An example of intellectual cowardice

He is having the chance to change something. A small contribution to a long process of correcting misunderstandings. Culture can build these bridges, because it is said that great mind think alike. But, why not to continue and enforce and support the largely accepted narrative and refuse to get involved otherwise than by being a simple follower? Sounds so familiar.

Egyptian Author Objects to Hebrew Translation of His Novel

By DAVE ITZKOFF

Fatiha BouzidiAlaa Al Aswany

Alaa Al Aswany, the best-selling Arabic-language novelist, has objected to the translation of one of his novels into Hebrew as protest of normalized relations between Israel and Arab nations, Agence France-Presse reported.

A group called the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information said in an e-mail to supporters that it was offering a Hebrew translation of “The Yacoubian Building,” a novel by Dr. Al Aswany set in an apartment complex in his native Cairo.

The group acknowledged that although Dr. Al Aswany refused to have the book translated and published in Israel, it was offering a free translation prepared by a volunteer in order to “expand cultural awareness and understanding in the region.”

Dr. Al Aswany told Agence France-Presse, “What the center and the translator did is piracy and theft, and I will be complaining to the International Publishers’ Association.” He added: “My position has not changed regarding normalization with Israel. I reject it completely.”

A representative for the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information declined to comment to Agence France-Presse.

Short notice on intellectuals

I continue to be extremely interested in issues regarding the Cold War, as I consider that many of the patterns created then still continue to influence our ways of thinking and translating the facts. The place of intellectuals, mostly scientists, in the East/West confrontation, their blindness - in supporting indefinitely the Moscow's part - the "red hunt", the political manifestos, and all the games behind the scenes will play a big part of my studies and lectures. In these stormy times, intellectuals were used or offered their services, to a part or another, and rarely were able to express dissenting opinions and positions. I am very familiar with the situation of intellectuals during the communist regimes, I followed some of the cases of intellectuals during the Third Reich but had a limited knowledge of the situation in the "free world", excepting my regrets for the lack of integrity in defending the cause of free thinking and to oppose repression from the other side of the Iron Curtain.

The very detailed biography of Robert Oppenheimer gave me new food for thought for deconstructing the myth of the beneficial role of the intellectuals. Far of becoming an anti-intellectual myself, I recognize the limits of human self-awareness and indifference, independently of the level of education and intelligence. Preoccupied by their works, not without direct political and civic implications - as it was in the case of the atomic bomb, they have often limited understanding of the need of expressing solidarity and civic involvement. For example, enjoying the freedom of thinking might imply to be able to defend, whenever necessary the situations when other scientists are not able to do their work in the same conditions. Very often, I think that "Dreyfus affair" was a very singular case in the intellectual history.

For me, Oppenheimer is a sad example of this lack of involvement and the refuse to be more than a wonderful mind. An encyclopedic mind and a coherent scientist, he - like many others - went involved - but not as a full member - in the activities of the Communist Party from the US, mostly as a counter action to the advance of Nazi Germany. From the book, it is not very clear the ways in which this US Communist Party fought or reacted against the fate of the European Jews. In Europe, Paul Dirac and other scientists were more connected to the Soviet Russia, but still unable to create a common front against what was happening in Germany, including with their Jewish colleagues. Little by little, once he's involvement in the Manhattan Project is increasing, Oppenheimer is becoming neutral regarding the communists, whose fellow traveller used to be for a while and dedicated fully to the works for building the atomic bomb, together with other bright minds. At the realm of the Cold War and when the pressures at various levels of the American establishment increased, Oppenheimer will be the perfect victim for separating the waters. The trial was unfair and the non-academic ambitions of the political and military elites played an enormous role. But, even in this situation, he refused to express but than scientific advices following the consequences of the use of the atomic bomb at Hiroshima and Nagasaki or to separate clearly from his late Communist involvement. Obviously, it was a sporadic involvement, without a clear knowledge of all the sides of the story. And the public support from the part of his fellow scientists was limited as well. He was, perhaps, hiding many untold stories and the question of a possible spying case the Soviets, directly or by tolerating this kind of activities of scientists working for the Manhattan Project, is missing from the book. But, even confronted with days and hours of interviews and confrontations, he kept a low profile and hide behind his quiet world of ideas. He behaved predominantly defensive and reactive, as he lost the case before exposing all the arguments. He devoted most part of his life to a scientific project, but without understanding clearly all the implications. The tragic situation of being carried by the unchanging waves of politics.

The chronological structure of the book, describing step-by-step his personal and professional life, is not helping too much in understanding the context and the history of mentalities from this period. Given the enormous documentation, it was perhaps the most recommended way to build the narrative, but a synthetic perspective would add value and create a bigger framework of the world of ideas from the period of the Cold War and before.

Minorities in the Middle East

I have to confess that I am not extremely familiar from the academic point of view with the history and reliable references of minorities from the Middle East. I have a limited direct knowledge of the area and I had the occasion to meet in person or to have professional dialogues with people from the region, with various minority background. But I am reading very often media reports - with a careful scientific distance - and I see how often the minority issue is raised, used and misused. I am also trying to write currently an article about the possible comparisons between the approach to minority issues in various regions, as the South-Eastern Europe, Black Sea Region and, last but not least, the Middle East. My main idea is that without the pressure of joining in a near future global alliances and organizations as EU and NATO, offering subsequent economic and symbolic advantages, the situation of minorities will not receive soon a proper legal framework.

The recent conference held in Berlin by prof. Mordechai Zaken, author of a book about the Jewish communities in the Middle East, was a perfect challenge to orient my academic interests towards different historical, cultural and geographical space. The main focus on the conference was to explain the misuse of the comparison between the situation of the Kurds and of the Palestinians. Among the most important there are: different demographic data, lack of political will from the part of the states to get involved in supporting the Kurdish case, geopolitical and political opportunism in abusing the "Palestinian case", but also the lack of trained and organized elites and of a clear political manifesto and ways of action (in the Kurdish case). Repeating the same patterns or accepting various involvement from outside must be balanced once the clear interests are set. The religious aspects might be important, but the smart and targeted actions and the creation of valuable elites will give, by far, more weight and support for a coherent and, at the end, successful action.

Dealing with the German past

Before starting to write this post, I had a long moment of thinking: what is the category to include this post about the newly published book about the German diplomats during the IIIrd Reich? First choice was to include in a post on foreign affairs and politics - because, as usual, the decision to create a commission to investigate the past is foremost a political decision and this was the red line followed during the discussions taking place yesterday, at a full Haus der Kulturen der Welt. But, after deliberations, I decided that it have to deal with memory and recent painful history and included in my history blog. I bought the book yesterday and I will be back with an extensive

review as soon as my German will allow me to do it. This is the reason why I will focus on a couple of remarks about the issue at large. Using myths in building identity narratives is common place in the history. The role of historians is to document and diversify the sources in order to do not allow the misuse of identities for political reasons. The truth is not pleasant, welcomed or desired. But it have to be followed and exposed. Being relatively familiar with the ways of working of a foreign minister, I continue to be astonished about the surprise of discovering the strong connections between the Foreign Ministry and the Third Reich. Diplomats, in every political regime, as the interface of the home politics and their actions are following a clear political mandate. It was never different and will never be different. The access to the documents to explain certain situations is problematic always, for this reason and you need political will for offering the proper conditions for academics to do their work.

It was interesting for me to watch Joschka Fischer's interventions directed against the idea of "elitism" of the diplomats. He is the product of his times, of a stormy German post-war youth, accusing their parents of the frustrations of a complicate present. Understanding this past is a good insight of understanding various directions of the present, including the diplomatic stances at certain moment regarding the situation from the Middle East. Can't wait to start reading.

France - The change of paradigm?

I was very happy the last week to be able to attend the Mona Ozouf's conference in Berlin. I had the occasion to read many of her books since I was at the university, together with the works of Pierre Nora being valuable tools in guiding me across the complicate world of national symbolism and painful national identities. In the last months I followed the various political interventions from France regarding the national paradigm and its possible crisis or, at least, the lack of adaptability to the daily reality from the Hexagone.

The conference was interesting and useful as an update of reevaluating the crisis from the point of view of the possibilities to go beyond the current conflict at the level of mentalities. Because, as Mona Ozouf outlined by various examples, the theoretical reality included by the political definitions of identity don't correspond to the daily and human reality of nowadays France. A ministry of national identity will not solve the increasing tensions by symbolic interventions in the educational system, as singing the Marseillaise or preaching about the common identity.

On the other hand, the messianic vision of a France fighting for universal values is contradicted by the daily reality of the diversity - regional, religious, ethnic. You might not recognize the idea of minority - of any kind - but it doesn't mean those minority don't exist or will accept to give up their identities. The structures and histories of the communities you have to deal are diverse and with different relations to modernity and various reasons - economic and political mainly - to choose France as their home country. Theoretically and simplified, if you are entering my house, you have to accept the rules of the house, isn't it? But you cannot impose me what to say or what to dress or what to eat! It is against the general value of human rights. And if you are not able to convince me by your "soft power" that I have to adjust my attitude, it is, perhaps, an error in the projection of the whole system, isn't it?

Purposely I will not refer to specific situations and cases: as the burqa prohibition. Our secular Western values and societies are in obvious contradiction with some values preached in the anti-Western religious communities from the Middle East. The dramatic tension is the result of two opposite standpoints, refusing any kind of dialogue and critical thinking.

But the daily human, social and political reality is different of the historical projections from the history books. The "glorious past" of France is not the necessary liaison to reinforce a national profile. We are living global, this is obvious, but our global world is made up of various networks and communities, created by individuals with different backgrounds. You can be in the same time European, France citizen, Hindi speaker and with a strong Corsican identity. It might be contradictory in some cases, hard to understand, but there we need first to map the reality, to understand it and after to find solutions, new solutions for new realities.

Another kind of academic diary

My wonderful PhD paper is ready for almost one year and already went through minimum three rewriting processes. Most probably, for the book I am intending to write - a good reason to return more often to this dear neglected blog - I will rewrite at least twice the whole material, beyond the translation process and the need to adapt and rewrite fragments and chapters, in order to better address the Western audience.

To recap: I am ready and prepared to face the defense, to answer the questions and to present my arguments and ideas. (I even went intensively to a couple of Toastmasters sessions in order to improve my public speaking skills.)What I am waiting for? For finishing the long and extremely annoying process of filling papers, going with a file from a building to another, correcting various bureaucratic formulae. And the most part of the fun is that I have only three more weeks until the established deadline for entering the final stage of the PhD - the defense - and still I am jumping around nervous, more and more nervous from a day to another, giving desperate phone calls and trying to solve - from thousand-kilometer away, because I cannot go back home every week - problems I hope to delete from my brains 1/2 second after the whole chaos is over.

I very often remark that I would better write another 600 or more pages paper+the research, than to face this grotesque system. But, thanks to some brilliant ideas, I will succeed. Can't wait. To start a new project, of course.

Colourful but colourblind

It is time to know more the Roma. We are very often ignorant who they are and what their culture represents.

The newest initiative is a project of Transitions covering Romania, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Bulgaria.

I welcome any piece of information that might help to go beyond our daily stereotypes and narrow-minded ways of judging the other - belonging or not to a different ethnic, national or linguistic community. On the other side, for what concerns the case of Roma, I cannot stop observing how keen we, the Westerners are to listen to their music, to dance or to watch them dancing. But this wave of enthusiasm doesn't mean that we are more open to fight the discrimination they are facing - surprise, in many of the countries who supported by loud public declarations their integration - or to stop thinking about them in discriminative terms.

Mitläufer

Mitläufer - is a follower of a group, supported by his or her presence as organic part of the group. Even not agreeing with the ideas and the ways in which these ideas are put into practice, the Mitläufer is prefering to be rather "in" than "out", by reasons of personal security - keeping the job and the money, advantages for the the members of the family etc. He or her are voiceless - of their and other people's dissatisfactions.

The term was used recently by Herta Mueller, in Bucharest, in relation with the mainstream attitude of Romanian intellectuals during communism. A position I fully agree. Otherwise, how it would be explained the overall silence, and absence of the real dissent during Romanian dictatorship?