It's about as official as can be: in the words of an Associated Press
end-of-year story, "Events in the Mideast shaped much of how we
[Americans] viewed 2006."
As voted by AP members, only one of the top 10 news stories of 2006 (#5,
Congressional scandals) had nothing to do with the Middle East. Five of
them were entirely Middle Eastern or Muslim in content (#1 Iraq; #6
Saddam Hussein convicted and executed, #7 the still-unnamed Lebanon war
during the summer, #9 the London airliner plot, #10 the disaster in
Darfur). Four of them were in substantial part Middle Eastern or Muslim
(#2 the U.S. elections, #3 nuclear standoffs with North Korea and Iran,
#4 illegal immigration, #7 Donald Rumsfeld resigns as secretary of
defense).
Comments: (1) This domination of the news is not a sudden thing but has
been building over decades; though less dramatic the case, I recall the
Middle East having an outsized media presence when I entered the field in
1969 – and that was before several Arab-Israeli wars, the 1973-74 oil
crisis the Iranian revolution, the Kuwait war, and other mega-events.
(2) This prominence does not mean that the Middle East and Muslims are
more important than other regions and peoples, but that they are more in
ferment. Little breaking news came out of the Soviet Union in its time or
China today, but endless twists and turns take place in – and are reported
prominently from – Gaza or Iraq. (December 31, 2006)
***************************************
Islamists in the Hospital Ward
A number of incidents are showing the deep incompatibility of radical
Islam with modern medicine. Here are a trio to get this blog going, with
more examples to be listed, in reverse chronological order, as they
occur:
A typical anti-bacterial gel found in UK hospitals.
Muslim visitors refuse anti-bacterial gel: British hospitals offer
dispensers with anti-bacterial gel outside wards so that visitors can be
sure not to bring in such infections as MRSA and PVL. But the gel
contains alcohol, prompting some Muslims to refuse to use the hand
cleansers on religious grounds. A National Health Service employee,
Theresa Poupa told in December 2006 of her experience visiting a sick
relative at the London Chest Hospital:
I could not believe it - the signs are large enough and clear enough but
they just took no notice and walked straight onto the ward. I was there
almost every day for three weeks and I saw it repeated dozens and dozens
of times. When I raised the matter with the nursing staff they just
shrugged and said that Muslims were refusing to use the gel because it
contained alcohol. They said they couldn't force visitors to use the gel
and I understand that — but I was astonished that anyone who didn't wash
their hands was allowed onto a ward. I know the dangers that bugs like
MRSA can cause. They kill hundreds of patients a year.
Male refused treatment by female doctors: A 17-year-old male shepherd from
Konya, Turkey, referred to only as "A.G.," arrived at the Konya Testing
Hospital complaining of swollen testicles. He was sent to get ultrasound
tests, but two headscarved (i.e., Islamist) female radiology doctors
refused him service. Not receiving proper attention, A.G. later had one
of his testicles removed by operation. The case has provoked much
attention. The hospital's head of urology, Celal Tutuncu, portrayed the
case as very "black and white," and said that action would be taken.
Members of the opposition CHP party raised the case in parliament in
December 2006. A CHP lawyer, Atilla Kart, noted that "This is the
destruction wrought by religious references spilling over into public
administration."
Male relatives preventing female patients from being treated by male
doctors: So rampant is the problem in France of Muslim husbands
preventing their wives and other female relatives from being treated by
male doctors (for example, women in labor have not had epidurals because
the anesthetist was a man) that Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin
reportedly planned in February 2004 to propose legislation to stop this
from happening (how he plans to do this is not explained). (December 29,
2006)
***************************************
Mosque in Cordoba, Church in Damascus
Spain's Islamic Board wrote a letter to Pope Benedict XVI to be allowed to
pray in Cordoba Cathedral, on the grounds that the building was originally
a mosque before being transformed into a church in the thirteenth century.
"What we wanted was not to take over that holy place," reads the Islamic
Board's letter, "but to create in it, together with you and other faiths,
an ecumenical space unique in the world which would have been of great
significance in bringing peace to humanity."
The Islamic Board took this initiative after senior Catholic clergy
announced they "did not recommend" this step and indeed declared
themselves unprepared to permit the cathedral's shared use with any other
faith. On an operational level, security guards in the cathedral are said
often to prevent Muslims from praying inside the medieval mosque that
surrounds its church structure.
The Islamic Board's general secretary, Mansur Escudero, complained that
some in the Church feel threatened by Spain's growing Muslim population.
"There are reactionary elements within the Catholic Church, and when they
hear about the construction of a mosque, or Muslim teachings in state
schools, or about veils, they see it as a sign we are growing and they
oppose it."
Comment: The Muslim demand is all very reasonable – but only if Muslims
permit reciprocal rights to Christians. For example, the Umayyad Mosque
in Damascus is built over a Byzantine church and to this day contains a
shrine said to contain the head of John the Baptist; Christians should be
granted leave to pray there. Or the grandest church of Byzantium, Hagia
Sophia in Istanbul, for centuries a mosque and now a museum – it too
should be made available for Christian services. The Vatican has made
reciprocity the cornerstone of its relations with Muslims, and this looks
like a simple place to start implementing that policy.
St John's Shrine, which is inside the Umayyad Mosque, Damascus.
(December 26, 2006)
***************************************
Is the Hatay Problem Solved?
Ever since the French government ceded the Alexandretta province of Syria
to Turkey in 1939, its control by Ankara has been a sore, obstructing the
two countries' relations and at times exacerbating crises between them,
most recently in 1998.
Hatay, a province of Turkey since 1939. Alexandretta (or Iskanderun) is
its capital.
It therefore came as a bombshell to read yesterday an article by Yoav
Stern, "Turkey singing a new tune," in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz
that the 66-year-old problem has been solved, and all the more so as the
news comes bye-the-bye in an article about Turkish-Israeli relations.
The question asked by Channel 2's analyst for Arab affairs, Ehud Ya'ari,
brought a satisfied smile to the face of Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom
at the joint press conference held last Tuesday in Jerusalem with Turkish
Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul. Ya'ari asked the most interesting question
at the press conference, which touched on the territorial conflict
between Syria and Turkey. "Can Syria's recognition last month of full
Turkish sovereignty over the Hatay province be seen as a precedent for
the case of the Golan Heights?" Ya'ari asked.
Everyone waited suspense fully for an answer from Gul, who immediately
perceived a trap. He answered with diplomatic finesse, without batting an
eyelid: "The two cases are not similar, there is no territorial
disagreement between Turkey and Syria, and in the second case, the United
Nations determined that the territory is occupied."
The question illustrates the way in which Turkey's relations with Syria
resemble Israeli-Syrian relations. On the territorial level, there is a
long-standing conflict between the two countries, which was finally
resolved last month, away from the eyes of the media. The conflict
involved a region known as the Hatay province in Turkey and Alexandretta
in Syria. Conquered in 1938 by the Turkish army, the Turks view it as an
inseparable part of their country. The Syrians view it as a part of their
homeland that was torn away with the consent of the French during the
Mandate period, before the Syrians achieved independence. The Syrians
point to the Arab residents of the region to bolster their claim.
Ever since Syrian independence in 1946, the area has been a source of
constant tension. Until last month. Turkey and Syria spent a year and a
half preparing a free-trade agreement between the two countries. Two
Syrian prime ministers and the president - Mohammed Mustafa Mero, Naji
al-Otari and Bashar Assad - visited Ankara. Turkish Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdoğan paid a return visit last month and finally signed an
agreement in Damascus.
Even more surprisingly, this Ha'aretz article was cited today as a source
of information on the agreement by the Turkish newspaper Hürriyet,
implying that the Turkish press knew nothing of this major accord,
apparently signed on December 22.
Looking back on the coverage of that summit meeting, one finds just hints
of such a deal. Here is Burak Akıncı's account for Agence
France-Presse, dated December 22 and titled "Turkey, Syria sign
free-trade accord amid warming ties on Erdogan visit."
Former foes Turkey and Syria signed a free-trade accord and said they had
agreed to put their differences behind them during a visit Wednesday by
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Erdogan, at the start of a
two-day mission, and his Syrian counterpart Mohammed Naji Otri signed the
deal, which had been under negotiation for several years. …
A Turkish diplomatic source said Damascus lifted its reservations to
signing the trade deal "after a certain accord" was reached on Turkey's
sovereignty in the southern province of Hatay, formerly Alexandretta, on
which Syria had claims.
Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Syrian president
Bashshar al-Asad, getting along.
This all very elusive. Two questions come to mind: (1) How can such a
major development not be reported on? One imagines that the Syrian regime
is not exactly eager to have the news reported on, while the Turk
leadership is willing to keep quiet about its victory, if that is the
price it must pay. (2) Where exactly do things stand on Hatay? Has Bashar
Assad given up Syrian claims in perpetuity, or something lesser? Has the
claim been removed from schoolbooks, government maps, political rhetoric,
and so on?
Comment: If the Syrians really have abandoned this claim, it was
foreshadowed already four years ago. Here is Syrian Foreign Minister
Faruq al-Shara, quoted in an Agence France-Presse report from February 5,
2001 (not online):
Asked about Damascus' claims over the southern Turkish province of Hatay,
which is often shown as Syrian territory on Syrian maps, Shara said that
"maybe several years" were needed to settle the problem. "Issues that
seem sensitive today, could be easily resolved in the future when the
bilateral climate reaches a level at which they will not pose
difficulties," the Syrian minister said. "It is wrong to give priorities
to such issues now becuase this could harm cooperation in other fields
... In the end they will be resolved, but we should not push more than we
have to."
(January 10, 2005)
Jan. 24, 2005 update: Ehud Ya'ari, cited above, has fleshed out the
picture in his Jerusalem Report column dated today, "Syrian Overture"
(not online):
For years I've made it a rule to read every article that political
columnist Rosanna Boumunsef writes in An-Nahar, Lebanon's most important
daily. She knows what she's talking about and writes with precision.
So too with her column of December 28, following the visit of Turkish
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to Syria. She quotes Lebanese Druse
leader Walid Jumblatt, who of late has become the most vocal spokesman
for opponents of Syrian rule in his country: "Syria has gotten over its
Alexandretta complex," Jumblatt asserted, "and agreed to having Europe on
its border." In other words, Syria has given up its 65-year-old claim to
the sanjak (province) of Alexandretta (Iskanderun) on the Mediterranean
coast, realizing that with Turkey due to join the European Union, there
is no chance whatsoever of returning the province to Arab rule.
Alexandretta was given up by Syria's mandatory ruler, France, in 1939 and
annexed by Turkey, which renamed the province Hatay. Turkish settlement
in the region totally changed the demographic balance, reducing the
relative size of the Arab minority. A year ago Syrian leader Bashar
al-Asad visited Ankara for the first time, and he carefully avoided
saying a word about the contested territory. Since then there's been a
rapid rapprochement between the two countries, which as recently as 1998
were on the verge of war because of Syria's support for the Kurdish
rebellion led by the PKK. Recently, when Erdogan visited Damascus in
turn, an agreement was signed on jointly building a dam on the Orontes
River on the border between Alexandretta and Syria - putting an official
seal on Syria's acceptance of the loss of the sanjak.
Boumunsef quotes Asad as saying in private conversations with several of
his guests that he is proud of his success at establishing warm ties with
Turkey "despite the sharp territorial dispute." Asad added that "in this
framework, Syria can reach peace with Israel as well." What did he mean
by that? It's not clear, but Boumunsef cautiously asks, "Is the meaning
of these statements that flexibility is possible in dealing with other
issues, similar to his pragmatic approach to Alexandretta?"
That is: Could it be that one day Syria will deal with the Golan Heights
as it is now dealing with Alexandretta?
Let's stress: Syria has not signed on to any concession concerning
Alexandretta. In principle, it maintains its claim to sovereignty there.
But one official commentator, Imad Shu'eibi, head of the Center for
Strategic Studies in Damascus, has made clear that in fact it's been
decided to "put off for coming generations" the dream of Syrian
Alexandretta, and to not let the dispute prevent cooperation in other
areas.
The Syrians have a very hard time explaining in public their surrender to
the Turks. They are also signaling that the Golan is different. Foreign
Minister Farouk Al-Shara has even made a point of correcting the
impression that Asad is ready for negotiations "without preconditions,"
and has explained that insisting on a return to the June 4, 1967 lines is
not a "condition" but a "legitimate necessity."
But one cannot avoid concluding from the Alexandretta business that Syria
does not regard its borders as eternally sacred. And not only has it
accepted the loss of Alexandretta, but in a border agreement signed last
month with Jordan, Damascus adopted another principle: Demography can
result in border corrections. Syria got Jordan's assent to annexing land
along the Yarmuk River where Syrian peasants settled after the Syrian
invasion of Jordan in Black September, 1970, and in exchange gave up land
to Jordan in other areas.
Asad's pragmatic flexibility on borders may indicate that wider strategic
concerns are getting preference over the old slogans about holding on to
"every grain of sand" and the oaths never to forget "usurped" land. So
there is reason to see whether the young president is willing to consider
cautiously a change in Syria's stance toward Israel without demanding that
withdrawal from the Golan be the first, immediate, topic on the agenda.
Ya'ari then goes on the consider the implications of the the Hatay
recognition for the Golan Heights and Israel.
May 28, 2005 update: In a news item on a Syrian missile that malfunctioned
and exploded in southern Hatay, Agence France-Presse gives a little
background on Hatay: Syria and Turkey, it writes, "share a long border,
and Hatay, which is claimed by Syria, is at its western end." Reiterating
this point, AFP notes that, "Despite the improved ties between the two
countries, two sticking points remain: the waters of the Euphrates River,
which has its source in Turkey, and the status of Hatay."
Comment: Either Agence France-Presse has forgotten its own reporting (see
its December 22, 2004 coverage from Damascus, quoted above) or the
Syrians still are claiming Hatay. Which is it?
Dec. 22, 2006 update: Two years after the signing of this accord, the
Syrian tourism ministry still shows a map that claims Hatay as an
integral part of the Syrian Arab Republic.
Map on the Syrian Ministry of Tourism website. (This identical map appears
whether one uses the English, French, or Arabic versions of the website.)
Comment: Is Damascus playing the same game with Ankara that the Arabs do
all the time with Jerusalem, that is, sign an agreement and then ignore
it?
----------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail has been sent via JARING webmail at http://www.jaring.my
No comments:
Post a Comment