Al Aqsa Storm: Liberating from Our Old Questions
I question my thinking – and I hope I am not mistaken – that what “Al Aqsa Storm” can offer us is to affirm the perspectives that should govern our thinking in the twenty-first century. These perspectives, I believe – and some beliefs are not sinful – are completely different from the way of thinking that governed the twentieth century and that the 1980s marked the beginning of the shift away from them, but they have been greatly reinforced in the last decade of the twentieth century.
Contemporary perspectives are based on several foundations, and we had discussed in the previous article two of these foundations, and in this article, we will continue discussing the third and fourth foundations:
- Arabs and Muslims in Europe and North America join left-wing protesters, indigenous people, blacks, and others against the war in Gaza, but they align with conservative right-wing against the issue of sex education in schools.
Thirdly: Starting from the Facts to Rediscuss the Ideas
For example, the understanding of Arab political speeches cannot be detached from monitoring the changes in the structures of the state that redefine its roles and functions, and the evolution of the market/economy, which involved a mixture of the private sector with state control and neoliberal economy not yet influenced by neoliberal values and tools.
The approach of facts, not ideas, allowed us to summon many influential actors in the storm. Here, we can refer to the countries in the region and the world, as well as note the interaction between these countries and actors outside the countries from non-state organizations and movements or transcending states, in addition to social media influencers, intellectuals, and artists, etc.
This approach also helps in understanding the intersectional spaces between the various components. The concept of justice and the stance against authority – any authority – is the deepest intellectual root that brought together the scattered actors who demonstrated support for the Palestinians – as previously explained in an article on Al Jazeera’s website.
From this analysis perspective, understanding the beginning and end of eras becomes easier; with the United States withdrawing from Afghanistan in September 2021, we can talk about the end of the September 2001 era when the “War on Terror” flag rose, as well as discussing the claims that tried to link the Israeli September to the American one.
Starting from reality, not intellectual assumptions, means rejecting complete ideas of bypassing and emphasizing the need to search for juxtaposition, coexistence, and interaction, where the question arises about the reasons for the continuation of some phenomena and the disappearance of others, and the contexts that drive this or prevent that.
At this point, I would like to emphasize that I am not one of those who adopt the idea of bypassing and disconnecting in understanding reality – as appears in some concepts preceded by “post-” – the writer of these lines belongs to a school that emphasizes the idea of transformation in transitional periods that involve juxtaposition, coexistence, and interference sometimes between the old and new and between different phenomena.
From this perspective, we can look at Hamas and the Zionist project: what has changed, what are the elements of continuity, and what is the impact of the storm on their future?
Another point: that there is no exceptionality for phenomena, movements, and discourses; they are all from human effort – in which God has breathed His spirit – and therefore, the search for the developments of phenomena and their comparison with each other in different societies is an important matter.
This method allows transcending the obsession with the resilience of the Palestinian community, which some have tried to attach to it without sufficient analysis and understanding of its strengths and weaknesses; it is a creation from God’s creation that is plagued by weakness, fear, love of the world, and hatred of death, and all this implies the necessity of supporting it to be able to persist and continue resistance.
Another point, which I have referred to in other writings denouncing polarizations and fragmentations. The contemporary world is dominated by partial issues and concepts such as climate change, human rights, gender, and specific topics branching off from that, such as abortion or sex education in schools; thus, the stance is drawn according to each issue separately.
Arabs and Muslims in Europe and North America join left-wing protesters, indigenous people, blacks, and others against the war in Gaza, but they align with conservative right-wing against the issue of sex education in schools.
The importance of starting from reality entails the necessity of direction to reforming the structures, infrastructure, and addressing the contexts that have produced problems, without diverting our energy to debate cultural dimensions without affecting people’s reality. This phenomenon has been dubbed by some as the “Republic of Debate,” especially since interaction on social media diverts a lot of energy from changing reality.
Fourthly: Reformulating the Questions while Liberating from the Old Ones
In each historical stage, there have been central questions that occupied the intellect, with efforts revolving around them, yet they were ultimately the result of interaction between two fundamental elements: the state structure and the nature of the economy.
With every development witnessed by the Arab state structures and the applied economic formulas, and their relationship to the developments in the international economic structures, we witness similar repercussions on the prevailing political and cultural discourses. The discourse on civilization and renaissance originated in this context and has been fundamentally influenced by these two factors.
In contemporary times, the concerns of the Arab citizen have focused on dignified living based on human dignity and justice in the distribution of opportunities, resources, income, and wealth.
The concept of plurality, which is an inherent son of drawing detailed maps as presented, could help us reassess the prevailing questions and search for new ones.
Accordingly, questions can be raised about the intersectionality on which the global movement supporting the Palestinians is based: How is it achieved? What is its future? And what are its effects on Western policy towards the issue?
Not being content with confirming phenomena as they were, but understanding their contexts and emerging characteristics, is important.
One feature of contemporary questions is that they relate to the humanity’s entirety and in their different aspects concern common humanity. While their expressions take on a local form, they are bound by a common essence. We are participating in the values because they are universally human and there is a variety of approaches and methods to achieve them.
Starting with new questions or reconsidering what was raised requires liberating from the intellectual templates to discover the hidden politics behind it and the economic interests seeking to achieve them.
I am aware that there is a struggle over the standards that should govern the work of international institutions, in various fields such as the Internet, climate change, international trade, artificial intelligence, but it is a struggle not of a civilizational nature but one overshadowed by political competition and the search for realizing economic interests.
The concept of the clash of civilizations formulated by the American political scientist Huntington aimed at serving American hegemony in a post-Cold War era based on a unipolar timeframe, and the religious discourses used by Israeli and Western politicians aimed at rallying and mobilizing sectors of public opinion behind their leaders in a battle that is not of a religious nature, as Hamas confirmed in its document issued late last month (January 2024).
One last point; competition and conflict may hide the similar structures on which the competitors rely on. The structure of the Chinese and American economies is inherently capitalist, albeit with varying degrees of state intervention. When they compete over the standards that should govern the global system, they aim to achieve their self-interests.
The normalization agreements, referred to as the Abraham Accords, ultimately led to an alliance between major capital interests in the Gulf and Israel, with the ordinary citizens on both sides paying the price.
The major capital entities everywhere are similar regardless of their covers of cloaks, turbans, fez, or Jewish kippahs.
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera Channel.
