Mordechai Kedar
These
days, the Arab media are full of reports about diplomatic activities
regarding the Syrian issue, and commentators' articles dealing with this
matter fill whole pages in the newspapers of the Arab world. They all
try to ascertain if there will be an American military action, what its
scope will be, how powerful it will be, what its goals will be, how
long it will last, and especially, what the consequences of the action
will be. But there is one important voice which is almost not heard at
all in this whole chorus of analysts - the Saudi voice - and it seems
that someone there - the king? - may have imposed a gag order on the
commentators.
To
get a deeper understanding of the reason for this, I contacted a Saudi
colleague, with whom I am in contact occasionally. He is a member of
the royal family, but is not in the inner circles of decision making.
Nevertheless, he is well acquainted with the way the Saudi leaders
think, he is aware of the considerations and feelings that drive it and
has a deep understanding of what is said and what is not said there. At
first he refused to speak, and only after a "preliminary conversation"
did he consent. This is how it is in the Middle East: everything is
based on personal relationships, and Arabic is the entry bridge into the emotions of the region's people.
He
preferred to speak about "The Gulf", not Saudi Arabia, in order to
present a united front regarding the events in Syria and its environs.
This is not exactly correct, because the positions of Saudi Arabia
(which is the main supplier and supporter of the Salafi fighters in
Syria) and those of Qatar (which stand behind the Free Syrian Army), are
not identical, and the United Arab Emirates is much more active than
Oman. But despite the differences in approach among the members of the
Gulf Cooperation Council, their basic attitudes are very similar.
My
colleague hinted at an important aspect of Middle Eastern character,
which is "murou'a" - "manliness". A man will always be sure to act
according to rules of manly conduct, and will make every effort to avoid
feminine patterns of behavior. Emotionality and whining are considered
feminine qualities that express weakness, while a male is expected to
keep a cool head and emotional balance and remain calm and functional even in
difficult and complex situations. It seems that the Saudi government's
silence during the last few days stems from this characteristic. One
could say that the greater the internal emotional stress, the quieter
and more relaxed the Arab man will try to appear. It relates to the obsession
with honor, because if a man sounds like a woman he is considered
contemptible.
The
longer the conversation continued, the more open it became, and the
more my colleague complained about the Western world in general and the
United States in particular. "You (he included Israel in the Western
world) speak all the time about human rights, so why are you quiet about
what is happening in Syria? After chemical weapons have been used ten
times, you still do not manage to find a reason to eliminate Asad? Are
two hundred thousand fatalities not enough to bring you out of your
complacency? Is issuing condemnations the only thing you can do? Making
threats without carrying them out? You have all of the proof you need to
do what you said you would do, so why are you not doing what you
promised?" And then came the knockout question: "Is the Libyan's blood
redder than the Syrians'? Or maybe Libyan oil is blacker than Syrian
oil?" These things were said somewhat scornfully, because the coalition
of Europe and America attacked Qadhaffi for less terrible things than
Asad is doing.
I
asked him: "So how should the Arab world deal with a mass murderer?"
He answered with a rhetorical question: "Don't you know what Saudi
Arabia has done and is still doing for the Syrian people?" He was
referring to what Saudi Arabia usually does: it gives money, lots of
money, for purposes that it believes in. Saudi Arabia - and all of the
other Gulf countries - have poured many billions of dollars into the
Syrian rebellion to pay the fighters, to buy weapons, ammunition,
communication devices and civilian aid, and even to bring women to Syria
in order to "serve" the fighters. Saudi Arabia funds training camps in
other countries that train fighters to join the fight against Asad in
Syria.
The
Saudi activities are what put Asad into the military and emotional
state where he felt that he had to use a doomsday weapon, a chemical
weapon. And if it hadn't been used on August 21st, Damascus would have
been conquered by trained, armed and equipped troops who came in from a
neighboring country after Saudi Arabia had participated in funding
their training, and they situated themselves the night before August 21 in the
Eastern suburbs of Damascus. Asad understood that if he did not destroy
these troops with gas - together with the citizens that the troops were
hiding among, using them as human shields - the troops would take
control of the government institutions in Damascus and his rule would
come to an end, along with himself.
The
Saudis were on the brink of victory, and Asad's use of gas took it away
from them. That's why they are so angry with Asad, and with the West as
well, which did not take the necessary steps immediately, to act
without discussions, without votes, without Congress and without
Parliament. They are concerned that Obama never intended to act in
Syria, and all of his fiery speeches about red lines and what would
happen if those red lines were crossed, were only words, which he had no intention
of carrying out. My colleague used the expression "the roar of a mouse"
to describe Obama's words.
But
the Saudis cannot attack Obama personally, because they still depend on
him to deal with the great, real, serious threat to their east, Iran.
They heard the words of the "moderate", "reformist" (my colleague
laughed when he said these words) Iranian president very well when he
said this week that Iran will not give up one iota of its nuclear
rights. He attributes this declaration to the West's weak behavior in
the Syrian issue. He used an Arabic expression meaning that Iran
completely ignores the United States.
He
doesn't believe that Asad will give up his chemical weapons, and he
will do any sort of trick in order to conceal them and hide what he has
in his stockpiles of death. The Russians have won a big victory over the
United States, and they are taking advantage of Europe's lack of will
to use force. And in general, what is all this business about giving up
chemical weapons? Can a murderer's punishment be mitigated by
confiscating the pistol that he used to commit murder? What kind of
ethical or legal standard is that? Why don't they even issue an
international arrest warrant against al-Assad to bring him to justice in
the International Criminal Court? How is he different from Omar
al-Bashir of Sudan and Milosevic of Yugoslavia?
According
to my Saudi colleague, Iran is the big winner in the whole Syrian fiasco.
Iran is reaping the fruits of its success in Iraq, because of the
thousands of Americans that Iran killed in Iraq between the years 2003
and 2010, which will deter the United States from becoming involved in
Syria. This is how Iran has acquired Iraq - where Iran now has unlimited
control - and Syria. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards fight on Asad's
side in Syria, despite it being a violation of Security Council
resolutions, and no country does a thing.
The
ruling family of Saudi Arabia is concerned, very concerned, that the weakness
that the West conveys regarding Syria today will also be reflected in
the way the West relates to Iran, and that if Iran takes some action
against Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf countries in the future, the
West will not have the strength and the courage to emerge from its
impassivity and support Saudi Arabia on the day of reckoning. The Saudis
are tense and concerned, and this is the reason for the quiet from
Saudi Arabia during these trying days.
It
may be that in the Middle East there are more countries whose leaders
are quite concerned about the future of the Middle East and the world in
general.
---
Dr. Mordechai Kedar (Mordechai.Kedar@biu.ac.il) is an Israeli scholar of Arabic and
Islam, a lecturer at Bar-Ilan University and the director of the Center for the
Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation), Bar Ilan University,
Israel. He specializes in Islamic ideology and movements, the political
discourse of Arab countries, the Arabic mass media, and the Syrian domestic
arena.
Translated from Hebrew by Sally
Zahav with permission from the author.
Thanks Nurit G.
No comments:
Post a Comment