The counter French revolution

In the eyes of many historians, the French Revolution of 1789 was the trigger for the most powerful ideological agent of change in recent centuries, nationalism.  It spread from Europe reaching Asia in the mid-20^th century and created massive change throughout the world. Before it, people identified with their region, religion or social class.  After it, people gradually began to identify and be loyal to a nation, which included others of different regions, religions or social classes.  In other words, nationalism at its source was an inclusive force. Traditional nationalism aimed to welcome people to its large fold as much as local tensions and geography allowed.

In the last 20 years, nationalism has not disappeared but seemingly taken on an inverse direction: it defines nations by rejecting others, especially their culture and values. Whether as a reaction to countries becoming ethnically heterogenic or the need of politicians to attain and hold on to power, today’s nationalism is extremely xenophobic, rejecting anybody or any value considering alien. Trump openly espouses “America First” and wants to deport the largest immigrant group in the country, regardless of their contribution to the country.  Putin rejects any Western political values and oppresses and discriminates against minorities. Erdogan promotes a Turkish and religious agenda, openly crushing any laic or European-oriented opposition. These are only the most prominent of the new populist leaders. What is significant is not their existence but their popularity.  While for support these and similar leaders is far from 100%, they have all been elected with respectable majorities.  In other words, their restrictive world view reflects that of their voters.  It is an “us against them” world.

While traditional nationalism also divided the world into friends and enemies, these were geographical distinctions created by borders and history.  The enmity between France and Germany or Viet Nam and China are examples.  Still, any person willing to adopt the nationality and accept loyalty to the nation was welcome.  Today, in too many places, if you don’t fit the exclusive definition of the right citizen, whether in terms of race, philosophy or religion, you are a potential fifth column. That point of view, in my eyes, is an attempt to rewind the clock, generally a violent and ultimately ineffective act. 

I believe that the words of the Marseillaise are still relevant:

Allons enfants de la Patrie,
Le jour de gloire est arrivé!
Contre nous de la tyrannie,
L'étendard sanglant est levé, (bis)

Or in English:

Arise, children of the Country,
The day of glory has arrived!
Against us tyranny's
Bloody banner is raised, (repeat)

Middle Eastern Man is a Rational(izing) Creature

Average citizens in the civilized West must be baffled by current and not so current political events in the Middle East.  These include Egypt’s election and post-election chaos, Syria’s non-election chaos, and Israeli’s confusing election results.  They must think that we are either crazy, masochistic, or both.

I have recently read two books, a biography of Nasser, the Egyptian leader, and an analysis of (Arab) Palestinian history in the 1920’s and 1930’s.  My conclusion from these books is that this apparent insanity is neither new nor accidental.  In the words, it is perfectly rational, if not rather tragic and destructive.

My view is as follows:  Towards the end of the 19^th century, the spirit of nationalism created and sponsored by the French revolution and physically propagated by Napoleon reached the Jews and the Arabs.  This desire for independence, both political and cultural, was translated into an ideology, a somewhat far-fetched ideal.  In the case of the Jews, it was Herzel and dream of a national homeland in Israel while the Arabs aspired to the glory of the independence and dominance of Islam centuries before.  Each of these long term goals ignored several aspects of inconvenient reality, not the least of which were the European interest and the annoying existence of each other.  Nevertheless, the target populations were receptive to the idea and eventually bought it hook, line, and sinker.

It took a while, but the French and British eventually left the Middle East (tail between the legs and all), but the annoying fact that Jews and Arabs shared the same territory would not go away.  The options were simple: change the ideologies and preach tolerance and multiculturalism or maintain it and behave schizophrenically by alternating between denial (i.e. Arab distinction between “Jews” as compared to” Israelis” and Golda Meir's “there are no Palestinians”) and violence (let us count the wars).  For many reasons, changing an ideology is quite difficult (ask the U.S. Republican Party).  It is also dangerous to political and physical life, i.e. Rabin and Sadat.  So, the more convenient and popular option was to fight reality and each other. 

The results are quite tragic: death, poverty, anger, refugees, and misery.  Still, for most politicians of all stripes in the area, the greatest disaster would be peace.   It would render their ideology and raison d’être irrelevant.  As a final note, in England,  Cromwell was not despised because he was a dictator, but because he was tolerant.  The fact that, as Pascal said, man is thinking reed does not make leadership any easier.  Leaders cannot go too far from the conceptions of their people.