalam New Network (broadcasting from Iran) spoke of “the Syrian army making advances in Aleppo.” It could have been a slip of the tongue at this juncture, when people forget that Aleppo is a Syrian city and the advancing army is Syrian as well.

Imad Adeeb writing:

I think we are a nation whose sense of time is weak or almost non-existent.

We don’t respect the “culture of time” either individually or as a nation. We don’t recognize that we are in a race against time to get things done and achieve our hopes, aspirations and dreams.

Palestine was partitioned and Israel declared in 1948. Jerusalem was lost in 1967. And we put forward an Arab peace initiative 23 years after the late president Anwar Sadat visited Israel.

We lost Andalusia after 800 years of Islamic rule. We remained under Ottoman tutelage more than 120 years. Britain’s occupation of Egypt lasted 70 years while France’s occupation of Algeria extended more than 100 years and cost its people in excess of one million martyrs.

We’ve been waiting for Israel’s response to the Arab peace initiative for not less than 12 years on grounds of “giving it time to think.” The Palestinian Authority accepted half of what it turned down half a century ago without getting any nearer to a genuine peace.

Arab despots stayed in office for periods beyond 40 years – ample time to ossify their regimes.

We still talk about resurrecting the Hejaz Railway project, ponder a common Arab currency, consider a Saudi-Egypt causeway and mull over inter-Arab visa requirements.

We have yet to activate the 1950 joint Arab defense pact.

It’s as if there is a “time zone difference” between world civilization and us, or as though our time clock stopped a long time ago.

Japan and Egypt were in the same economic situation after World War II. So were South Korea and Morocco in the early 1970s. While economic models succeeded in places like Turkey, Malaysia, Brazil, Indonesia, South Korea and Ghana, Arab development plans fell flat.

Look how East European countries like Hungary, Slovenia, Poland and Croatia were able, after the Soviet Union’s collapse, to introduce political and economic reforms and succeed within 15-20 years in achieving impressive rates of economic growth.

The Arab psyche needs to exit the “recovery room” and realize that time is the most valuable commodity in today’s world.

We love history, but don’t appreciate the value of time.