قمة كوبنهاغن و التغير المناخي : بداية عصر الاستعمار البيئي - كارل شرو

يحوز التغير المناخي على الكثير من النقاش في بلدان الغرب و يمكن الجزم بأنه يمثل قضية العصر من غير منازع. يمكن مثلا النظر إلى حجم التغطية الإعلامية التي تحظى بها قمة كوبنهاغن المنعقدة حاليا في العاصمة الدانمركية بإشراف الأمم المتحدة لمكافحة التأثيرات المتوقعة للتغيير المناخي التي ارتفعت وتيرتها بشكل محموم. قامت وسائل الإعلام الغربية بالتمهيد لهذه القمة ووصفتها بأنها الفرصة الأخيرة لإنقاذ البشرية من مفاعيل التغير المناخي ثم رفعت مستوى تغطيتها خلال الأيام الأخيرة بشكل منقطع النظير. في المقابل، لم تبد وسائل الإعلام العربية نفس القدر من الاهتمام بقمة كوبنهاغن، ما عدا مقالات منفردة هنا و هناك. واللافت في التغطية الإعلامية العربية أنها تظهر بعيدة عن مغالاة الإعلام الغربي وتبدو كأنها بعيدة إلى حد ما عن قضية المناخ. لا حرج في ذلك، فقضية التغير المناخي قضية مستوردة كما أساليب تغطيتها ولغة الكتابة عنها التي تعاني اثأر التعريب الفج. غير إن الابتعاد عن هذه القضية ترف لا يمكن للصحافة العربية أن تتجاهله مطولا، ليس من باب مجاراة الهرع الغربي و هستيريا نهاية العالم التي تجتاحه بل تصديا لمفاعيل هذه القمة و سياسة المناخ عموما التي سيكون لها تأثيرات سيئة على اقتصادات الدول العربية لو بقي العرب في موقع المتفرجين في موضوع التغير المناخي. ائمل آن يكون هذا المقال بداية نقاش عقلاني لموضوع المناخ يبتعد عن الانغلاق الذي يعانيه هذا النقاش في الغرب و يفتح باب التصدي لما سأجادل بأنه مشروع استعمار بيئي ستنتجه قمة كوبنهاغن إذا نجحت بترسيخ مفاهيم التقشف التي يروج لها ألان

The Return of Primitivism in Architecture or Godzilla's Furball: MOS and P.S.1 Afterparty

The winners of this year's MoMA and P.S.1's Young Architects Program, MOS, titled their project 'Afetrparty'; 'Wake' would have been a far better description. The deceased is Modern architecture and all that it ever represented: ambition, experimentation, industrial techniques, and rationality. 'Afterparty' is the antithesis of all those concepts: random, reactionary, patronising and furry. P.S.1 had paved the way for this abomination with last year's winning entry 'Public Farm' by WORK architecture company, an exercise in autarky wrapped in a text whose level of naivety is hardly matched outside a Miss America contest. The trend can only intensify in the coming years, although it is hard to imagine anything more dreadfully reactionary than 'Afterparty'.

According to the New York Times the project is 'a mix of what could be described as cones, domes, smokestacks, primitive huts, towers or industrial chimneys.' Primitive hut would have done: the project's main distinguishing feature is its primitivism that, like biodynamic agriculture, represents a yearning for pre-modernity masquerading as radicalism. The project is so imprecise and accidental formally and organisationally that it is completely open for interpretation: this is the Rorschach Test of architecture, a three-dimensional accident of shapes or a giant furball thrown up by Godzilla after a night of rampage in a hippie market.

Michael Meredith of MOS said the structures were meant to evoke the fading factory vernacular of the P.S. 1 area in Long Island City. “We’re interested in building typologies,” he said. They must have tried very hard to resist showing this interest in 'Afterparty'. Rather than evoking the 'factory vernacular' the project is symptomatic of America's ending love affair with industrialisation. For the second time in the space of a few decades America is losing nerve and turning to imported ideas from Europe for inspiration, the Green assault has truly began in the US. Three years ago it would have been really hard to find advocates of sustainability outside Hippie communities in Nevada, now architects are competing really hard to learn the New Speak of the environmentalist dogma.

The connection between declining production and the recession has still not been grasped in America, so it's not strange to see MOS trying to pass off their cheap knock-off of a primitive village as a thoughtful response to the economic situation. There is still talk of an 'economic party' and an 'economic hangover', isn't it fun how eco-geeks always try to use words like party and hangover to pretend that they are cool? It still hasn't dawned on American intellectuals that financial hyper-activity is not equivalent to productive economic activity, never mind they are still willing to throw the baby out with the bath water, let them eat biscuits. The result in architecture? MOS's masterpiece, a monument to garage sales and Sunday markets across the land, where the fetishistic value of recycled materials is elevated above real innovation in architecture.

The architects are obviously free to present whatever design they come up with, the real blame falls on P.S.1 and MoMA for encouraging and supporting this trend towards reactionary architecture and celebrating it as good architecture. This is not a one-off, it's a trend that started with last year's project and is bound to continue as long as architects will continue to pursue this obsessive form of self-harm that is passed off as 'environmental responsibility'. Solving challenging economic and environmental problems requires innovative thinking and advanced technologies, not the escape from modernity that is represented by projects like 'Afterparty'. Let's interrupt this assault on Modernity before it escalates into a full return to primitivism.

As Mad as Madoff: The Mystification of Money

The curious case of Bernard Madoff has become a symbol for the moral lessons that people are trying to draw out of the recession, in fact it only reveals how esoteric the discussion about the economy has become. We've heard very little so far about the structural reasons behind the recession, but we've been flooded by an outpouring of moralistic 'observations' about greed and excess that are apparently behind the economic decline. The case of Madoff is being used to illustrate all the ills of unrestrained capitalism that put us in this position. All that it reveals in fact is how money has now acquired a mystical status that is divorced from any real economic analysis.

The case of Madoff does expose some of the failures of capitalism, but they have nothing to do with the popular and media perception of what the real problems are. The investors who lost their savings with Madoff, and bare in mind that many of those were large international institutions and banks and not only individual investors, revealed how little they knew about what their money was actually invested in. For conservative banks like HSBC to lose money with Madoff it must mean that all their 'safety checks' had some how failed. But this is not a result of malicious intent or unnecessary risk-taking, although it illustrates how the relationship between actual productive enterprise and generating value has been seriously compromised.

The investors with Madoff were looking for magic, somehow they convinced themselves that it is possible to generate serious returns on their investment through Madoff's talents. There is a serious abdication of responsibility here but more importantly an indication of a symptomatic problem: the correlation between productive economic activity and making money has been suspended in the minds of many to detrimental effect. Of course it is unfair to single out investors with Madoff when Western governments had been promoting this folly for many years now. Somehow, the Gordon Browns of the world had managed to convince themselves that in the 'New Economy' value could be generated through an economy that is disproportionately dependant on services and finance in particular.

When the media interviews Madoff's 'victims' they always reveal a common attitude that drew them to Madoff in the first place. They had been looking for the 'holy grail' of investments and Madoff's clever ploys convinced them that he possessed it. The aura of respectability and exclusivity must have enhanced Maddof's appeal, but the real problem is that those investors were already in the position of looking for this type of investment. To mistake that for greed would miss the point, who wouldn't like to make easy and lucrative returns on their money after all?

There is a much deeper problem that could explain not only Madoff's case but some of the wider problems in the economy: the mystification of money. Ponzi schemes are not a new thing, and people have always looked for magical returns on their investments. But for a Ponzi scheme to trick some of the largest institutions in the world and a multitude of regulators, there must be a deeper problem at work. The symptoms of mystification of money were already apparent after the dot com bubble burst at the end of the 90s, but very few people understood that problem in its proper context. The correlation between productive economic activity and generating value had been so severely eroded and compromised that the whole episode was treated as a passing problem instead of a symptom of a deeper crisis within Western economies.

It's not an exaggeration to say that the delusion still persists today. Many people are pinning their hopes on the recovery of the stock markets as if the market along can stand in for the wider economy. Stock markets are good indicators of the health of certain companies and sectors under normal conditions, but their value has been completely exaggerated and divorced from an understanding of other economic indicators and the productivity of the economy as a whole. Central banks and governments have reinforced these misleading trends with their over-reliance on monetary and financial measures to stimulate the economy, starting with the fiddling with interest rates through to bail-outs.

The lessons that should be learned from the Madoff affair is that money should be demystified, and the esoteric discussion about greed needs to be replaced with a discussion about the structural reasons for economic recession. Moral parables will not provide the adequate framework for understanding the real problems, only a cold analysis of the state of capitalism today could offer a solution.

Michael Jackson: Eccentricity is not a crime

So Jacko's gone, and the eulogies begin. The media that has for so long fed off the 'king of pop' and his tumultuous life are now trying to milk one more story out of Michael Jackson. The BBC was quick to shift into tabloid mode, interviewing anyone that has ever caught a whiff of Michael Jackson or even saw his reflection in a water puddle. Even Gordon Brown, ever eager to shelter in other people's glow, has come up with one of his pathetic statements lamenting the loss of the mega-star that was Michael Jackson. Shameful stuff, it's time to leave the man along and let his family deal with what is after all a private tragedy.

There is one important lesson to be drawn our of Michael's bizarre life: eccentricity is not a crime. The media, shallow, populist and superficial, doggedly hounded Michael Jackson throughout his life, but sank to miserable lows when the allegations of abuse against him became public. In the most despicable example of trial by media, journalists used Michael's eccentricity to prove his guilt time after time, but they were ultimately defeated by the decision of a jury of his peers to clear him the last time around. God bless America and the right to trial by jury, not by a media that has forgotten a long time ago what the pursuit of truth means.

Michael Jackson took eccentricity to new levels, and he was certainly conscious of public attention. Yet, there is a difference between being eccentric and breaking the law. Michael's eccentricity was gloriously audacious, he treated his body as a moldable entity shunning decaying flesh for the sake of plastic longevity. That is part of his appeal, with each re-invention a new Michael emerged, the ultimate fulfillment of the desires of a ravenous fan-base. Bare in mind that Michael Jackson managed to survive decades in the music business, whereas many of his contemporaries dropped off the scene a long time ago. He did not live long enough to have yet another come back, but no doubt it would have been equally amazing for his fans.

Michael's eccentricity was part of his appeal, and the media savagely turned that against him but the public stood by him. Now as the fake tears and the insincere eulogies start, let us remember that the most important thing to take out of Michael's life is that eccentricity is not a crime.

Has the Counter-Revolution started in Iran?

Let me begin with a salute to the Iranian people who have shown great courage against the Iranian regime's thugs and have managed so far to out-smart the Mullah brigades and continue their display of popular anger and discontent. This is no mean feat, Ahmadenejad's supporters will go to extreme lengths to suppress this budding uprising, and the protesters can only fight back with courage and determination. They genuinely deserve our support and solidarity.

As the world watches the escalating situation in Tehran with anticipation, many are speculating that this could be the end of the road for the Islamic Revolution in Iran. Only the Iranian people can determine the outcome of this struggle, and their will can certainly overcome the Basiji and the Revolutionary Guard. But let's put this in perspective, this is not an outright challenge to the system itself but a manifestation of the friction between the competing factions that have existed within the ranks of the rulers of the Islamic Republic since its foundation. Mir Hossein Mousavi, the candidate whom the demonstrators believe should have won the elections, was Prime Minister of Iran throughout its war with Iraq in the 80s. He's certainly not a critic of the Islamic Republic itself, he represents a different outlook among the ranks of the Iranian establishment that is opposed to Ahmadinejad and his backers.

The difference between the two men and what they represent embodies the tension that was inherent within the Islamic Revolution since its early days. Should the revolution be exported to other countries or should Iran focus on sorting out its own affairs? Nation state or revolutionary cause, what path should Iran follow? The question has never been settled conclusively, and the response to it has largely shaped Iran's foreign and domestic policy and continues to do so. Today however, the commitment to exporting the revolution is not an active project, but it remains an important rhetorical and ideological device that Ahmadinejad and his allies within the regime draw their legitimacy from. But despite his loud proclamations, Ahmadinejad is not the mad figure that is portrayed in the West. His noisy rhetoric is partially an attempt to mask his incompetence at managing the economy and running the country smoothly.

Against this background, it is easy to understand the appeal of Mousavi, a wealthy and successful man but also one who ran the economy efficiently during his term as prime minister. He represented something more immediate to Iranian voters than overthrowing the regime, namely competent management of the country and the economy and mild reformism. Having said that, no one can say for sure what direction public anger can take and if the crowds in Iran get a measure of their own power they might attempt to topple the system. There is a real barrier against this, the opposition to the Islamic Republic is not organised and any challenge to the system itself will draw the reformers closer to their opponents within the regime in order to protect the Islamic Republic from collapsing.

Western intervention at this stage, particularly by the Americans, will certainly not be in favour of the opposition that is taking shape day by day. The regime will portray the public demonstrators as agents of the West and galvanize support among the hardliners whose numbers run in the millions as well. What is important to realize at this stage is that this is a matter for the Iranian people to decide upon and they alone are responsible for determining the kind of society they want to live in.

It is easy to get carried away when watching millions protesting, but let's not turn this into a personal fantasy. The most likely outcome of this episode is that the regime will back down and appease the protesters one way or the other, and desktop revolutionaries everywhere will have their hearts broken with yet another 'spring' failing to induce real political change. Real change can only come through political organisation, let's get busy with that.

لا دفاعا عن الطائفية لكن ...

لا دفاعا عن الطائفية لكن ...
كارل شرو
انتهت عملية الانتخابات اللبنانية و آلت إلى ما آلت إليه. أعادت تثبيت ميزان القوى نفسه الذي ساد خلال الأعوام الأربعة الماضية و أنهت الكثير من التكهنات التي بان عدم صوابها. قال الناخبون اللبنانيون كلمتهم بشكل حاسم لا مجال لسوء تأويله، رغم أن هذا لا يمنع الكثيرين من محاولة طي الواقع كي يلاءم تطلعاتهم. بالأمس حاولوا تصوير الغالبية النيابية على أنها غالبية وهمية واليوم بدا الكلام عن غالبية شعبية لا تتساوى مع الغالبية النيابية. وسائل التذاكي على نتائج الانتخاب كثيرة في لبنان يحركها عدم احترام الديمقراطية وعدم ممارستها كأساس للسياسة.
برغم ذلك فان عملية الانتخابات نفسها، بغض النظر عن الانتهاكات التي لا تخلو منها أية انتخابات لبنانية، عبرت فعلا عن الإرادة الشعبية على تعدد أهوائها ومشاربها. قال الكثيرون بان الفائز الأكبر بهذه الانتخابات هو منطق الطوائف التي عادت لتحكم سيطرتها على السياسة اللبنانية، وهذا استنتاج دقيق عموما. أثبتت قيادات الطوائف اللبنانية على أنها الأقدر على مخاطبة جماهيرها و تحفيزها على المشاركة اقتراعا و تنظيما في انتخابات خالها البعض مصيرية.
عّبرت عناوين الصحف اللبنانية عموما عن هذا التقييم، رأت الإخبار إنها "الطوائف إن حَكَت" و اتفقت معظم الصحف الأخرى معها. غير إن ما فات الكثيرين ولم يلتفت إليه أي من السياسيين أو الصحافيين إن هذه المعادلة الطائفية لم تشكل استمرارا لنمط الطائفية الذي ساد في لبنان لعقود بل إنها أنتجت بطريقة جديدة يمكن الجزم بأنها تجاري مسار اشتباك الاجتماع و السياسة الذي تبلور منذ نهاية الحرب الباردة عالميا. تميز هذا المسار عموما بانهيار القيم الكونية في السياسة و الفلسفة على حد سواء و تراجع الصراع الطبقي لصالح منطق الخصوصيات الثقافية و مطالبها السياسية و الاجتماعية. كان اليسار عموما هو الخاسر الأكبر في هذه المعادلة فخسر جمهوره وانتقل الكثيرون من كوادره إلى صفوف مجموعات عرقية أو ثقافية و ساد منطق التعدد الثقافي على منطق المواطنة و المساواة.
صاحب عنوان "الطوائف إن حَكَت" نفسه إبراهيم الأمين خرج من صفوف اليسار اللبناني إلى صفوف محبذي حزب الله وانتقل معه الكثيرون من شيعة اليسار اللبناني الذين شكلوا نواة الحزب الذي نعرفه اليوم. شكل هؤلاء جزء من حركة انتقال اكبر شهدت عودة الكثير من اليساريين إلى صفوف طوائفهم وان تفاوت مدى التزامهم بالتوجه السياسي العام لهذه الطوائف. تكمن المفارقة بان ما ارتضاه هؤلاء خيارا سياسيا لأنفسهم عابوه لدى الآخرين و اعتبروه ضربا من المذهبية و الانقسام. الخطأ الذي وقع فيه الكثيرون من يساريي الطوائف هو أن الانحراف عن الخط العلماني الصرف يسلبهم حق انتقاد الطائفية و ممارسيها، فهم قد أصبحوا جزا أساسيا من التركيبة الطائفية بمعناها الأوسع.
حاول البعض رغم ذلك الاعتراض على بعض نتائج الانتخابات و ما سبقها بوصفها شحنا مذهبيا و تكريسا للانقسام. ومن بدائع اللغة و التفكير على هذا النمط الحديث عن الطائفية بوصفها خلل نفسي مثل ما تعبر عبارة "محي الطائفية من النفوس" الذي يكثر استعمالها في لبنان. هذه سذاجة لا مكان لها في السياسة، فالسياسي أو المعلق ليس طبيبا نفسيا ليأخذ على عاتقه مسؤولية معالجة الشعب اللبناني من إمراضه. تعبر هذه النظرة عن ازدراء هؤلاء لجمهور السياسة في لبنان و عدم مخاطبته كجمهور يمكنه ممارسة خيارات سياسية واعية. جل ما يمكن لهذا الجمهور فعله هو الانتقاء بين الخيارات السياسية المطروحة عليه، وكلنا نعرف قلة المعروض وفقر تطلعات العارضين.
ما لا يفهمه الكثير من أصحاب اللغة و السياسة في لبنان إن الطائفية شيء و التعصب شيء أخر. يوجد التعصب حتى في أكثر المجتمعات علمانية لكن هذا لا علاقة له بالسياسة. الطائفية تعني تنظيما سياسيا-اجتماعيا يتركب على صورة المجموعات التي تشكل هذا المجتمع و يوفر لها وسيلة لتنظيم علاقاتها. بهذا المعنى فان معظم اللبنانيين و معظم ساستهم و معلقيهم هم من محبذي هذا النظام الطائفي الذي ارتضوه حكما و حاكما على أحوالهم. وبعد لا يمكن لبعضهم انتقاد البعض الأخر إن غالوا في التحمس لهذا النظام بالدرجة التي أنتجت التحاما كليا بين الطوائف و قياداتها في الانتخابات الأخيرة. هذه النهاية المنطقية لهذا النظام، و جل ما فعله اللبنانيون إنهم ساروا بهذا المطاف إلى مداه الأقصى. فقد الذين جاروا هذا النظام قدرة الاعتراض عليه لحظة قبولهم بيه و تخليهم عن العلمانية مسارا مخالفا و مغايرا لنهج الطائفية.
هذا سبب من أسباب تضعضع اليسار و العلمانية في لبنان اليوم لكنه ليس حكرا على اللبنانيين. يفوت الكثير من ديمقراطيي اليسار في لبنان إن النظام الطائفي الذين يشكونه هو وجه أخر للتعددية الثقافية التي يمتدحوها لدى المجتمعات الغربية، يتميز عنها فقط بترسخ جذوره السياسية و القانونية. هواة التعددية هؤلاء يخالون التعددية نفسها أمر جيدا و يغالون بامتداحها. لكن التعددية الثقافية تختلف كليا عن تعدد الآراء و الوجهات السياسية، فالأولى يمكن لها أن تنتج مجتمعا راكدا تنعدم فيه العلاقات بين هذه المجموعات أما تعدد الآراء و التعبير عنها يتيح للمجتمع إمكانية التغيير و التقدم و خروج الأفراد عن إرادة مجموعاتهم.
المنحى التي تتخذه الطائفية في لبنان اليوم هو محاكاة أفكار التعددية في الغرب و الاحتفال بالخصوصيات الثقافية لطوائف الاجتماع اللبناني و المغالاة بالدفاع عن مصالحها و الخوف من تهديدات وجودية لها تتراءى في مخيلة البعض كلما خرج التخاطب بين هذه الطوائف عن حدود التهذيب المعهود. لكن الحقيقة انه ليس لدى أية من الطوائف اللبنانية الكبرى اليوم مشروع هيمنة يشبه المشاريع السابقة الذي كان أبرزها المشروع الماروني. تبّدى هذا عموما بعد الانتخابات عندما عمد معظم الأطراف إلى خفض وتيرة التخاطب و المطالب وعادوا عموما إلى البحث عن صيغة لمشاركة الحكم بشروط ترضي جميع الإطراف. هذه حدود السياسة في الصيغة الجديدة لطائفية النظام اللبناني التي قد تتذبذب على وقع متغيرات دولية و إقليمية لكنها ستبقى ضمن هذا الإطار، فهذه حدود مخيلة الطوائف بحلتها الجديدة ما بعد الحداثية.
هل علينا أن نرتضي بهذا الواقع بوصفه تعبيرا عن إرادة الشعب اللبناني و خلاصة طموحاته ؟ هذا تفكير انهزامي قبوله يعني قبول سلطة المنطق الطائفي التي تبقى علته الأساسية تقييده لدينامكية المجتمع و فرص تقدمه كما رأينا و سنرى. بداية علينا أن نفقه أن الطائفية هي مشكلة سياسية لا نفسية و مقاومتها تكون بالسياسة و الأفكار الجديدة لا بعلم النفس. ثم علينا أن نعي أن القبول بمنطقها يعني التخلي عن موقع نحن بأشد الحاجة إليه هو موقع العلمانية بوصفها جزا من مشروع سياسي لا صفة شخصية مستحبة. عسى أن يكون مأزق النظام الطائفي عتبتنا إلى السياسة.

Why twisting Netanyahu's arm won't work.

Out of sheer Sunday boredom, I watched Benjamin Netanyahu deliver his much-hyped 'peace' speech live, and I must admit I was genuinely surprised. Netanyahu's people didn't manage to fill the room! For a speech that was expected to put the peace process back on track, the least they could have done is lure a few students into what was after all a small room. Never mind, everyone knew that Netanyahu was merely going through the motions of responding to Barack Obama's pressure without actually conceding anything, a tough exercise in semantics but hardly a gripping spectacle.



But on a serious note, many 'observers' had been filled with optimism now that Obama has decided to apply his magic touch to the thorny issue of the Palestinian question. We've been hearing this sort of talk from all sides of the conflict for a while now: only if America can be more of an 'honest broker', only if it applied friendly pressure on Israel, only if the international community took a tougher stance with Israel, and the rest of that cliche-laden litany, then compromises would be obtained and a two-state solution would magically materialise. Many people seem to think that all the elements of this two-state solution are quite obvious and it's only 'difficult' leaders on both sides that are preventing this from happening.



Wishful thinking, and careful what you wish for while we're at it. Remember what happened the last time America decided to solve the Palestinian issue by pressuring the leaders on both sides? Camp David, July 2000, Clinton gets tough and tries to negotiate a 'final status settlement' between the Israelis and the Palestinians only for the process to fail miserably leading to the third Intifada within the space of two decades and the bloodiest so far. The Palestinians are still suffering the consequences, and it had a big impact on Israeli politics as well. Arafat heroically resisted all the pressure to sign a peace deal that would have been seen as catastrophic by the Palestinian people.



But American policymakers don't seem to have learned the lesson of that episode. What didn't work with Arafat in 2000 will not work with Netanyahu today. Firstly, the 'solutions' that American technocrats have been coming up with are the result of abstract intellectual exercises that are far removed from the actual situation on the ground and do not take into consideration the political aspirations of either side. What may appear as a worthy compromise to someone sitting in an office in Washington means something entirely different to a Palestinian refugee. Secondly, the principle of active intervention itself assumes that the Americans know better than the Palestinians and the Israelis themselves what is in their best interest. But without the principle of self-determination the two parties will be locked in a relationship of dependence on America and the international community, which has in fact been put in place for a while now only to complicate the situation even further.



Any possible compromise and eventual solution would have to be accepted by both sides of the conflict and come as an expression of their aspirations, fully acknowledging that the power balance between them is extremely skewed in favour of Israel. In the wake of Zionism's demise, Israel is still searching for an alternative political project that could shape its future, but such a project remains elusive. Many Arab commentators and politicians misinterpreted Netanyahu's speech as standard Zionist rhetoric, but in reality it was an exercise in evasion and pragmatism. Crucially, Netanyahu did utter the words nobody thought he would ever say, and accepted a future Palestinian state, albeit with a number of caveats that would render it meaningless. This in no way shows Netanyahu's commitment to peace but it clearly illustrates that he and his chums on the 'right' do not have the political will-power to oppose the Americans on what should be a matter of principle and self-determination.

The Israeli obsession with 'security' clearly illustrates the lack of ideological commitment, and Netanyahu expressed that quite clearly by coming back again and again to this subject in his speech. But here is the contradiction at the heart of Zionism that has been magnified after its decline: from the Jewish perspective, Israel did not provide security for Jews everywhere but on the contrary has demanded that every Jew in the world should take an interest in defending it and become a potential citizen. The foundation of Israel in 1948 meant leaving the post-war stable and secure Europe and creating a new troubled state and acquiring a few million enemies in the process. From the Jewish security perspective, Israel did not make sense in 1948 and makes even less sense today. Zionism had overcome this problem historically by turning its attention to nation-building, but today there is little appetite for that among Israelis themselves and Jews everywhere else.

Netanyahu represents this dilemma, his generation grew up on those Zionist 'ideals' but now they find themselves in power and capable only of paying lip service to those ideals, while having no real political project. Pressuring them to make political concessions under those conditions is unwise, without a clear idea about the direction that Israel should take any concession will only muddle the issues and create even bigger problems. American pressure is attempting to relieve the Israelis of the responsibility for their future, but that could only lead to further instability.

The Americans have to realise that any solution to the conflict have to come from the parties involved. They have succeeded so far in making the Palestinians accept the principle of a two-state solution instead of their original demand for a secular state for Jews and Arabs, reducing their cause in the process from a progressive project of change to one of dealing with occupation. Hamas exploited this retreat to offer its own solution, and the Americans achieved the exact opposite of what they intended. Pressure on the Israelis for immediate concessions will also complicate the situation further, America certainly needs to re-examine its relationship with Israel, but the current urgency for a final settlement is misguided and may usher in yet another round of violence. History should not be ignored.

محكمة الحريري: القضاء على السيادة؟

في الأول من آذار باشرت المحكمة الخاصة بلبنان إعمالها في لاهاي، و مهمتها محاكمة المسئولين عن اغتيال رئيس الوزراء السابق في لبنان رفيق الحريري.تمثل المحكمة خطوة أخرى في اتجاه تعزيز منطق التدخل الدولي الذي بدأ مع اتفاق دايتون. ستناط لأول مرة بمحكمة جنائية دولية مسئولية محاكمة جريمة إرهابية ضد شخص معين. هل قايض اللبنانيون السيادة بالعدالة عندما طالبوا بهذه المحكمة؟ وهل سنرى المجتمع الدولي والغرب بشكل خاص يلعب دور متزايد في التدخل واستخدام أدوات للعدالة الدولية لتحقيق غايات سياسية؟ في ما يلي ، وصف للأحداث التي أدت إلى تأسيس المحكمة ، ونقاشها بوصفها عارض من أعراض الضياع الذي يصيب السياسة اليوم، حيث تنحسر السيادة و إرادة تقرير المصير لصالح النزعات القطعية التي تخنق التنمية السياسية للمجتمعات. اقرا المزيد: http://www.karlsharro.co.uk/hariri1.htm

The Hariri Tribunal: Justice over Sovereignty?

On the 1st of March, the International Tribunal for Lebanon opened in The Hague, with the responsibility for prosecuting those responsible for the assassination of the former Prime Minister of Lebanon Rafik Al-Hariri. The Tribunal marks another milestone in the era of enhanced interventionism that began with the Dayton Agreement, for the first time an international criminal court will be responsible for trying a ‘terrorist’ crime against a specific person. Have the Lebanese traded sovereignty for justice in asking for this tribunal? Will we see the international community and the West in particular playing an increasingly interventionist role and using the instruments of international justice to bring about political ends? In what follows, I will describe the events that brought about the tribunal and argue that it a symptom of the general disorientation of contemporary politics in which sovereignty and self-determination have receded in favour of deterministic tendencies that stifle the political development of societies. Read more: http://www.karlsharro.co.uk/hariri.html

حزب الله قبل الانتخابات: الخوف من السلطة

كارل شرو

على عكس ما يشاع، لن يستيقظ لبنان جمهورية إسلامية في الثامن من حزيران إذا فازت المعارضة بالانتخابات، كما انه لن يعيد إنتاج حلف بغداد في حال فوز الأكثرية. أجواء التهويل التي خلقها طرفا السياسة المتنافسان في لبنان لا علاقة لها بواقع الحياة السياسية في لبنان بل هي نتاج انهيار السياسة بمعناها العريض. قد يكون القاسم المشترك الوحيد بين المعارضة و الموالاة هو الإفلاس السياسي و محاولات التعويض عن ذاك برفع النبرة الخطابية من قبل الطرفين واللجوء إلى سياسات الخوف و السيناريوهات المهيلة كمثل التلويح باسلمة النظام أو ارتماء قوى 14 آذار بأحضان إسرائيل.
مما لا شك فيه إن تحالف 14 آذار قد ضعف كثيرا و خسر الكثير من مكتسباته السياسية منذ الانتخابات الأخيرة، وعاد معظم قيادته إلى أدوارهم كزعماء طوائف، في ما خلا المعتزلين كنسيب لحود و رجل الدولة شبه الوحيد فؤاد السنيورة. برغم ذلك يحوز فريق ١٤ آذار على مشروع سلطة و حكم، يفتقده تحالف حزب الله و ميشال عون على رغم ادعائه امتلاك مشروع إصلاحي، فهو يمثل نظرة وتطلعات البورجوازية اللبنانية بامتياز. حيازة هذا المشروع تمثل قاسما مشتركا بين جمهور و قيادات ١٤ آذار يؤمن لهما قدرا من الالتحام و صحة التمثيل يفتقده التحالف الأخر الذي لا يكاد يملك إلا ادعائه تمثيل طوائفه والمدافعة عن مصالحها بوجه الطوائف الأخرى.
مشروع فريق ١٤ آذار هو مشروع تحديثي يبقى موجودا و فاعلا رغم تبدل القوى و الشخصيات الفاعلة في قيادته على ما رأينا في السنوات الأربعة الأخيرة. وعلى رغم سذاجة البعض في صفوف اليسار اللبناني فان الخيار البورجوازي هو أكثر تقدمية من الخيار الإقطاعي التي تمثله زعامات الطوائف. وأكثر من ذلك فان أوهام القفز بلبنان من مجتمع يصارع ليجاري الحداثة إلى مجتمع اشتراكي تسود فيه العدالة الاجتماعية من غير اكتمال بورجوازيته هي أفكار مضللة و مخطئة. لا يعني ذلك إن اليسار في لبنان مدعو إلى الالتحاق بصفوف القيادات البورجوازية على العكس عليه إن يمضي في رسم خط فريد يميزه عن زعماء الطوائف.
إذا فريق ١٤ آذار لديه مشروع حكم و سياسة لكنه مشروع يرتبط تقدمه بالتحالفات المتبدلة التي تنتجها متغيرات السياسة اللبنانية. في المقابل يفتقد فريق ٨ آذار، وحزب الله تحديدا، إلى إي مشروع سلطة أو حكم. ما يخيف حزب الله اليوم هو احتمال تشكيله الحكومة المقبلة في لبنان مع حلفائه ومن دون الفريق الأخر، وهو احتمال لم يتحضر له الحزب ولا يمتلك أدوات وأساليب التعاطي معه. يخاف حزب الله مصير حماس في السلطة، حين استفاقت لتجد نفسها في موقع لم تنشده ولم تعرف التعاطي معه. فحزب الله كما حماس نشئا على أنقاض أحزاب حداثية و حركات تحرر وطنية كانت المقاومة العسكرية في نظرها وسيلة لا غاية و جزءا من سعيها إلى تقرير مصير شعوبها بنفسها وتحديث أحوال المجتمعات التي تمثلها.
لحظة نشؤ حماس و حزب الله تزامنت مع انهيار تلك الحركات و فشل مشاريعها لأسباب متعددة لا مجال لتعدادها هنا. وتميزت ظروف نشأة الحركتين الإسلاميتين بتراجع القيم الحداثية مع ازدهار أفكار الخصوصيات الثقافية حتى في الدول الغربية. لا يمثل نشؤ حزب الله و حماس صحوة إسلامية بل وسيلة للتعامل مع زمن تسارعت خلاله وتيرة التبادلات على وقع انهيار أفكار الحداثة بأوجهها المختلفة. مثلت العودة إلى الإسلام استقرارا يوازي بترسخ جذوره التاريخية النمط السريع للمتغيرات الإقليمية و العالمية. لكن حزب الله رغم نجاحاته العسكرية اللي لا مجال للشك بها، أو ربما بسببها إلى حد ما، لم ينجح ببناء مشروع سياسي يتيح له إلقاء السلاح بعد التحرير لكي يصبح حزبا سياسيا يطمح إلى السلطة على نمط حركات التحرر التي سبقته.
طور حزب الله نظرته إلى نفسه و أعضائه على انه حركة عسكرية بامتياز، وحين اصطدمت هذه النظرة بتطلعات اللبنانيين الذين ساموا الحروب و ابتغوا السلام و الازدهار، كان الحزب يصر على مجتمع الحرب كي يرسم مجتمعا على صورته لا العكس. هذا العجز الهيكلي لدى حزب الله عن إعادة إنتاج نفسه كحزب سياسي أدى إلى فشله باقتناص فرصتين تاريخيتين لتحويل مساره هما الانسحابين الإسرائيلي والسوري. لكن تردد حزب الله عن الاستيلاء على السلطة بان على أشده بعد ٧ أيار الماضي حين اجتاح الحزب بيروت ثم استنشد اتفاقا مع الغالبية يؤمن له ثلثا معطلا لا مسؤولية القرار السياسي المطلقة.
لا يزال الحزب ينادي بتلك الصيغة الغريبة للحكم حتى بحال فوزه و حلفائه بالانتخابات التشريعية. يردد ممثلو الحزب اليوم خوفهم من الوصول إلى سدة الحكم عبر إلقاء اللوم على الغالبية التي أنتجت الفساد والديون المرتفعة محاولا تبرير عدم قدرته على الحكم حتى قبل فوزه. يمثل هذا التردد جبنا سياسيا وتخاذل عن المسؤوليات التي يفترض بأي حزب سياسي إن يتحضر لها. غير إن حزب الله الذي اختفت وثيقته التأسيسية عن الأنظار منذ اندماجه بالمنظومة السورية في لبنان قبل عقدين، لا يعرف اليوم سبيلا إلى السياسة و أفكار الحكم بعد عقود من التمرس بالحرب و امتهان البراغماتية عوضا عن العقيدة السياسية. أصبح حزب الله اليوم طرفا من مديري أحوال الطوائف يعرف أساليب كبت النقمة الشعبية لدى جمهوره، كما يعرف متى يذكيها لكسب صغير في بازار السياسة اللبنانية، لكنه عاجز كليا عن استلام مقاليد الحكم و السلطة.
يتخيل البعض في حزب الله اليوم إن تحالفهم مع ميشال عون قد يسهل مهمة ومسؤولية الحكم و الحكومة في حال الفوز بالانتخابات باعتبار إن عون يؤمن غطاء مسيحي ويوفر بعض لابسي البدلات الذين يجيدون استلام مقاليد الوزارات و الإدارة. هذا وهم لا سبيل لتحققه. فجنرال المارونية السياسية المخضرم رغم ما يبدو عليه من تعطش للسلطة ليس لديه هو الأخر أية أفكار في السياسة و الاقتصاد و الإدارة إلا شعارات شعبوية لا معنى لها. الجنرال ارتاح في دور قيادة و تمثيل المسيحيين في لبنان والتفاوض باسمهم لتحصيل أفضل شروط العيش المشترك مع الأخر الذي لا مفر منه. استوجب هذا الدور المستحدث تحييد القيادات الشبابية التي نشطت طوال فترة عزلته و استبدالها بوجوه مسيحية تقليدية تمكنه من مخاطبة مخاوف المسيحيين و عائلاتهم الكبرى بطريقة أفضل. عون في أحسن الأحوال سيكون شافيز أخر يستعيض عن السياسة بشعبوية خطابية لا قدرة لها على التحديث.
برغم كل ذلك في حال فوز حزب الله و شركائه في الانتخابات يجب على قوى ١٤ آذار إن تترك لهم مسؤولية الحكم و تشكيل الحكومة المقبلة و تعزف عن ملئ الثلث الذي سيعرض عليها بدون شك. إن أفضل وسيلة لفك التحام جمهوري حزب الله و عون بمديري و ممثلي طوائفهما هي فشلهما في الحكم الذي سيفضح ضالة الأفكار و إفلاسها السياسي. في المقابل يجب على فريق ١٤ آذار إن يعيد بناء تحالفاته و أفكاره السياسية على أسس ارسخ و إلا سينفرط عقده سريعا إذا استمر النهج الطائفي على حاله.

السياسة اللبنانية عالسريع

يواجه الكثيرون صعوبة في فهم السياسة في لبنان التي قد تبدو معقدة للمراقب الخارجي. لكن في الحقيقة تتبع السياسة اللبنانية قواعد بسيطة جدا. القاعدة الاولى و الاهم صممت لكي تمنع احتكار الافكار الجيدة من طرف واحد وهي تقضي بانه لا يجوز لاي حزب او طائفة او عشيرة او عر ان يعتنق خط سياسي معين لاكثر من خمسة اعوام متواصلة. عند انتهاء هذه المهلة يقوم الفريق السياسي بتسليم افكاره الى احد خصومه و يقوم بنفضة عقائدية و ياخذ افكار طرف اخر. يعني مثل لعبة كراسي موسيقية ينط كل فريق فشخة في كل جولة. على سبيل المثال, اصبح شعار ميشال عون, بعد ٢٠ سنة," امن المجتمع المسيحي فوق كل اعتبار" و اصبح سمير جعجع المدافع عن دولة المؤسسات. الموعد القادم للتبادل, يعني ideological recycling, حدد في ٨ حزيران ومبروك سلفا للجميع

David Cameron: Spineless Spinman

Cameron's response to the MP expenses 'scandal' illustrates perfectly what is wrong with this man, the blend of authoritarianism and lack of conviction and spine that characterises so many politicians today. This is an explosive combination, and I would say even more dangerous than authoritarianism mixed with a sense of purpose. At least in the latter case, say Margaret Thatcher, you know where you stand. Cameron stands for nothing, represents nothing, but does not hesitate to be authoritarian in the process.

Cameron's eagerness to please was evident in the aftermath of the non-scandal that was the MP expenses saga. A fake fury whipped by a newspaper on its last knees, and smacking of the nasty type of desperation that characterises the hopeless. Cameron in typical spineless style rushed to apologise before the extent of the problem even became clear. Unwittingly, he undermined politics further with his antics, discrediting himself and his colleagues, and the entire political establishment, with his buffoonery.

Cameron's hasty apology speaks volumes about his lack of conviction. Instead of 'shoot first, ask questions later' this man will 'apologise first, ask questions later', because deep at heart he knows that he stands for nothing, represents nothing, and his eagerness to please is quite honestly repulsive. I would have respected the man more if he had stood up for MPs, instead he was willing to bring down the whole house and not have the courage to fight for the establishment that he represents.

Politics is about leadership, and Cameron has shown none. This is perhaps pardonable in the Lib Dems, and their 'leader' Nick Clegg, a party that has no aspiration to be in power and is content to be on the sidelines constantly, but is completely unforgivable and in a party that has serious hopes of forming the next government. Of course, singling David Cameron is a bit unfair, after all Gordon Brown had a similar reaction, but Brown is already discredited and has shown his lack of leadership. Cameron has illustrated his incompetence even before attaining power, an achievement even by the standards of modern-day politics.

This rush to apologise, the automatic assumption of guilt, perfectly illustrates Cameron's authoritarian disdain for democracy and the mechanisms of justice, it is only a small example of the further erosion of liberties and politics that we can expect at his hands once he is in power. Cameron has come across, in his eagerness to please, as the pathetic teenager with no friends who will degrade himself in hope of making some friends and becoming popular. For this old Leftie, give me an authoritarian with a sense of Thatcher any day instead of this spineless spin-man.

Art becomes Eco-Conformist

Writing in the times today, Kate Muir announced that eco-art 'will be huge this summer', arguing with typically lame eco-speak that 'Preserving sharks in formaldehyde is over; the days of preserving sharks in the ocean are here." The Barbican is leading the eco-conformist assault with its upcoming exhibition Radical Nature — Art and Architecture for a Changing Planet, followed by Tate Britain's Heaven and Earth, featuring the works of Richard Long. Long in any other age would have been considered an eccentric gardener, today he is considered an accomplished artist by tapping into the sense of insecurity about our 'fragile planet'.

Muir, as ever, knows a lot of big words, but doesn't have a clue how to make meaningful sentences out of them. Like many of her contemporaries, she absorbed a lot of concepts and phrases in college, without really understanding what they signify, but still has the audacity to use such concepts in print. She epitomises that breed of journalists who seem to think that the universe started in 1997, everything prior to that being a giant blob of events and concepts that are too hard to disentangle. This utter unawareness of history comes across in sentences like 'of course, Land Art has been around for ever'. Like, Kate couldn't be bothered to find out, like, when and why.

Muir's complete ignorance is manifested even more painfully in her naive proclamations: '..the new eco-art movement is not merely about the medium, but the message too'. Read: 'on message'. It is not important how banal and mediocre your 'art' is, as long as it is on message, as long as you feel the suffering of Mother Earth in the depths of your soul, and use whatever medium at your disposal to express that pain: sand, snow, rock, and ultimately, and appropriately, manure. Muir is happily preaching us that art will no longer be a selfish endeavour, it shall be put to the service of the great collective eco-whinge, the mighty bout of never-ending eco self-flagellation. Hurrah!

What Muir, and every mediocre curator that has been promoted to a position of responsibility because they are 'on message', doesn't realize is that this vulgar reduction of art to a tool of propaganda is antithetical to the spirit of art. Art has to be free from any such intrusions and demands to be meaningful, art has to revolt and kick back against the prevailing assumptions, and art should never be restrained by the parameters of 'social responsibility'. Art has been used historically as a medium for political protest, but how is that relevant today when everyone has embraced environmentalism? How radical could eco-art be when it is merely repeating what politicians and journalists are constantly babbling about?

Muir's attempt at making eco-art sound heroic are simply pathetic. She tries to portray two artists from Brighton as modern-day revolutionaries, claiming that their 'work exemplifies the combative mood around the country'. And I thought that people are actually worried about losing their jobs and paying their mortgage, silly me. Of course to Muir and her fellow 'organic-wine and fair-trade coffee' 'mentalists, such real-life concerns are not as important as the latest fad in eco-whinging. And this is why she thinks the antics of Hanks and McCurdy, the two eco-artists from Brighton, are examples of radical eco-art.

The pair dabble in the sort of art that bored teenagers and pensioners on holiday usually do, except that they don't think of it normally as art: writing on snow and bio-degradable graffiti. Their cause? Brighton beach is dirty and polluted, plastic is to blame. In a heroic feat, they visit parliament to lobby on behalf the Marine Conservation Society, then they flip their T-shirts, selflessly showing their bras in the process, to reveal messages about the dirty beach. Muir is nearly in tears at this moment, 'as MPs fiddled their expenses in the background and the planet burnt'. Drama straight out of Hollywood.

Of course the real message is: we are two smug, self-centred attention seekers who will do anything to get a bit of attention. That anyone could imagine that this has anything to do with art, or even politics, is a sign of how low public discourse these days is. And how degraded both art and politics have become, allowing such trivial concerns to grab media attention. Yet there is a danger in this trend to tame art and turn it into a medium for channeling social responsibility.

Firstly, there's the unbearable prospect of art being judged not on its intrinsic merits, but in terms of how much it serves a bigger cause. For the record, this is what Fascism historically did, it appropriated art for its own needs. Simply because we imagine eco concerns to be a more noble cause does not justify such an appropriation. Secondly, there's the even more serious prospect of a rigidly conformist society where dissent is not tolerated. Art should strive to liberate itself from the demands of conformity, when it starts seeking to be conformist, we know we are in trouble.

Kate Muir relishes the prospect of eco-art taking center-stage, but this is based on a completely wrong understanding of the nature of art and the parameters within which it operates. The logic of environmentalism has been internalised by the political classes and the media, and there are hardly any dissenting voices these days. Co-opting art into this un-questioning arrangement will not help matters at all, but will lead to more of the banal art that justifies its mediocrity through its important 'message'. In a civilised society we should not tolerate mediocrity, art should strive for excellence not conformity.

The Green Intifada - Patronising the Noble Palestinian Savage

Tired of life in the materialist and consumerist West? Why not spend a few months in Palestine, away from it all, training the local population to keep their ambitions low and stay at the mercy of an agrarian mode of life? This is the vision that Green Intifada is promoting. A group of volunteers, mostly from the UK, "work in the community to implement initiatives for sustainable living and food production." For sustainable read pre-modern and backwards. These include "rainwater harvesting, vegetable gardens, tree planting, greywater reuse, composting systems and compost toilet building."

The days of solidarity with the Palestinian people based on a healthy notion of human solidarity and active human agency are long gone. Today, the Palestinians have been turned into our poor cousins that cannot fend for themselves and solidarity has been replaced with pity. Hannah Arendt pointed out that pity dehumanises its receivers, and this outlook towards the Palestinians is as dehumanising as Israeli aggression. The Green Intifada is an example of this patronising expression of the contemporary Western outlook towards the Palestinians. Rather than seeing the Palestinians as a people fighting for self-determination and national liberation, they are reduced to helpless peasants that need to be taught even the basics of a primitive agrarian way of life.

Time to start exposing these initiatives for what they really are: they are not motivated by concern for the Palestinian people but are an expression of western discontent with modernity. This is a form of escape from the demands of life in the west, a way of burying one's head in the sands of Palestine. In the process, the Palestinians are recast as pure, unspoiled peasants, the alternative to the modern corrupted western individual, the image of what could have been if modernity and industrialisation had not occurred.

In itself, the Green Intifada is not a sinister or dangerous operation, the Holy Land has always attracted all manner of lunatics to go and pursue their own brand of millinerianism. However, what it says about the state of politics and the outlook towards the Palestinians is quite revealing. The Palestinian struggle has been emptied of any meaning and completely de-contextualised. Instead of a cry for freedom and an aspiration for universal change, it is now treated as a parable for the wickedness of humanity. It is easy then to take sides not based on a genuine understanding of the political dynamics, but on the basis of cartoonish over-simplifications that are entirely wrong.

The Israelis are cast as the villains because they dared to spoil the virgin land with their western technology and intensive agriculture, while the Palestinians are the good guys because they retain the connection to the land. Aside from the fact that the relationship with the land is a Fascist invention that has its roots in Nazi ideology, it is also an extremely inaccurate depiction of Palestinian society. The Palestinian struggle for self-determination is the beginning of the process of by which the Palestinians can control their own destiny and build a modern nation. A modern nation, with modern infrastructure, not 'sustainable' compost toilets, there are plenty of those in the camps.

"People are being driven from the land, denied access to essential resources, closed into urban ghettoes and severed from their natural heritage". A process known otherwise as urbanization which every modern society goes through. The Green Intifada eco-imperialists are not resisting Israeli occupation, they are trying to resist the process of modernisation, a sentiment expressed clearly on their website. If their vision prevails, and I have to admit their is no real danger of this because the Palestinian people have not struggled for decades to end up in the 19th century, but if their vision prevails it would be entirely consistent with what Israel wants: a docile Palestinian population that is happy to live of the land with no aspirations.

Ain't gonna happen. Go look for your agrarian paradise somewhere else.

Surveillance society

Surveillance society is once again a hot subject, in light of the DNA database debate. A reminder of my essay on the subject:

"It’s been said before, I am aware, but Orwell was immensely prescient. 1984 has come and gone, leaving behind an entrenched legacy of surveillance made even more powerful by the advancements in monitoring technology in recent years. Query the phrase ‘eye in the sky’ in your search engine of choice, and instead of a biblical reference or even the Alan Parsons Project 1982 hit single, you are referred first to surveillance camera manufacturers. Meanwhile, the unblinking eyes of CCTV cameras keep a constant watch on every street in London, and it seems that the rest of the nation is catching up fast." Read on: http://karlsharro.co.uk/surveillance.html

The Three Stooges of the Apocalypse

Forget about the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, that’s way too dignified for the petty bourgeois grievances that manifested themselves in the Big Tantrum of 09 on the streets of the City of London this past week. The Three Stooges of the Apocalypse is a more apt moniker to describe those lost souls gathered outside the halls of the G20 proceedings, as opposed to their equally confused counterparts who had the pleasure of experiencing the event from within. The Three Stooges of the Apocalypse beautifully sums up the equal measures of banality and doom-mongering that fuelled this middle class tantrum, and as luck would have it, Newsnight assembled three guests on the evening of that most insignificant of demonstrations, each representing one wing of the White Middle Class Anger and Doom-Mongering apparatus. For the duration of their chat with Jeremy Paxman, they faithfully re-enacted the antics of the original Three Stooges, although too much less humorous results. Like a bird with three wings, this is a freak of nature that didn’t fly far.
Our Three Stooges of the Apocalypse for the night were Barbara Stocking, the Director of Oxfam, or White Woman Knows What is Best for Africa, Mark King, from the Camp for Climate Action , or White Man Knows What is Best for the Planet, and the comedian Mark Thomas, or White Man Knows What is Best. (In some circles he is known as the least funny comedian in the universe, perhaps he should be investigated by the Trading Standards Agency).
Paxo was atypically restrained, focusing most of his characteristic ire on the International Development Secretary Douglas Alexander, the boy-wonder of New Labour, and gently sheltering his fellow members in The White Middle Class Liberal Club. Paxo gently prodded The Three Stooges, what’s their wish list for G20 decisions? Barbara Stocking: Financial Stimulus for poorer nations, presumably to be distributed through Oxfam and like-minded Neo-colonialists so that they can prepare poor African farmers for the challenges of goat-herding in the 21st century and shelter them from the nasty syndromes of development that the west is suffering from, such as clean drinking water and functioning public transport systems. Mark Thomas: Get rid of tax havens! For a self-described radical, Thomas is certainly tame, managing to agree with Angela Merkel and Nicola Sarkozy, perhaps the most conservative politicians in Europe today, and the two who have absolutely no clue about what to do except to appear to be challenging the US and the UK without actually doing so. Thomas thought that tax havens, where most hedge funds are based, are what caused the crisis. Forget about the de-industrialisation of the West and the lack of productivity in paper economies that produce very little but consume more than anyone else, and let’s demonise the faceless hedge funds. Mark King (ponytail? Seriously, dude?): Climate Change! (Surprise, Surprise!) He even came prepared with a sound byte, the climate doesn’t do bailouts! The greens are definitely getting better script writers these days, but you have to agree with Obama, put lipstick on a pig… (or even a ponytail).
Mark King doesn’t like the dinosaur that is high-carbon industry. But he and his fellow greens don’t like low-carbon industry either. They hate industry full stop. Why are they focusing on aviation, which is one of the smallest producers of carbon emissions? The Greens have consistently opposed any technological solutions for Climate Change preferring to reduce consumption and smother demand, and solve the problem at is root. Kill aspiration and progress, but save the planet. How do they square the circle between their demands for caps on CO2 emissions which would lead to more economic problems by reducing productivity, God only knows. Or Gaia.
Yet, it was entertaining to see The Three Stooges do their act and expose how little they know, and how little they understand the world we live in, and the real reasons for the economic slump. (I think the sound of the recession happening sounds somewhat like slummmmp.) The solution is more industry, in the West and the Rest, more productivity, more investment in real infra-structure as opposed to meaningless subsidies for inefficient energy technologies such as solar panels on flats in London. And while we’re at it, let’s not politicise the energy question, and release from the confines of the climate change discussion. The real energy question is how we can get more energy, way more energy, cheaper, cleaner and more available, everywhere. So that we can fly more, produce more, and have more. So that one, every family in Africa can have a large house, two cars, and take a holiday in Europe every year. (They can go somewhere else if they want, it’s merely a suggestion).
To The Stooges of The Apocalypse, the world is passing you by, you are holding centre-stage now, but you are irrelevant. The media’s obsession with your every little action or utterance does not mean anything in the real world, and your mates from Cambridge or Oxford will not dictate the course of events in the long run. One day, the workers in this country will wake up, and then your antics will be over. Think of your next show.

Thoughts on the Satanic Verses Affair

I watched The Satanic Verses Affair late last night on the BBC, and thought it was really good. Salman Rushdie isn't the perfect hero of free speech, but who is? It's a great reminder that people's real character emerge through their conflict with the world, and their ideas are shaped by this encounters, life is not a Hollywood film. Rushdie made a lot of concessions, re-converted to Islam, issued apologies, and then announced that his experiment with Islam was over and admitted that he hadn't converted out of conviction.

Hanif Kureishi came across as a more heroic figure, dismissing Rushdie's enemies as the 'bearded ones', but he didn't have to go through what Rushdie experienced. The real hero to me was Frances D'Souza entirely committed to the cause of defending Rushdie's right to free speech without compromise, she was very convincing in her defense of the principled stance that drove her and her colleagues to form the International Committee for the defence of Rushdie.

The other notable contributor to the program was Inayat Bunglawala, one of the Islamic activists who were shaped by the Rushdie affair and took their first steps in politics through the campaigns to ban the book. At the end of the program, Bunglawala admitted that they were wrong in calling for the book to be banned and for supporting the Fatwa against Rushdie. Instead, he said, they should have fought it on 'the plain of ideas'. It's an amazing admission, and shows that at least some people did learn from the whole episode.

If Islamic 'fundamentalists' manage to learn the value of free speech, perhaps the environmental 'movement' should take notice that its tactics of intimidation and accusing people of denial do not serve its cause. Who's more reactionary today, an Islamist whose willing to discuss his most sacred ideas publicly or an environmentalist who goes out of his or her way to silence opponents?

Dam those Ethiopians!

Another day, another Western campaign to prevent a Third World country from developing. As has become customary, the BBC instead of covering 'both sides of the story' is so skewed in its coverage to the extent that it has become a party in this debate. The Gilgel Gibe III hydroelectricity project in Ethiopia will be in impressive feat of engineering once it's completed in 2012, rising to a height of 240m, the highest of its kind in the world, and creating a reservoir 150 kilometres long. It will double Ethiopia's current generating capacity, allowing it to sell the surplus to its neighbours in exchange for hard currency, bringing extra economic benefit to the country.

This will be clean, renewable energy, and it is the type of project that governments in the West should be doing instead of wasting their time on solar panels on top of houses in places like London, where the Sun hardly ever shines. Instead of celebrating the project, the eco-whining has started in force, led by some turnip called Richard Leakey, a white Kenyan ecologist who has accused the Ethiopian government and energy company of fiddling with the environmental impact statements in order to pass the approval for the project.

The BBC and their fellow opponents of the dam have been focusing on the fate of about half a million tribes people who live down river of the dam, claiming that this will lead them into a civil war. The BBC television coverage last night was so hysterical and scare-mongering that it was impossible to take it seriously. Of course the BBC managed to summon someone "from the local community" to voice opposition to the dam, in this case an elderly man whom someone had obviously prepped for the interview with enough myths to scare him into giving his 'testimony'. Then in a classic example of how the BBC is blurring the line between drama and news, they lined up a number of tribesmen with their Chinese Ak47's, posing menacingly for the camera. But we will never know they were there, for all we know it was just a photo shoot for them.

What is quite obvious about the whole episode is that Western media and environmentalists think now that their word is more important than that of a sovereign, democratically elected government. What Ethiopia does on its own territory is its own business, and it's up to the Ethiopian people to contest or support the dam project. The BBC has a responsibility to cover general interest stories, but doesn't have a mandate to become a party to this debate, as it clearly becoming through its skewed coverage. Equally, I would rather listen to the Ethiopian people who will benefit from the project, rather than to the "African Resources Working Group", described by the BBC as a 'collection of European, American, and East African academics" who are also critical of the way the environmental impact statement has been carried out.

Leakey and the other 'scientists' have not actually pointed out any serious flows with the report itself, all they are relying on is the 'precautionary principle', the last refuge of the contemporary eco-scoundrel. If they had anything tangible against the project, they would have presented it, instead they are summoning the prospect of some future unforeseen consequence that might prove that the dam project is harmful. If humanity had always taken decisions this way, we would still be living in caves, where Leakey and his colleagues would presumably be warning us against using fire before we complete an 'environmental impact statement'.

The disturbing thing about this whole saga is how little trust Western media and 'scientists' have in African governments, as if the Ethiopian government would have anything to gain by depriving half a million people of their livelihood or forcing them into a civil war. This is the most blatant example of Western racism that masquerades behinds science and ecological concerns, to claim that Africans cannot be trusted to run their own countries. But, for once, it seems that Ethiopian officials are standing up to those interfering Western scientists and journalists. The energy minister and the head of the Electricity Corporation have defended their right to develop the project, and they both argued that Ethiopia needs this project for it to develop.

Those who prefer to see Africans still living without the basic necessities that they take for granted at home are only expressing their patronising contempt for African people and governments. This is not the colonial racism of yesterday, but one that is far more insidious and potentially destructive, it claims that it wants to save Africans from themselves by making sure they stay in mud huts. Any decent progressive in the world should oppose these interfering and patronising attitude.

Lame Cultural Ideas -No.1- No Statue for Charlie Chaplin

I hope this will become an online archive for lame ideas that come about because of the obsession with cultural identity. No 1 comes today from India, where Hindu activists are upset by a proposal for a 20m tall statue of Charlie Chaplin, because he was a Christian. The activists have actually succeeded in preventing the statue from being built, however I don't agree with the Times' assessment that they are 'extremists'. This label is applied too easily these days.

When cultural identity takes the place of politics, this is the kind of excess that you can expect. Such protests are motivated less by bigotry than by a sense of insecurity and a fragile identity. All over the world there are examples of how cultural identity is distorting politics and producing more examples of these lame protests. Please send in your examples to this post.

Pubs should return to the centre of public life

It's not everyday that I find myself agreeing with Tristram Hunt, reading his column in the Times today about controls on drinking was a pleasant surprise, until I got to the end and Hunt shows his true colours. Hunt argues that pubs should take their place at the heart of public life in Britain, and criticises measures like the smoking ban for driving people away from pubs. All very true, until Hunt says that the "...ban on smoking in public places has driven drinking back into the home, where social safeguards are absent".

Hunt is not arguing for the freedom of drinkers, he wants them to drink in public where they can be monitored and controlled, by each other and by the state. It's another version of the 'eye on the street' that institutionalises suspicion between citizens, and is abhorred by what they might get up to in the privacy of their homes. Hunt has used a similar logic in the past to argue against suburbs, again blaming them for moral degeneracy.

Hunt is not a campaigner for freedom, he's a pragmatic authoritarian who thinks it's better to monitor drinkers in public than attempting to limit their consumption of alcohol through punitive measure, simply because they haven't worked in the past. What a truly miserable view of humanity.

On a similar subject, I am trying to oppose the proposal to turn the area around the Arsenal Emirates Stadium into a Controlled Drinking Zone, a measure that the metropolitan police has asked Islington Council to consider. Very few people know what CDZs are, and what they actually mean. Effectively, this gives the police extra powers to stop you and confiscate drinks you are carrying, even if they are unopened. Either the police have developed psychic skills, or as I am more inclined to believe, they would use these powers to make their lives easier, and in the process making everyone walking with a drink a suspect.

The proposal is calculated and worded to create tension between the residents and the Arsenal fans, the fans are not being consulted only the residents are. What I found to my surprise, is that some Arsenal fans actually support this measure because they blame the away fans for bad behaviour. This is exactly the type of suspicion that such policies promote, and we should fight it.I agree with Hunt, let's put the pub at the centre of public life again, but let's remove all the constraints that have been imposed by the government and councils on public drinking to enable that.

Permanent Settlement of the Palestinians in Lebanon: What's so scary about it?

The resettlement of the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon is an old preoccupation that keeps surfacing up. In the past few years, the Christian parties in the "8th of March" coalition have insisted on keeping this particular subject in circulation, warning that there is an international conspiracy to 'resettle' the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. In the past month alone, there are more than 20 references to 'resettlement' on the Free Patriotic Movement website, tayyar.org. These come from statements by the leader of the FPM Michel Aoun, MPs and leaders in the movement, as well as other political leaders allied with the FPM, including the speaker of the parliament Nabih Berri. Why is this particularly old theme being kept in public discussion?
A bit of clarification. resettlement in English does not exactly convey what is intended by the Arabic term 'tawteen'. The Arabic term refers more to the permanent settlement of the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and granting them the Lebanese nationality. The UNRWA figures show that there are 416,000 refugees registered with the agency in Lebanon, of which 220,000 live in refugee camps. The majority of the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon came after the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. Six decades later, more than half of them still live in refugee camps with severe restrictions imposed by the Lebanese authorities on their rights to education, employment, property ownership and political rights.
The old argument often rehashed in defence of this arrangement is that a permanent settlement of those refugees in Lebanon would mean an effective recognition of Israel and giving up their historic right to the land of Palestine. Presumably, the more uncomfortable they are made, the more zealous they would be in trying to reclaim their land. For the Christians in particular, the threat of being 'overwhelmed' by Muslims demographically was an important factor, as the majority of Palestinian refugees are Muslims. And in a country like Lebanon which is based on strict quotas for religious groups, this causes concern.
Yet, it is hard to understand why the subject of resettlement is being constantly pushed into the limelight, when there is no indication that there are any such projects being proposed, not by the Palestinian Authority, nor by the international community, and certainly not by any of the members of the 14th of March 'pro-Western' coalition. The illusion that Aoun and his allies try to give is that the 14th of March leaders are in secret contact with Israel to allow the permanent resettlement of the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, stirring up old apprehensions to shore up Aoun's support among the Christians. The elections will perhaps tell if this is a successful tactic, but this important issue needs a more mature discussion that the 'politic of fear' tabloid-style discussion we're getting now.
The more enlightened voices in Lebanon, a minority by any measure, have argued for better living conditions and more rights for the Palestinian refugees living in Lebanon, and this is certainly a good starting point. The situation did improve slightly since 2005, but there are still huge restrictions on Palestinian refugees. Even if all the current restrictions were to be lifted, the Palestinian refugees would still not have any political rights, and consequently no say in the running of a country that the majority of them has been born in and lived all their lives there. Insisting that granting them the Lebanese nationality would in effect mean giving up 'the right of return' to Palestine is meaningless.
There are precedents in Lebanon for large groups of refugees being granted Lebanese nationality, the largest of which was the Armenian refugees that fled Turkish persecution in the aftermath of World War I, and the smaller Christian groups that came to Lebanon around the same time such the Assyrians and the Syriacs. The Armenians form about 5% of the Lebanese population and have integrated well in Lebanese society, albeit by following the 'Lebanese model' of confessional politics. The overtly racist claim in Lebanon is that this is because they are insular, in fact it is a sign of how well they have integrated in Lebanon.
The fear of the prospect of the Palestinians being naturalised in Lebanon that all parties stoke is irrational. Nor will it mean giving up the right of return. After the Oslo Accord, many Palestinians who had immigrated to the West came back to the West Bank and Gaza and invested in local industries and businesses. To claim that all that keeps that hope alive is the misery in the diaspora is a miserable view of the Palestinians and their cause. But regardless of that, the naturalisation of the Palestinians in Lebanon is an essential part of the modernisation of the country and a way to build politics that break away from sectarian determinism.
The aftermath of the 'cedar revolution' has taught us that the sectarian system always reinvents itself to meet the demands of the moment. It is capable of restructuring itself and its alliances, but maintains its effective grasp on politics all the time. The most effective tool it has is fear and the claim of protecting 'cultural identity'. This pre-modern idea of politics needs to be challenged, not by removing reference to our sect from our identity cards, but by building a new sense of politics that rejects irrational fears and deterministic ideas about culture.
Thus, if we are to behave as a civilised nation, it is imperative that the subject of the permanent resettlement of Palestinians be removed from this poisonous context, by naturalising the Palestinian refugees living in Lebanon and granting them full civil rights. Those who claim that Lebanon is a fragile country that cannot handle such shocks are only expressing how little faith and belief they have in their country and how little they trust its citizens. If you believed that Lebanon is so fragile, why do you want to live in it?

More on this at: http://www.karlsharro.co.uk/out_of_breath.html

ManTowNHuman: The Fountainhead Rewritten by Jeremy Clarkson

Best description I ever heard of our manifesto: "The Fountainhead re-written by Jeremy Clarkson." Thanks to Charles Holland, the director of FAT, for that. I couldn't have thought of a better way of putting it myself. Second prize goes to Justin McGuirk in the Architects' Journal, who described ManTowNHuman as the "anti-sustainability manifesto". No link for that, you'll have to buy your own copy of the AJ for the pleasure.
Holland meant it as a critique, of course, but it's still a brilliant line. Back in October, I spoke on a panel with Holland's colleague from FAT, Sean Griffiths and I actually thought he was quite good as a speaker and he stood up for the freedom of architects. Admittedly, their stuff is a bit flippant, but those aren't heroic times. Perhaps the recession will sort that out, someone will realize that we will need genuine development and big ideas instead of messing around the edges.
Holland got everything else about us wrong. I don't think I've ever been called a conservative before, but there's a first time for everything. His grasp of politics is very shallow, but you can't expect nice white middle class boys to be Renaissance Men, that would be too old fashioned. Still, thank for the quote, Charlie Boy.

'Help' Lebanese Film and Freedom of Expression, or Christians Learn from Khomeini

‘HELP! was pasted all over Beirut in February on bright blue posters advertising the new Lebanese film addressing sex, prostitution, drugs and homelessness. But anticipation for the movie, which cost over $200,000 to make, came to nothing. The film's directors told NOW that the Censorship Department in the General Security withdrew permission for a planned screening on February 16.’ (NOW Lebanon)

With Nadine Labaki's 'Caramel', it appeared that Lebanese cinema was taking a new direction. For starters, it was refreshing to see a film that addressed the contemporary reality of Beirut and moving away from the subject matter of the civil war that had for long occupied Lebanese filmmakers. Also, the film tackled, ever so gently, some of the 'taboos' in Lebanese society, such as homosexuality, virginity, and extra-marital affairs. Lebanese audiences were waiting for the release of Marc Abi Rached's film 'Help' which was expected to be more daring in dealing with such social issues, however this was not meant to be. As Pierre Abi Saab reports today in Al-Akhbar, the Lebanese film censoring authority has withdrawn a license that it had previously issued, meaning that the film has effectively been banned.

There has been speculation since the license for the film was revoked about the reasons for this decision. One theory was that the officer in charge of the licensing the film was replaced, a bit flimsy in my opinion. Others said it was because of the nudity in the film, especially that the actress involved is the daughter of a Lebanese MP. But Abi Rached said in an interview that he stayed well within the limit allowed by Lebanese Law on nudity. The organization Skeyes, the Centre for Defending Media and Cultural Freedoms founded in memory of murdered Lebanese journalist Samir Kassir, claimed that a Catholic organization had a role in the decision to ban Abi Rached’s film.

On the Lebanese Forces discussion forum, (don't ask) the contributors were in favour of showing the film, and someone suggested that it was because 'our southern Iranian neighbours don't like nudity'. (A not-so-subtle reference to the Shiite community). According to Abi Saab's piece in Al-Akhbar today, it appears that they are in for a surprise. Abi Saab attributes the decision to withdraw the license to a 'protest' made by the 'Centre Catholique d’Information', the mouthpiece of the Maronite church in Lebanon. Abi Saab does not cite any sources for his claim, but he is a good critic and a trustworthy journalist, and I would have no reason to doubt his claim.

The film apparently describes the experiences of some of the ‘marginal’ characters of Beirut, a young prostitute, a homeless teenager, and an overtly camp gay character. Abi Saab thinks that it is this character in particular that seems to have offended the church authorities most, and he might be right. Such subjects have certainly been addressed by Lebanese filmmakers in the past, such in Mohammed Soueid’s 'Cinema Fouad' and Akram Zaatari’s 'Majnounak', but those were short ‘documentary’ style films, shown mostly to small audiences. With Help, Abi Rached was preparing to take those subjects to a mass audience in a feature-length format, which might still make it to Europe before it will be seen by Lebanese audiences.

Like 'Caramel' before it, 'Help' appears to be influenced by Almodovar’s work, and certainly from the trailer available online appears to be ‘polished’ technically. It was boldly advertised through a ‘teaser’ campaign, the aforementioned Help signs did not mention the film until sometime later. All of this is significant. Whereas Zaatari’s and Soueid’s work took advantage of the small ‘art house’ context to push the limits, it is high time that the wider audience gets the benefit of a similar experience. I have no idea if Help is any good, but I would have liked to have the opportunity to judge for myself.

What is interesting about the whole episode is the extent to which the language of cultural sensitivity is being deployed nowadays. Those who argue that the Satanic Verses saga was about Islam, and its incompatibility with the modern world, are entirely wrong. It wasn’t Islamists that came up with the idea that speech hurts, in fact it was a by-product of feminism that found its way into the mainstream. Once feminism was dissociated from a wider idea of liberation and started arguing in favour of a particular experience that is distinct from the universal, it inevitably started dabbling with restrictions on speech and expression. That lesson has been learned by everyone, from cultural groups to religious organisations to gay rights campaigners, who all compete nowadays in what they see as defending their constituents from offense.

In that sense, the Catholic Information Centre is not being an outdated religious institution, but a thoroughly postmodern one. Even if it turns out that it was not behind this particular decision to ban 'Help', it has certainly led campaigns in the past against some films and books that it considered offensive, such as The Da Vinci Code. The response should be not to blame religion, but to insist that there is no right not to be offended. This is even more important when the film in question is not an imported one, but someone holding a mirror to the society he lives in, as Abi Rached is trying to do. Let’s find out for ourselves whether we can see our reflection in that mirror.

For more articles on film, see:
http://www.karlsharro.co.uk/Imagining%20the%20City.htm
http://www.karlsharro.co.uk/syriana.html
http://www.karlsharro.co.uk/architecture_film.html

The Israeli Elections: What's the verdict?

If the political categories of Left and Right have lost their meaning in the West, in Israel they have become absolutely erroneous and misleading. Yet, it is quite astounding how commentators everywhere are oblivious to this fact. The so-called lurch to the right has been accepted universally, by the Israeli media, Western and Arab journalists, even Islamic Jihad leader Nafez Azzam saw it as a sign of Israeli society becoming more extremist. Yet, in reality, the four main parties that between them got 70% of the vote are much more similar than they appear. Their differences lie in very subtle shades of grey.
In the build-up to the elections, the candidates themselves and the media were desperate to exaggerate their differences. Netanyahu proclaimed that he will never give up the Golan heights, Livni and Barak claimed commitment to peace but played it tough on Hamas and Iran, and finally, the one that everybody is talking about, Lieberman wants Israel to be for the Jews and has declared that the Arab citizens of Israel are not loyal to the Jewish state. In the heat of the electoral battle, these might sound like radical differences between the different parties. With a bit more historic perspective and through the prism of where Israel is today and the fate of Zionism, the four parties are equally at loss to know what they actually stand for and how that would shape their policies.
Looking at the common denominator, all of those parties, and the other smaller ones as well, continue to see Israel as 'work-in-progress.' Israel's main problem so far has been that it has no recognizable borders, partially as a result of the 1967 war and the acquisition of territory that had been hitherto in the realm of fantasy. Decades on, that particular problem persists, compounded by the notion of land-for-peace which Israeli elites accepted, and the public at large do support. With the Oslo agreement and the peace process, the notion that the borders of Israel are open to negotiation has intensified. Today, this frames the actions and utterances of Israeli politicians across the board, whether they are in power or in opposition.
For those that have forgotten Netanyahu's term in power, it might be a moment to remind them that in fact his actions fell very short of his rhetoric. In fact, the catastrophic actions of Barak and later Sharon, actions that the Lebanese and the Palestinians suffered terribly from, were far more destructive than Netanyahu's. This is by no means a defense of the man, he was no dove, but to point out that in reality he is a pragmatist, not an ideologue. It is also useful to remember that Netanyahu signed two agreements with the Palestinian Authority during his term, and although he did his best to slow down the 'peace process', he did not effectively over turn the agreements or put an end to the process.
That same pragmatism is what characterizes the other men and women at the top of Israeli politics today, even Ariel Sharon himself had abandoned his ideological stance on his comeback, Kadima is the proof of that. A motley crew of characters assembled from all sides of Israeli politics, not for any great political purpose but because the re-definition of the boundaries of Israel had acquired an urgency that they intended to solve with physical measures on the ground rather than by answering the political questions that were raised by the decline of the Zionist project and attempting to fill the void in Israeli politics. Cue the withdrawal from Gaza and The Wall.
Barak, Livni and Netanyahu will invariably continue that line of thinking and action, and attempting to illustrate their differences through meaningless gestures. To give up the Golan or not give up the Golan is not a priority that any of them will have long term, it is easy to say that now when there is no real prospect for peace with Syria, but once the opportunity presents itself, no doubt that even Netanyahu will not hesitate from handing it back if the 'mood was right.'
What of Lieberman? How could he be likened to those other politicians with his tough stance and radicalism? This another case of rhetoric passing for a real political agenda, but a closer examination of Lieberman reveals that he is only louder than his colleagues, if not substantially different. In fact, Lieberman's particular stance might represent an even bigger challenge to the boundaries of Israel as it stands today. The quartet of parties at the top of Israeli politics are all reacting to demographics, attempting to re-draw the line that separates from the Palestinians where they think it will guarantee them a longer period of Jewish statehood. Lieberman is taking that to its logical conclusion.
Calling Lieberman an ultra-nationalist is a bit misleading, this is not a man that will take Israel onto new conquests to acquire more territory or fulfill any historical promise between 'the river and the sea'. On the contrary, he exemplifies the lack of confidence in any political projects that is characteristic of politics today. He is driven by fear of demographics and the fragility of the Israeli state. And this the paradox that Israel is experiencing today: a mighty military machine and advanced economy that are still not capable of inspiring any confidence of the ability to defend that state.
Why? The response can ultimately be traced back to the decline of Zionism. Or call it the end of Zionism as a historic project, in the sense that it has fulfilled its aim of establishing a Jewish state, although it has failed in its task of providing security for Jews everywhere. The question for Israel today is how to move beyond Zionism. The absence of any political project that can guide this process will mean that the pragmatism of Israeli politicians will continue, fuelled by fear and particularly fear of demographics. The results of that are catastrophic, as we have seen recently in Gaza, with thousands killed and devastation wreaked for no obvious reason.
For the time being, the politicians will continue their horse-trading and political games, oblivious to the historic task that demands their attention. But don't fool yourselves in thinking that there is any significant difference between them. Ultimately, I wonder if there is any secure future other than one brought about by a secular and democratic state. What that will represent for the Jewish character for Israel is up Israelis to determine, but the numbers game will not bring about security or stability. As long as Israel continues to be a malleable state, one with elusive boarders, its troubles and those of the Palestinians will persist.

For more, visit: www.karlsharro.co.uk

Unveiled at the Saatchi Gallery: Middle Eastern Art

Unveiled: New Art From The Middle East is an exhibition which claims little beyond its title. There is no obvious reason why this particular group of artists should be brought together in the same exhibition, to claim that somehow they represent art practices in the Middle East would be misleading, there are no obvious stylistic connections or over-riding concerns among the various artists on show. Paradoxically, this liberates the exhibition and allows the visitors to relate more to the individual works on display. This show does what it says on the tin, and does it successfully.
In contrast to Catherine David's Contemporary Arab Representations, a series of exhibitions that ran for several years since 2001 in various cities, Unveiled does not assume the burden of representation, and does not expect the artists to give an insight into Arab culture, cultural ambassadors they are not. What they do is give us free-standing art works that can (mostly) speak for themselves. This was a breath of fresh air.
Take for example the two works by Marwan Rechmaoui Beirut, Caoutchouc and Spectre, previously exhibited as part of Contemporary Arab Representations. It's the first time that I've seen his work shown outside of that context and liberated from the company of Deleuzian texts and yet another grainy video of someone's aunt, and it was like seeing the artworks for the first time. Caoutchouc is a large scale map of Beirut reproduced in black rubber in relief, that represents the city in a surprisingly novel way. Common to the work of most Lebanese artists of his generation, the problem of knowing the city is a central theme in Rechmaoui's work, yet his take on it is very personal and specific. The abstract conventions of map-making are subtly manipulated, allowing us to look beyond the physical city.
In Spectre (The Yacoubian Building, Beirut) Rechmaoui creates a scaled-down version of an iconic modernist building in Beirut in concrete and glass. The building is depicted at a specific point in its history, after it was evacuated during the Israeli attacks on Lebanon in 2006, and bearing the traces of its decades of existence in a troubled city. The artist faithfully depicts the smallest details, such as the heavy metal doors that become common during the civil war, but this is far from a process of pure documentation. The tension between the building's abstract repetitive form and the little details that Rechmaoui chooses to highlight, the story of the decline of a city and the fate of its inhabitants is being told cleverly and sensitively.
Rechmaoui's works are representations of his unique and personal way of looking at the city, and his ability to translate that into material form without excessive expressionism but with the subtle hints that allow us to see the city through his eyes. Isn't this the unique skill of the artist? By contrast, Diana Al-Hadid's works take expressionism to a new high, vigorously melting the symbols of modernity into twisted lumps of plastic. If Rechmaoui's works are masterpieces in under-statement, Al-Hadid's works are loud and garrulous. Curiously, they seem to be less personal precisely because of this quality.
The Tower of Infinite Problems and the other pieces on display by Al-Hadid, are large shards of metal and plastic, constantly at odds with gravity and at various stages of collapse and ruin, some of have completely surrendered waiting, presumably, for the inevitable crawl of green that is the fate of all ruins. The works are masterfully produced, but that has long ago ceased to be a quality to be praised in art. What is genuinely disturbing about the shattered towers is not Al-Hadid's unique vision in as much as that images of catastrophe have become so common today to arouse any interest, in me at least. Rather than seeing an artist struggling with the world around her, all I could see is yet another Virilio inspired take on modernity and the implications of taking technology to an extreme.
Al-Hadid as a Syrian-American artist is trying to give expression to the two cultures that she belongs to and on the way highlight issues such as cultural conflict. But the impression that I get, and perhaps this is the one fault line that can be traced in the entire exhibition, is that this is someone who have accepted those categories such as culture uncritically, and her work becomes less personal because of that. To a certain extent, this is the main difference between the works of the artists who live in the Middle East and those who live in the west. The first group don't have the luxury of thinking of their context in terms of abstract categories; it is above all a lived reality that they have to struggle with on a daily basis. The second group seem to have escaped the confines of that reality, but it's a false liberation that gives their work that abstract distant quality.
This is particularly true of the paintings of Nadia Ayari. The catalogue says of her: "Ayari didn't start working with her Middle Eastern subject matter until she’d moved to America and notions of cultural heritage and identity came to the fore." And it shows. Only someone far removed from the lived reality of the Middle East can attempt to sum it up in such a collection of visual clichés. This is Orientalism for the 21st century, rehabilitated by the fact that it is being committed by a native. All the more cause for concern. The struggle of the people of Palestine and Iraq today is not so much to get recognition for their misery, but to stop the west from constantly portraying them as perpetual victims, and in the case of Ayari's paintings, literally in such a flat manner.
Flatness, that old paradox of painting, has been revisited by two of the Iranian artists in the exhibition, Ramin Haerizadeh and Ahmad Morshedloo. Not so crassly, of course, but with thought and sophistication that re-asserts the notion that are is truly universal, and an experiment began by a French artists a hundred years ago could be picked up again by someone in Iran today. Not as a distraction from life, but as a unique way of dealing with it and sharing that vision with others.
Haerizadeh's collages are powerful in combining the conventions of collage with traditional Persian painting and crafts, using mostly his body as raw material. The effect is astonishing, producing intriguing works that on closer inspection reveal the manipulation and distortion involved in re-packaging his severed limbs and his chubby face to produce hyper-real bodies suitable for our age where the body has lost its integrity and has been appropriated by various institutions.
Morshedloo's work is particularly powerful, not only because it declares that painting is not dead as an art form, but because of the insistence that his subjects caught in a moment of daily life are not the vacuous abstractions we have to expect from depictions of that part of the world, but are subjects in their own right regardless of how much their attire hides or reveals of them. The contrast between the naked men and over-clad women does nothing to distract from that, these are living breathing subjects. We are made even more aware, paradoxically, through Morshedloo's unique perspectives and foreshortening effects. This is not crass realism, but painting at its best. The less said the better.
Finally, the last piece which attracted the most attention from the visitors is Kader Attia's Ghost. The aluminium-foil empty shells that represent Muslim women in prayer, a hundred or more of them perhaps, are very powerful visually. Though to me personally the effect is not particularly due to Attia's social 'comment' in as much as it is the representation of the hollow body in that most fragile and transient of materials, aluminium foil. For all I care, they could have been a group of Jedi warriors looking for their contact lenses, the effect would have been the same. There is something about the power of visual depictions that we seem to have abandoned in favour of art with a message, and perhaps that is too much of a burden. Attia's work is an example of the power of that form of visual exploration that used to be called sculpture.
The last room in the exhibition is dedicated to old masters from the Middle East, and it suitably takes me to my conclusion. In societies where visual art was not an established tradition, those early masters embarked on what seemed to their contemporaries an alien endeavour, a career and a life in art. They did that for two reasons, one to create their own modernity in countries that were still ambivalent about it, and secondly, to become full-fledged individuals in societies where the concept was struggling to emerge against the tyranny of older institutions. In Unveiled, we see that struggle continue. There are artists who have to live in countries that find their activities superfluous, but in their struggle to assert their individualism they are producing thoughtful and engaging works of art. On the other hand, there are those who seem to have surrendered their individuality in favour of a formulaic and self-indulgent art that is obsessed with identity. It's a fine line, but this exhibition will allow discerning viewers to judge for themselves.