On the “Arab Maghreb Union” vs “Maghrebi Union”

Recently, during a meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the “Arab Maghreb Union” the Moroccan Minister proposed to drop the term “Arab” in the name of the Union, in order to stick to the reality of Maghreb, a multicultural space where Amazigh (Berbers) and Black Africans coexist with Arabs (actually, who are not really Arabs, but merely Arabized Berbers). But the Tunisian Minister Rafik Abdessalam Bouchleka refused, arguing that Maghreb was Arab in terms of “civilisation, culture and geography”. Not only the geoagraphic argument is absurd (since when did Maghreb drift out of Africa and became part of the Arab Peninsula?), but the civilisation argument is the sign either of  intolerance either of ingnorance. Indeed, 45millions non-Arabs live in North Africa, why would we stick on all of us a wrong classification?

North Africa doesn’t exist only as a part of the “Arab World”, it also exists in itself: it has its own History, civilisation, numerous languages, ethnies. Egypt isn’t part of Arab Maghreb Union so is technically not concerned by this debate, but who is not aware of the fact that denying the non-Arab History of Egypt (Pharaonic) would be unacceptable for Egyptians? For the case of Maghreb, it is the same: denying the non-Arab past AND present is a denial to the identity of the land and its inhabibtants. As long as Maghrebi leaders refuse to stop to be just the satellites of the Middle-East, as long as they don’t listen to the people, asking for recognition and dignity, they will not drive us to the true democracy, the task we entrusted them with.

October 6th 1981, the day “my” dictator was shot

I don’t remember that day; I wasn’t born. My mother remembers she was 8-months-and-something pregnant of me and my father remembers he was literally panicked the delivery could happen at any moment. I am their first child, it is as unexperienced parents-to-be they lived that particular October 6th 1981.

They lived far from their homelands, in Switzerland, and it is with this strange obsession specific to the expats they were following as much as they could what was happening in Tunisia (my mother’s country) and in Egypt (my father’s). In 2011, it is difficult to imagine what means ‘following news’ at a time when there was no Internet, no twitter, no mobile phones and hardly any landlines in our families back home, no satellite TV; in fact no TV at all at my parents’ place. A bit of radio, newspapers (in some places in Switzerland you could get a few arabic newspapers with 3days delay), and mostly news from other expats were coming  back from travel, that heard something from somebody, that has a personnal story to tell. I don’t know by which of these means they knew the Egyptian dictator Anouar Al-Sadat was shot during the traditional military parade of October 6th.

All I know for being told the story thousands of times by my parents, is that my father rushed to buy a TV immediately when he heard the news of Sadat’s death.  Years later, everytime I hear the name of the dictator I imagine a younger version of my father trying to get that new TV (that now would look like an antique) working and a younger version of my mother, pregnant on the couch trying to give suggestions on how to do. I was born 10 days after Sadat’s death, on October 16th. My father never forgets to mention that October 81 brought many changes in his life: a daughter and a TV.

The world remembers Sadat with nostalgy for his peace efforts with Israel, but Egyptians don’t. This hate of Egyptians for the dictator is nothing because of Israel, but because Sadat is the synonyme for corruption, poverty, jails, arbitrary detentions, torture, expensive bread. Sadly ironic to think that a man that was so injust was awarded with a Peace Nobel Prize.

My father migrated to Switzerland because his engineering studies, in the Sadat years Egypt, were not enough to find a job and grant a decent a living for him, his two parents and his 6 sisters. Hadn’t he migrated, he wouldn’t have met my mother and I would have never “been”. Sadat, “my” dictator in a way.

October 6th 2011, 30 years later, Egypt is trialing another dictator, Hosni Mubarak. Age of blood is over for our country and we will be firmly standing to avoid it to ba back.

Reviving the Amazigh (Berber) Identity in Tunisia: because we are all Amazigh

Walk in the streets of Tunis, in the streets of Monastir or Bizerte, and listen to the people: people talk in Arabic, mostly, some in French and if tourists are around, in German, Italian or English. And unlike in the streets of Algeria or Morocco, you will never hear anybody talking in Tamazight (berber language). You might then conclude that unlike Algeria or Morocco, Tunisia is a pure Arab country. You’d be wrong.

Now walk nearby the mountains (Sidi Abdel Rahman mount, for example), wander in the small villages hardly reached by the hectic life of cities, walk in the cities a bit far from the centralized power, in Gasserine, in Tataouine, walk and watch the elder ladies: some wear thistypical square-patterned cloths kept tied by silver ornamental pins (‘Kholla’), and have around their necks ‘Rihanna’ (long chain made of big round silver rings as links) with ‘Khomssa’ pendants (Hand of Fatima), some even have tribal facial tattoos,  and all of them, when they talk, use words slightly different from those used in the big towns.  They don’t say ‘Ana’ (I, me), they say ‘Yeney’, the ‘Q’ is pronounced ‘G’. It seems Arabic but at least 30-40% of the words are not Arabic. What are they? They are Amazigh.

Go to the weddings, you will see the ancestral Berber costumes, the Berber jewellery (such as the ‘Kholkhal’, massive anklets), the music played strangely seems the same as in Kabilya or Northern Atlas. Amazigh, again. And if you are not yet convinced look out for Tunisia’s History: from Hannibal to Ibn Khaldoun, from Carthago to Djerba, the Amazigh presence is everywhere.

Tunisia has a strong Amazigh heritage. Systematical genetical survey show that 98% of the Tunisian population is of Amazigh origin. Every part of the culture and traditions show that we are in an Amazigh country, at the only striking difference that here, almost nobody talks Tamazight: but then why did the language almost disappear while all the rest stayed quite unchanged?As if the Imazighen where everywhere in Tunisia, only that they are mute.

Like in Algeria, Morocco and Libya, Tamazight was the native language of this country that our ancestors where calling ‘Ifriqya‘ (does it remember you something? Yes, from that word comes ‘Africa’). Like in these other countries, Arabic arrived in Ifriqya together with Islam: but unlike people sometimes say, it was not a massive invasion of Arab populations. Arab population that settled in Tunisia were never more than 2-3%. Arabic and Islam integrated the culture of Tunisia and became part of every Tunisian’s life and identity (after all, Tunisia is an Arabic name, given by Arabs that, when they arrived in Ifriqya found its inhabitants so generous and with such a strong sense of hospitality that they called this land the land that ‘twannass‘, meaning the land where you feel like surrounded by your family/friends), but Tamazight and Amazigh culture stayed also a vital part of this identity, and would not disappear. So to say, Tunisians are Amazigh people, that throughout History constituted a mixed Amazigh-Arab-Islamic identity. Arab-Islamic culture is vital to understand Tunisian identity, but so is Amazigh culture. They are like two sides of the same coin. A peaceful Tunisian would be a person accepting the both sides if their culture and the impregnation of Islam on these both sides.

Amazigh language began to almost disappear from Tunis only in the two last centuries, when the French domination, like in other parts of North Africa, needed a way to constitute populations in nations and blocks rather than in tribes, because it was easier to handle: imposing an uniform identity and language was the easiest way to break regionalism and build nationalism. Amazigh was banned, and Arabic and French were imposed, nomad tribes were forced to settle. After independance, the dictatorial regimes, following the French example to impose its law over the countries, continued the same path and criminalized the use of Tamazight, while leading a huge ‘arabization’ campaign through schools, administration, etc. The unluck of Tunisia compared to Morocco, Algeria and Libya, is that in this small country without big geographical relief, where most of the population was already living in towns near the sea, and with much fewer nomads, the cultural genocide worked much better than in the neighbouring countries. Indeed, one can say that big part of the preservation of the Amazigh culture in Algeria, Morocco and Libya is due to the difficult access to the mountains of Kabilya, Atlas and Nefoussa. And the job began by the French was finished by Bourguiba, certainly the most ‘francophile’ of all Arab dictators, and consolided by Ben Ali brutal dictatorship. Bourguiba and Gaddafi could certainly be ‘awarded’ as the biggest mass eliminators of Amazigh culture; after all didn’t they try shortly in 1973-1974 to form a Tunisian-Libyan Union called ‘Arab Islamic Republic’ (ironic, isn’t it, to refer to Islam for a man like Bourguiba that was not even observing Ramadan and wanted to force Tunisians to follow his example?).

The denial of Amazigh identity of Tunisia policy is so harsh that there isn’t even official statistics of the remaining number of Tamazight speakers in Tunisia: we talk sometimes about less than 100’000 people, sometimes less than 10’000. But the worst part of it certainly arrived through schools: ideological versions of History tought to children make it possible that in an Amazigh country, if you ask to the definition of the word ‘Amazigh‘, many are unable to give it, and many hear that word for the first time. A real national drama, if you consider socio-linguistic studies that show that about 60% of the Tunisian population had within the four preceding  generations Amazigh locutors in their family. If nothing is done now, Tamazight will simply disappear from Tunisia.

The New Tunisia, free from dictatorship is still looking for putting the right words on the aspirations of Tunisians: the new constitution has to be written. Preliminary drafts show that Tunisia is defined as a country of “Arab identity”. It would be a big mistake to not include the Amazigh Identity in the Constitution and not recognize Tamazight as an official language together with Arabic. Since the end of Ben Ali regime, we see a whole new activism in Tunisia of young Tunisian Amazigh, that want to follow the Moroccan example, where Tamazight entered in the constitution. Associations begin to form and to protest. Social networks are used as a platform to coordinate actions. Tunisia needs to revive its Amazigh culture. Tunisia needs to recognize what it is: a mixed Amazigh-Arab-Islamic identity.

European journalists think its an Arab Spring, but inside of it, there is a strong Amazigh flavour. After all, didn’t the Tunisian revolution start in Sidi Bouzid, a town named after a local saint, a purely Amazigh tradition?

By dying, Ossama Ben Laden won his last battle

There is nearly nobody on the 7 billion people on our planet talking about anything else than Ben Laden’s death at the moment. When the American President Obama spoke late night, bringing the news that was already largely spread on all social networks and TV broadcasts of the killing of the most feared man on Earth after a hunt of nearly 10 years, he sounded victorious. “Justice has been done“, he argued. Really?

When one sticks to the facts, one is forced to conclude that:

1. Apparently Ossama Ben Laden was not hidden in mountains, under the ocean or on Planet Mars, but in a small cozy town of Pakistan, an ally nation of US. The trillions of dollars put in the wars against terrorism and the extravagant sums spent to supply the Intelligence failed to bring practical and efficient solutions to catch the most wanted man on the planet in a reasonable timing.
2. He was caught only after he clearly retired from his duties in Al-Qaeda. US totally failed at catching him while he was active, challenging the whole planet with his tapes recorded in Afghan mountains. Al-Qaeda legendary figure is dead, but Al-Qaeda works for now at least 3-4 years without Ossama Ben Laden. In a sense, he was more like a “Godfather”: highly valued and respected by his men for the “glorious” record, feared by his ennemies, but not being anymore the field guy.
3. The logistics and organization of the number 1 terrorist nebula won’t be affected by Ben Laden’s death. Ex-Number 2 who is now Number 1, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, is not a youngster anymore either and very unlikely to be technically leading Al-Qaeda; he’s just the other ‘Godfather’. The technical leadership, planning of operations, recruitment, are to find somewhere else. So to say, US have totally failed to disrupt Al-Qaeda as a criminal organization able to schedule operations and put them into practice.
4. Al-Qaeda’s emulators, such as Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb or Jamaat Ansar As-Sunna, are  deeply rooted everywhere and do not depend on Al-Qaeda itself to pursue their own goals: Al-Qaeda created a template and it was successfully used to spread terrorism.
5. The release of the Wikileaks Guantanamo Files (779 detainees files, with extensive individual description, charges, medical statements) a couple of days before the “arrest” of Ossama Ben Laden are nothing but a testimony of how far had Americans to go to get very few information, with an extremely weak “return on investment”. In other words, the enigma is still unsolved. Al-Qaeda succeeded to create the most opaque organization ever (the Wikipedia pages about Al-Qaeda are among the most poorly documented), almost impossible to stop but from the inside.
6. By killing Ossama Ben Laden, any hope of a trial/instruction/interrogation is automatically suppressed, depriving anti-terrorism strategists from a number one source to key information on Al-Qaeda and depriving victims from a real justice process.
7. The war on terrorism done in Afghanistan and Iraq ruined financially America, ruined its reputation worldwide, made about a thousands times more victims than the terrorist attacks themselves, planted the seeds of the dramatic collapse of the global influence the “American Empire”: US were weakened by this decade of “shock and awe” campaign. Al-Qaeda and Ossama Ben Laden made in less than 10 years what the USSR did not achieve in 30 years of Cold War.

When in 2008 Bush administration spokesman pronounced the simple sentence “Ladies and Gentlemen – We got him.” to announce the arrest of Saddam Hussein, it did not prevent G.W. Bush from the complete failure of his policy in Iraq. Today, Ossama Ben Laden death is certainly not a victory on the battlefield, where Amrican troops can surely already prepare for an intensification of terrorist acts against Amrican interests.

Indirect consequences of a decade of Al-Qaeda threat over the world would be interesting to study. A few can be already be named: Al-Jazeera was “made” by Ben Laden tapes the same way CNN was “made” by the Gulf wars, empowering the Arab region with its first subversive towards Arab regimes and the West TV channel; virtual activism and on-line recruitment, “headless” or “structure-less” political entities constitute the jist of the method mostly developped by Al-Qaeda (some used it for terrorism, others to ask for democracy); war on terrorism weakened enough US and allies for them to lose hand and perfect control on global geostrategy (they have hard time evaluating the dangers and the appropriate answers).

At the end, they offered Ossama Ben Laden what he always wanted: to die as a “martyr”. By his political criminal acts, as incredible as it appears, he created the “post-September 11th” world he wanted, where Western nations are terrorized and violently challenged for their imperialism and let a large “heritage”: a method to aggressive resistance.

Yes, definetly, by dying, Ossama Ben Laden won his last battle.

Palestinian Spring, Israeli Winter?

A couple of days ago I was wondering how would Israel, in its current way of doing things, survive in a democratic Middle-East. At that precise moment, it was one day before the occurence a key event, that surprised most of us: the Hamas and the Fatah reconciliated. Whatever reasons lies behind the sudden “ceasefire”, the perspective of the end of the internal fight opposing parties is likely to bring enough political stability to Palestinians to be able to face the one and real challenge: negociations with Israel. The news, of course, annoyed the Zionist State, that was beneficiating since April 2006 (when Hamas enters government) of a very convenient alibi to refuse the peacebuilding process: they’d not negotiate with Hamas, a “terrorist” organization that is not recognizing Israel.

But if today Hamas and Fatah walk, let’s say hand in hand, Israel would be forced to negociation, in spite of the fact that they are currently trying to discredit the Palestinian representatives by leading an international campaign against the reconciliation. So now, the possibilities are narrowing with Israel: a coalition Hamas/Fatah would certainly recognize Israel (Hamas is apparently making concessions, for example in announcing that Ismail Haniyeh is ready to resign from his Prime Minister function), sweeping Israel’s alibi, and force them to chose between recognizing Palestinian legitimacy or face growing international isolation for refusing negociation for no valuable reason.

Another good news for Palestinians is the announcement by Egypt of the permanent opening of Rafah border between Egypt and Gaza strip, within 7 to 10 days to alleviate the blocus on Gaza by Israel. Israel blocus, supposedly aiming in limiting the inflow of weapons for Hamas, blocks also necessary supplies such as food, medication or building materials (because yes, it is well known that coriander or vineager threatens Israel’s security).

For more than 60 years, Israel prospered protected by 1) Western alliances and influences in the Middle-Eastern region 2) Arab dictatorships and divisions 3) Very strong military and Intelligence capacities. When a State has as only mean to exist and as only legitimacy the oppression, supression, terrorization of neighbouring people, one is forced to conclude that that State has no solid ground, and no solid future. Unless Israel stops to misuse everybody and everything, if they started fair negociations with the Palestinians, they might well have a future in a democratic Middle-East. And if they still carry on refusing the principle of justice and fairness as the core of their relationship to Palestinians, the Palestinian Spring that just started with unification of Hamas with Fatah might well be the Israeli Winter…

Is there a future for Israel in a democratic Middle-East?

When I try to go back to my childhood memories, it seems to me that although I am Egyptian-Tunisian, I knew about Yasser Arafat much long before than about, say, Habib Bourguiba or Jamal Abdel Nasser. It is not even very surprising when you think of it, there is not one single thing in the world that unites Arabs (people, not elites) like the idea of that free country that once was, called Palestine. The Palestinian cause is kind of transcending our frontiers (in Arab countries and inside the diaspora); most of us felt emotionnaly and intellectually implicated in the Intifadas even before thinking of our own national causes.

One of the very common frustration of the Arab citizen we are is to be forced to see our own countries ruled by dictators all more or less openly collaborating with Israel – the oppressor of the Palestinian people. The corrupted elites of the Middle-East and North Africa allowed Israel to benefit of an auspicious neighbourhood to prosper while they benefited in return of exclusive and lucrative business opportunities or technical support by the Mossad. Each of us pronounced at least once the simple sentence “El Hokam al-Arab ahanoona” (“The Arab rulers humiliated us”), and each of us knew the supreme humiliation was always to watch, helpless, the Israeli giant killing day by day men, women, children, freedom and hope (supported and sponsorised by  “Mama Amerika“). The one and only time of my entire life – more than 29 years now – that I cursed myself for being Egyptian was when, during the Gaza attack on civilians of 2009 by the Israeli army, Egypt (well… Egyptian officials driven by an American agenda) blocked the tunnels linking Sinaï to Gaza strip used for food and weapon supplies; the tears of shame were bitter.

When the current wave of popular freedom began to shake the Arab world, and especially when Egypt was freed from the Mubarak oligarchy, one of my very first thoughts went to Palestine: now that we are not forced anymore to watch our elites making of the 85 million of us passive accomplices of the Israeli savage repression on Palestinians and the denial of their humanity, will Israel be weakened and will it change something for the Palestinians? Will Israel consider in making steps towards an acceptable treatment of Palestinian revendications?

A couple of days after the February 11th, I saw an amazing video on youtube of 3 million Egyptians gathered on Tahrir Square chanting “Al Quds (Jerusalem) we are coming!“. The video of a peaceful crowd claiming their solidarity for Palestine don’t even need any comment or explanation to be powerful:

The protests in Egypt in front of Israeli Embassy became frequent, and the growing feeling is that there is no space anymore for the impunity of Israel. That’s from the people’s side, but what from the new Egyptian authorities? Well, we have only a transitory government, but it seems that it took the full measure of the popular demand on the deals of Egypt with Israel. The first relevant fact was when the government announced that the gas supply to Israel with an underestimated price will be revised. Egypt supplies almost for free 40% of the gas Israel uses and the pipeline bringing the gas to Israel and Jordan is often targeted by vandalism. On the night of April 27th, the pipeline was damaged once again, and the gas supply had to be interrupted, causing Israel to begin to consider the need of self-sufficiency, if in the future they have to forget about the Egyptian gas. The news was very favorably welcomed by most of the Egyptians.

Another significant fact we lately came aware of is that the significant entrave the Mubarak regime was opposing to arms supply to the Gaza strip will be now much reduced. On April 5th Israel has to hit with a missile a car  in Sudan, killing two men implicated in Hamas military operations, one of them presumed to be successor of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, assasinated by Israel in Dubai last year. Apparently, Sudan gets weapons from Iran that are then carried through Egypt and then through Gaza tunnels, for Iran supports actively Hamas. Without a tightly collaborating Egyptian government there is very few chance Israel can controll the weapons flux incoming to Gaza strip, and ensuring collaboration of the democratically elected Egyptian government would require Israel to stop the abuses on the Palestinian population.

Besides Egypt, the Arab turmoil is causing trouble to Israel alliances with Arab elites in more than one way. The ousted Tunisian dictator Ben Ali and his clan were closely collaborating with Israel: the Mossad was well implanted in Tunisia where they provided a logistic and technical support to repression. The Tunisian crowd found many catridges stamped “Made in Israel” on the material used by Tunisian security forces. For example on this video, a Tunisian man in the city of Ariana finds a lot of bullets where we see hebrew writings:

The implication of Israel in repression in Tunisia was also clearly documented in the documentary “Soqot Dawlat al Fassad” (“The downfall of the corrupted regime”)  broadcasted on Tunisian National TV Al Wataniya we can still watch on their website (especially starting from 15:00), including a new eclairage on the Djerba synagogue bomb attack, attributed to Islamists but apparently being the product of a cooperation of Tunisian authorities with Israeli Intelligence. Under Habib Bourguiba, Tunisia was a strong ally to the Palestinian Authority; Yasser Arafat long beneficiated from the support of Tunisia to the Palestinian cause and his wife, Soha Arafat, was holding until 2007 the Tunisian citizenship, before Ben Ali withdrawed it from her and urged her to quit Tunisian territory following an argument with Leïla Ben Ali. The ousting of Ben Ali might well be the end of the tolerance of Tunisia towards Israel.  After the Revolution, Israel offered financial incentives for the return to Israel of the Jewish community in Tunisia, causing displeasure to the transitory Tunisian government, that argues that the Tunisian Jews were peacefully living in Tunisia since centuries.

Concerning the other Arabic States, although the outcome is not yet clearly known, some indications allow to conclude that Israel cooperations with tyrants might well be lost. For example, the trade that was ongoing between the Gaddafi family and Israel, providing Libyan oil in exchange of Israeli tanks and other weapons (among which forbidden weapons currently used to mass murder Libyan population) might well to be stopped forever, given the close evolution of the Libyan conflict.

Since the unrest began to shake Bashar Al Assad regime in Syria and a few signs of a possible propagation in Jordan, Israel’s most faithfull ally in the region, it seems that once for all, Israel entered in the phase of isolation in the Middle-East. If the people take power in the immediate and close neighbourhood of Israel, it might well that the Zionist State is no more given the choice: treat correctly the Palestinian, respect their right to have an Independant State, stop their crimes against humanity, or face the massive and strong opposition of Arab States, ruled by elected governments that are under the accountability of the people.The growing unpopularity inside the Arab region of the American foreign policy (to a point that Hillary Clinton visit in Egypt and Tunisia was troubled by massive protests) and the unpopularity of American-sided candidates like Mohammad Al Baradei or Amr Moussa makes it highly improbable that Israel will ever find again within the region allies like Ben Ali, Mubarak or Gaddafi.

There was a myth not so long ago: an imaginary tale consisting of depicting Israel as being the “only democracy in the Middle-East”. Besides the fact that brutality and apartheid automatically suppresses the credibility of a country self-proclamed democratic (voting is not the only right and due of a democraty), we might well have to tell the opposite tale in a couple of years: Israel, the only dictatorship left in the Middle-East, forced to justice or to disparition.

When humor is a weapon against racism

I was in the bus, looking through the window, wandering from one thought to the other. At one of the bus stops, climbed in a group of teenagers, 3 girls and 2 boys. Like all teenagers, noisy and careless about being noisy – most of people here in Switzerland consider this as being misbehaved, and from the angry looks they gave them one could easily say that they were highly bothered. As for me, this ‘annoyance’ is always most welcome to me, as I consider noisy teenagers perfectly embodying life; it is the only period of life where one have an organic reason to be stupid and in the same time to be enugh aware of things to make sharp observations. Should I mention also that they were obviously Arabs, given the mix of some Arab words in their french talk and that were Muslims given the veils the girls where trying to wear – they looked quite unexperienced to it though – and the qamiss the boys were wearing? It might be by experience or maybe am I paranoid but I think I could say that the other people in the bus were not looking at “noisy teenagers” but at “noisy Muslims”.

As their loud conversation was ongoing – they were mostly talking about the celebration they were going to attend in the mosque – one of the girl said a joke, half in arabic half in french (this girl was quite witty in fact), her friends couldn’t help to laugh – so did I. One of her mates told her “look even the Madam is laughing at you“. “I was laughing at the joke. And if the jokes are going on like this all day long, I wonder how funny must be school.“, did I reply. We all went laughing, and then started talking. They apparently wanted to talk about school; proud to list all the jokes and tricks they did to the teachers and other students. As I learnt they were living in France (the scene was taking place in a bus in Geneva, which is next to the French border), in an area I know a bit.

One of the little stories they told me was about one of their teachers that apparently was punishing them everytime she was hearing an arabic word in class. The problem is that her allergy to any mention to a foreign language was even extended to their private conversations during break; it seemed also she never missed any occasion to emphasize on the fact that French rules only have effect on their lives. As a consequence, the young teenagers – that were after all like so many of us here, born in Europe from Arab migrant parents, and do not want any of the two parts that constitute their identity and culture denied – began to “outbid” about their Arabic identity. One of the boys explained me that for the yearly class picture, they took Algerian, Moroccan and Tunisian flags they waved just at the moment of the picture. When the teacher received the picture, she told to the class “We are in France here, it is shameful that none of you took a French flag“. The boy replied “La France aux Français Madame” (“France for the French people”, according to a famous moto of the Front National, the french right-wing party). She dismissed him, and before leaving class he told her “A demain, Inshallah“.

The witty girl then told me that they were going to re-shoot the class picture, as asked by the teacher for it was too unacceptable to have those foreign flags on it. I asked them: “And how do you feel about it?“. The other boy just told me “We won’t have the flags, but we will be scowling on the picture.“. To that they all went laughing – again so did I.

Their bus stop arrived are they noisily left the bus – a relief to all other passengers for sure – waving at me “Salam Alikoum Madame“. And while I was seeing them crossing the street through the window, I was thinking: we all understood that it would be helpless to complain to the principal – after all there is certainly something in the highschool rules and regulations against waving foreign flags or speaking foreign languages at school – and sometimes racism takes so subtle forms that only the targeted person can get it deep meaning (the teacher would easily dismiss all allegations, if she was asked), that still the best way to resist is symbolic: using humor, for sometimes a joke can be a weapon against hatred.

Black and Arab men as described by western medias

The French media scene has long debated about the Eric Zemmour case. The writer/TV commentator was sentenced for inciting racial hatred towards black and arab-type men saying that majority of drug dealers where from those ethnicities. The medias and politicians mostly debated on if the sentence was an attempt to freedom of speech. Some commentators and journalists pointed out the fact that Zemmour’s point of view was deliberately distorting reality: it was a shortcut between ethnicity and crime, not taking into consideration the fact that black and arab men are, according to statistics and studies, the most discriminated population in France (up to 15-20 times more discrimination). Anyway, the only revelant fact about the case is, to my point of view, that once again the medias spoke (indirectly) of what exactly were the Arab and Black men (are they drug dealers really?), without asking them what they were thinking about all this.

Sadly, this has been a general rule in the western medias: Black and Arab men are described by others, they are not given the chance to describe themselves. The subliminal representation spanned by these numerous description by others generally  reinforces strongly the clichés the West (Europe) has built since the early years of exploration and colonization of Africa, as explained long ago by Frantz Fanon in his famous “Black Skin, White Masks“. A simple statistic survery would easily show to anyone that Black and Arab men in western medias are described as follows:

1. Oversexuality, animality: the cliché of a beasty sexuality for Africans is certainly the oldest and the most common cliché about Africans. It tends to “oversexualize” the Arab and Black man and give them a unique function and concern for sex as a result of a denial of their humanity. Reducing Black and Arab men to sex is to reduce them to the animal part of the human being and objectify them. The esclavagist and colonialist paradigm of the animalic African is still very obvious when looking at the posters and TV spots, movies or music videos. Racial sex is among the best ranked sexual fantasies in western societies where sex is a consumer good.
   
2. Predominance of the body on the mind: it is a generalization of the cliché of the oversexuality of Arab and Black men. It tends to reinforce their objectification by over representing their bodies over their minds. Practically saying, perfectly built and helthy black and brown bodies are tools for advertising, while “visible minorities” mediatic personalities are mostly athlets/artists. Intellectuals, writers, thinkers who would be dark skinned is still largely unadmissible on the public and mediatic scene. Dark skinned politicians are still very taboo in Europe compared to US, for example. Although self-proclamed as gender-equality friendly, the european societies are still strongly associating power with masculinity: a Black and Arab man is a threat to the “White man realm”, explaining this under-representation in medias of dark skinned intellectuals and the over-representation of the black and brown bodies. Studies show that in movies and TV shows, not only African-type men are under-represented, but also that when represented they play caracters with lower economical power and lower social status (barmen, etc) than White men.
   
3. Violence: As said above, the clichés on Arab and Black men hide the fear of the “White man” to lose power. In consequence, any attempt to challenge the establishment is seen as an aggressive threat. The cliché of violence is carried mainly by the news broadcasted in a selective and incomplete way mixing suburban violence, African and Arab dictators, terrorists and warlords, drug dealers and gangs, hip hop artists. Western media create an inaccurate image of aggressive African men, to the point that its couterpart became also very common: Black and Arab women and children as victims of violence. Even charity organizations make theirs this representation by displaying only women and children in their visual content.

So, what now? What can be done against this? Resist to the cliché. It is the only way out. Unfortunately too many of us, Africans in Europe have accepted consciously or unconsciously the concepts carried by this representation. This is mostly what we have to stop: stop seeing ourselves the way external eyes want to see us. Stop letting others debate without us on what we are, if we are drug dealers or not, if we carry with us a cultural violence or not. We have to not accept to be just bodies for advertising. Our mediatic representation should be more accurate of what we are. Of course, the medias who created this image do not want to hear about our protests against it. So we have to make it obvious by our own means, using social networks, associations, publications. Use every mean to rise awareness.

Change of mentalities is always a tough fight, but it is worth it, for it is the only real guarantee we have against racism.

Mohammed Bouazizi would have turned 27 today

He was 26, graduated in computer science. He couldn’t find a job, so he was fruits and vegetables seller in the streets of Sidi Bouzid, a provincial little town of Tunisia. Mohammad Bouazizi didn’t immolate to protest against poverty or unemployment, but against that system that was denying him to exist by denying him the right to survive with dignity by his own very limited means. His last known words were directed to his mother, through facebook:

I am leaving mom, forgive me, Reproach is not helpful, i am lost in my way it is not in my hand, forgive me if disobeyed words of my mom, blame our times and do not blame me, i am going and not coming back, look i did not cry and tears did not fall from my eyes, Reproach is not helpful in time of Treachery in the land of people, i am sick and not in my mind all what happened, i am leaving and i am asking who leads the travel to forgive.

We have a word in arabic, “hogra“, which sense is difficult to translate. It means, roughly, this denial of the dignity of others, this denial of their right to live and to resist to oppression, this denial of their humanity by sweeping away their last chance to have the slightest control over their destiny. It is this generalized feeling of hogra of the authorities towards the people that united the citizens of Sdi Bouzid; where you reach that point where you understand that you have nothing to lose since everything including dignity has been taken from you, you become by befinition subversive by the very fact that you still try to exist. We know the chain reaction: from Mohammed Bouazizi to Sidi Bouzid, to the whole Tunisia, to Egypt and to other arab countries including Libya, Yemen, Bahrein, Syria.

It is relevant that what united people was not a human rights activist tortured by the regime, the massive and usual frauds of the “elections” or some Intelligence Agency treachery, but the suicide of the street vendor caused by the hogra. The popular icons have generally this ability to embody the whole contestation in one attitude. So was Bouazizi, so was also Rosa Parks, so were Tien An Men students. They sound like an allegory of the whole people struggle for justice and freedom and that is why they achieve to unite them to face the same enemy. The deep wish and dream of tyrannic regimes is to be able to create this unity of people for their own purposes, to direct it towards something external: some foreign menace, one specific minority (the Jews, the Gipsies, the migrants, etc), one specific ideology (communism, etc). But History shows that whatever, propaganda, censorship, mind formatting, there is always a way mind uses to access to freedom, and the free mind leads into resistance against oppression, sooner or later. In the end, the only viable existence for a system is to be fair.

Maybe the day where Mohammed Bouazizi would have turned 27 is a day each of us should use on thinking about what oppresses them, what treats them with hogra. And resist. Let it be with thoughts, words or acts, resistance is what is most widely spread all over the world, for it defines, after all, what is to be human: to be those who where given free will.

To veil or not to veil, that is the (only) question

On the right side of this blog you certainly noted the presence of a tag cloud, i.e. a widget provided by my blog host, WordPress, that lists the most common tags used to describe the content of my articles. The bigger the font size, the more I am obsessed with the related topic. Quite accurate and relevant I have to admit. But you see – try to imagine I am using a soft slow voice and looking at you straight in the eyes like I would do one day with my children when I’ll have to explain to them all those disappointing facts about life – blogs are not the only one to carry tag clouds, people do too. You do, I do, everybody does. We are all categorized following preconceptions, misconceptions and even sometimes inceptions. If you are lucky enough, one or two of the tags would not relate only to your aspect and/or your ethnicity but on the person you are inside – but that’s maybe one case in a thousand.

As for me and more generally for any arab or muslim woman – as people tend to confuse the fact of being arab and muslim – the tag cloud has to list the followings, in font size 72: veil, Arabian Nights, couscous (or baklawa), forced marriage, polygamy, submission, belly dance, virginity, honour killings. Seems long ago we were labelled, and whatever we did or said since, it never changed. The fact is, many arab/muslim women writers, feminists, etc, have fought against these preconceptions that tend to depict us as no more than fully covered under beings with no voice and no will.

But in my opinion, what all of these feminists have failed at is to show that our lives do not evolve only around these topics. For example,  I have so far never read anything written by a feminist that doesn’t imply explicitely or implicitely the question of the veil. Either they would consider it as the symbol of submission of women to men, either they feel the need to object that western women have their own way to be even more submitted by being treated like sexual objects. Some also try to convince that veil is not stipulated as mandatory  in the Holy Quran and finally, some do stress on the fact that wether muslim women wear the hijab or not, it doesn’t matter since you would find strong-minded muhajabat (women wearing hijab) and not-so-strong western-like-dressed women, and, as long as the decision to wear veil or not was freely taken by the woman herself, it is her own business. Anyway, the fact that all those feminists sooner or later discusses the veil issue proves that:

1. whatever is their opinion, they consider it essential in a women’s rights discussion instead of seing it as part of a global discussion on confessionnal freedom (for example, peer pressure isn’t less strong in the case of somebody not wishing to fast Ramadan than in the case of a woman not wishing to wear veil)
2. feminism looks at muslim/arab women essentially “through the tag cloud”, i.e. by confronting the topic of women’s rights only through the few limited topics muslim/arab women are tagged with
3. they assume that arab/muslim populations are accustomed enough to western standards to not consider anymore the option of not wearing the hijab as something “coming from abroad” but really as a choice relevant only about women’s situation

I do not wish at all give any comment about the “veil issue” itself, what interests me here is how the way it is discussed reveals us something about feminism in arab/muslim countries. Actually, feminism in arab or muslim countries is mostly just a not-so-well adjusted version of western feminism, unable to go deeper than the surface. It is understandable that veil generates that much question marks in western world where it appeared only with migration and seems so opposite to western standards. It is on the contrary much less understandable that it goes into so much questions in countries where it is not a “foreign” phenomenon but exists for centuries. As if indians where having a nevertlasting debate over what does wearing a saree means; in such an hypothetic case it would be inaccurate to treat the “saree issue” only as part of the question of women’s rights. It appears then that because of the very limited view feminists have on arab/muslim women, it never really succeeds in defining what is relevant in their situation. My very personnal opinion is that what would help arab/muslim women would be to open the doors out of the clichés and focus on something else than the same 3-4 topics discussed again and again and again. If those were essential to women’s rights in the arab/muslim countries, it would have solved the situation since decades, given the hundreds of NGOs, think tanks, books and talks dedicated to the issue. Meaning we need to rethink totally the basis on which we consider women’s condition in the arab world. Are we gathering the right data? Are we analyzing the right facts? Aren’t we looking in the wrong direction?

Women’s situation in arab world is so difficult in so many ways that the constant focus on the “tag cloud” without noticing how inaccurate this description is ends being almost ridiculous. We need a feminism that gives to women effective solutions to reach visibility in all aspects of civil society, not to focus on the same speeches since decades. For example in many countries women, wearing a hijab or not is not really an issue in day to day life while being sexually harrassed constantly, however she is dressed, is a real problem. A focus has to be done on law: correcting the flaws but also understanding what makes the existing laws uneffective. Inaccecibility to basic education and to higher education for women in rural areas, lack of women in managing positions, under-representativity in politics, lack of means for mothers raising children alone, unavailability of social, cultural and artistic activities outside big towns, etc, all those are topics that need to be at the focal point of our generation’s feminism. The day “to veil or not to veil” will be for real the only question, it’ll mean we made a big step forward.