A propagandist-in-chief's war on intellectual imperialism and pursuit of a resistance episteme

Posts Tagged: House Arabs

Video

Video
3 months ago    |   Tags: House Arabs House Islamists Tunisha Chokri Belaid An-Nahda Hassan Nasrallah Israel Arab spring Syria Salafi Takfiris   |   Notes: 27

Excerpts from interviews with the martyred Tunisian opposition leader, Chokri Belaid, who exposes the role of the ruling Nahda party in the war on Syria and in sowing strife: ” these American and Zionist criminals enter our mosques and militarize our youths and send our children to die in Syria to defend a project that isn’t theirs…” The courageous Belaid accuses a Nahda official of collaboration with Israel in one of his interviews “you are a collaborator, a collaborator for the Zionists and Americans!”

But there is no room for the anti-imperialism of heroes like Belaid in the Arab Spring’s democratic-regimes, which are dominated by the most sinister form of colonized Arab—the House Islamists. 

It is instructive to recall here Seyyid Hassan Nasrallah’s warning about this phenomenon in December 2008 and in later speeches:

“Neither America nor Israel cares about our prayers or fasting. Fast as you want, pray as you want, or perform pilgrimage as you want, but leave things, sovereignty, and the major political interests for America and Israel…In principle, the Americans do not mind if the ruler is Islamist, Communist, Marxist, Leninist, Maoist, or nationalist. This is not important for them. You can have whatever ideology or thought you want. What matters is what is your political program? What is your position on Israel? What is your position on the United States?”

div>

A response to Mona Eltahawy’s cheap porn

Text
4 months ago    |   Tags: pornography Mona Eltahawy House Arabs feminism pussy riot colonised intellectuals  

Ok so what do you get when you cross a Zionist-loving, colonized, House Arab with the liberal pseudo-feminism of Russia’s Pussy Riot? A Mona Eltahawy pornographic pseudo-poem entitled “Sekhmet’s Tits” no less. A poem even more degrading to women and Orientalist than her controversial piece “Why Do They Hate Us?”

We don’t just hate you Mona because of your autosexual prose or your sad attempt at porn, or simply because you heart Israel and dare call yourself an Arab. We hate you because you are really very stupid and trite. 

A brilliant response to her poem below by my bad-ass friend, Roqayah Chamseddine, who is a total G:

Sekhmet Weeps

by frustratedarab on December 24, 2012

After much debate and tiring back and forth it seems as though doctors have finally come to agree as to the definition of ‘brain death’; it is to enjoy reading anything by Mona Eltahawy.
Mona Eltahawy, self-described “columnist and international public speaker on Arab and Muslim issues”, seems to have ‘poet’ to add to her long list of ego-stroking monikers. “Sekhmets Tits“, a poor attempt by Eltahawy at what one may only assume is erotic poetry, looks to be part of another piteous attention seeking ritual by Eltahawy; the poem is ghastly – no poetic structure, clumsily narrated with rushed, elephantine references to her alleged personal adventures: the breaking of her arms by Egyptian security forces, her spray painting over Pamela Geller’s NYC Islamophobic “hate ads” etc. alongside what one believes to be Eltahawy’s typical claim to fame – her rebellious adventurism. Afterall, an Arab, Muslim woman using the words tits, pussy, fuck, cum, cunt and orgy? She is breaking barriers, proving once again that she is liberated, unconstrained and able to do and say as she pleases. Unlike the cloaked and ‘faceless’ women of colour Mona constantly berates and attempts to release from bondage she epitomizes what it means for one to be ‘free’.

“I’m the proud savage” writes Mona. “Savage”, the pejorative colonialist word, used to refer to a barbarian, one seen as uncivilized is worn high-handed in this ‘poem’. Instead of removing the violently imposed crown of thorns that is the colonial word “savage” Mona has decided to decorate it and make it more appealing for her readers. This coincides with the latest exploits of Ali-al-Mahdi who is heralded by colonial feminist groups (the white liberators of the oppressed women of colour *warning: embedded link contains nudity) as a savior of sorts, applauded for her bold nude activism work. Most recently Alia al-Mahdi stood alongside other women in Stockholm, naked, holding (respectively) makeshift copies of the Qur’an, Bible and Torah over their genital regions (warning: embedded link contains nudity). The very concept, that the less clothes one wears the more ‘free’ or ‘democratic’ they are and that the more clothing one wears the more ‘oppressed’ and ‘subjugated’ one is happens to be archetypal of orientalist arguments.  Alia al-Mahdi is publicized by Femen as an Egyptian woman who has stunned the entire world, her place of origin is intentionally exhausted over and over, the intent being to utilize her background and make her action that much more scandalous – afterall, Arab women are covered from head-to-toe by their male partners/relatives, i.e. abusers, in the despotic “Arab world” and al-Mahdi has defied the very values her authoritarian culture demands of her. She is naked, for all the world to see, and for this she is a revelation. These actions are an orientalists deepest, darkest fantasies come to life; whether they be Eltahawy’s use of coarse language meant to shock and leave one wide-eyed or Alia al-Mahdi’s nudity, comically described as “apocalyptic” by Femen, the group orchestrating the nude protests.

And if it was not enough, that this poem seems to lack even the most integral part of any sort of writing, poetic or otherwise, that being something called meaning, Eltahawy uses references from music by Oasis, Um Kalthoum, Massive Attack and The White Stripes, thanking them at the well-awaited end of this poetic disaster. The lyrics are made victims, casualties of sorts.

Critics of Mona’s “poem” are branded by her bedazzled fan base as being ”misogynistic” or not courageous enough to handle the blunderous context and by Mona herself as being part of the “right wing” or as being too cowardly to take part in such brave proceedings. Afterall, coming from a society where “koss” (or ‘pussy’) is used freely in curses it must be extremely daring for Mona to remind us of the existence of this word, or even that she has one.

“…my pussy fought for the revolution from my bed”, writes Eltahawy. I am not sure nor can I confirm or deny that her “pussy” was doing any figurative (or literal) fighting from her bed but many Egyptians have suggested, and continue to suggest, that Mona Eltahawy uses the Egyptian revolution to ‘fight’ (i.e. publicize herself) from her activist armchair.

“Does Sekhmet cry when she cums?”, asks Eltahawy. Sekhmet, the Egyptian deity, warrior goddess, may be crying, but not due to her experiencing any sort of sexual euphoria, or sexual climax, instead her tears may be due to the use of her name in this haggard, bumbling collision of words marketed not as a comical train wreck but as a ‘poem’.


div>

Tariq Ramadan on Syria and Israel

Text
8 months ago    |   Tags: Syria Israel Tariq Ramadan House Arabs colonized intellectuals Muslim Brotherhood   |   Notes: 1

And here’s the face of “moderate” Islam (and grandson of the founder of the Muslim brotherhood) whom the West loves to dialogue with and honor with awards , recognition and prestigious academic positions. Islamist scholar, Tariq Ramadan’s take on the Syrian “uprising” below. The part about the Syrian MB not being supportive of America is especially disingenuous: 
“In Syria, for eight months—and this is why I’m saying it’s not all under control—all the people who are saying, “Oh, it’s all done by the U.S., and it’s a conspiracy.” I say, no, in Syria for eight months, President Barack Obama and the European administrations were hoping Bashar al-Assad was going to reform the regime from within, and it appeared that the people were more courageous. They didn’t want him to stay. So they were trying to find opposition and people with whom they can deal, because they had two problems. The driving force of the opposition in Syria was also the Muslim Brotherhood and leftists who were not very much supportive of the Americans. So they were trying to find who are the people with whom we can deal. And it took eight months. Now they want to change the government, but it’s as if they are facing Russia and China, and both are in agreement not to agree on what to do.”

It is no coincidence that Ramadan declared in 2008: “To call for a boycott does not mean to deny the existence of Israel. I do not deny Israel’s existence. I do oppose its policy of occupation and the inhuman and repressive campaigns undertaken by successive Israeli governments. I have always fought anti-Semitism and racism in all its forms, and will continue to do so.” 
How else does a scholar get appointed as Chair of Islamic Studies at Oxford? 

div>

What the hell do we do about you imperialists and House Arabs? That is the question.

Text
11 months ago    |   Tags: Assad Houla massacre House Arabs Syria colonized intellectuals imperialism intellectual imperialism mainstream media military intervention   |   Notes: 2

If I read one more article entitled “what do we do about Syria?” like this Foreign Policy series ”What the Hell do we do About Syria?”, I don’t know what I will do. I mean it was less offensive in the past when they used the passive narrative voice “what TO DO about Syria”? But this haughty imperial tone spoken in the first person is so much more offensive.

What do WE do about you, that is the question. What do we do about the traitors in our midst is another prospective title. But YOU don’t get to do anything. It’s our region, not yours. 

And then look at the contributors to this Foreign Policy series, a former US army commander, and some text- book case House Arabs. How dare they call themselves “journalists”, “scholars” and “research fellows”, when they readily accuse the regime of the Houla massacre and when they cite the 13 000 killed statistic as though either of these were an established fact. 

I know that neither I nor any of my colleagues on this side of the divide would dare make such brash claims about “knowing” who committed the Houla massacre or how many civilians the opposition killed.

Where are the standards for scientific research and analysis? Where is the empirical evidence? At the BBC? Or the SOHR? or with the eye-witnesses selected by opposition-affiliated fixers and activists?

Would they count statistics from SANA as evidence? Would they count testimonies selected by the government—which is a party to the civil war and hence, a side just like the opposition is—into account? We don’t even dare count these as evidence. 

This is an outrage to academia, to journalistic integrity and to every western standard of objectivity and balance I have internalized since I was a child. 
Time to deschool ourselves from this tyranny of “balance” and “credibility”, this tyrannical consensus reality they have manufactured, this awe we have for their institutional “prestige”. They are all liars. Simple. 

Time to set our own standards of what counts as knowledge and reality.

div>

Hussein Ibish: the Zionist-Enabler/Zionised Intellectual

Text
1 year ago    |   Tags: Zionism House Arabs colonized intellectuals Israel Palestine  

House Arab, Hussein Ibish (Senior Research Fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine) insists he is neither a collaborator nor a Zionist, in his piece: “No, Of Course I’m Not” http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/11/still-not-a-zionist.html : 

“Since the emergence of the one-state movement, I’ve been routinely described by the pro-Palestinian far right and ultra-left as a “Zionist,” and even a “traitor” and “collaborator,” because I remain committed to ending the occupation and establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel.”

But then he proceeds to prove exact opposite by:

disparaging the one-state solution

“For some, the term “Zionist” is simply a useful pejorative to attack the reputation of Arabs who seek peace, or who deviate from the increasingly intolerant one-state dogma.”

insinuating that non-Jews can’t be Zionists:

“So, of course I’m not a “Zionist.” Whether or not to define oneself as a Zionist is really an issue for those who identify themselves as Jewish.”

arguing that Zionism does not equal racism and injustice

“However, as many Jews of varying backgrounds and perspectives have demonstrated, one can be staunchly pro-Israel, and in that sense “Zionist,” without supporting occupation, settlements or racism against Palestinians.”

calling for our “understanding” and “respect” for Zionism as an ideology and political  identity

“Zionism remains the dominant Jewish national narrative, and this narrative can and should be understood, by others, especially in the interests of peace. All present-day national narratives and identities are ultimately based on fantasies about the past, present and future. From a historical, intellectual and philosophical perspective they are as firm and fixed as children’s sandcastles. But they serve the immediate needs, aspirations and yearnings of their constituencies and, as political realities, they must be respected, despite their well-concealed hollowness.”

These and other excerpts from his article (not to mention his other utterances and work in general) expose Ibish’s attempts to not merely normalize Israel as a state, but Zionism as an ideology. If we are to take the standard definition of Zionism, or the “lowest common denominator” of most definitions of Zionism as Gideon Shimoni terms it—the Jewish right to national self-determination in Eretz Israel—then Ibish at very minimum represents a Zionist-enabler, if not an outright Zionised [and not merely colonized] intellectual, in light of his above rationalization of Zionism. 

div>