open Democracy News Analysis - Abou Jahjah - typically one-sided, - Comments

Paul Wilson on "Abou Jahjah - typically one-sided"

Paul Wilson — Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:32:13 +0100

"A couple of weeks ago a Jewish student was stabbed in Wilrijk, a suburb of Antwerp. He survived to tell the tale of a group of "Moroccans" (read: Young men of North African origin) that attacked him. When I asked a friend in Belgium for more details, I got the response :"Abhou Jaja's work is obviously bearing fruit". Whether or not he is directly linked to such attacks, and I doubt it, people decide to make certain connections; so on it goes, as you can imagine." If you sow seeds of division and nationalist "branding", so you will reap the bitter harvest...

Julien Djerzinski on "Abou Jahjah - typically one-sided"

Julien Djerzinski — Wed, 21 Jul 2004 13:28:15 +0100

I detected a distinct whiff of misty-eyed wistfulness > in the interviewers tone, and despaired at the > recurring power of powerful political motivators to > seduce commentators into rose-tinted tolerance. If so, I think it might have at least something to do with the nature of this site: OPEN Democracy. Commentators/interviewers here must follow that line I suppose. Sometimes it works, other times it might not. Actually, have a look at the interview of Tariq Ramadan - are there parallels with the interview of AJ? He is of course coming from a different prespective than Jajah so I suppose the outcome, the interview, might appear different to the reader as well. When I read the introduction to Ramadan, which is not the interview but the accompanying short profile, I did get the funny feeling that the interviewer had more than a small crush on her subject. She met him in a "decorous hotel near Victoria" (her words) and goes on to describe him... From the start, I felt in the presence of leadership: but of the style of an exiled prince, a king over the water, a president in exile, an errant soul. This is how the wildly flattering articles in Vanity Fair usually start (or so I am told :-) ). Anyway, made me laugh. > At least the activism seems relatively non-violent > and inclusive - is this an accurate reading from your > perspective? > Yes. But my perspective now comes from the UK. So am unable to give any on-the-ground-accounts. A couple of weeks ago a Jewish student was stabbed in Wilrijk, a suburb of Antwerp. He survived to tell the tale of a group of "Moroccans" (read: Young men of North African origin) that attacked him. When I asked a friend in Belgium for more details, I got the response :"Abhou Jaja's work is obviously bearing fruit". Whether or not he is directly linked to such attacks, and I doubt it, people decide to make certain connections; so on it goes, as you can imagine.

Paul Wilson on "Abou Jahjah - typically one-sided"

Paul Wilson — Mon, 19 Jul 2004 17:38:06 +0100

Julien, I agree that it is sometimes necessary to take a fairly radical position to shake up the existing order, especially when there seems so little prospect of moderate forces being mobilised. You know far more about this situation than I do; I was merely taking the interview at face value and measuring it against a broader sweep of history. I detected a distinct whiff of misty-eyed wistfulness in the interviewers tone, and despaired at the recurring power of powerful political motivators to seduce commentators into rose-tinted tolerance. At least the activism seems relatively non-violent and inclusive - is this an accurate reading from your perspective? Cheers, Paul

Julien Djerzinski on "Abou Jahjah - typically one-sided"

Julien Djerzinski — Sat, 17 Jul 2004 16:24:28 +0100

... Abou Jahjah is > promoting yet more regressive nationalism in a > society already (by his own vivid descriptions) > riddled with it. This can only encourage people to > continue to focus on the arbritary, relatively > trivial cultural differences between them rather than > the much greater body of commonality that exists. > > Paul, I generally agree with you not relating to AJ's philosophy. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that - (minus) and - (minus) don't make a + (plus). Nationalism and anti-Nationalist Exclusivism (is this even possible? And maybe that's your point, that it isn't!) don't make for tolerance when taken together. I don't relate to AJ's position either, that is to say his political message, but that is not foremostly because I am a multiculturalist, but because I am not Arab. At least, that is the way I have decided to approach him (nb: I have taken the interview at face value; I have checked him out on the web and spoken to friends in Belgium, and after getting contradictory views I think it best for the purposes of this post to stick to the interview, although please tell me if you have found other interesting material, I am all ears!). The reason I approach him from that angle is because of what I alluded to in my post above as "the Flemish Connection". Notwithstanding the feeble pun on the gangster film with the great chase sequence, which is the first thing that came to mind at the time, it remains imperative to me to single out Flanders, and particularly Antwerp (as has been done on this site in an article in May) as a hotbed of old-style fascism and racist hullabaloo. One response to this Flemish-disease (ah, new pun!) would be to denounce both the Vlaams Blok and AJ, ie not to use AJ as a relative cushion against the VB. This is certainly defensible from a multiculturalist perspective and one which I would emphatically endorse. However, because of the specific pervasiveness of xenophobia in Antwerp, I would not slam the door in the face of those who feel isolated to the point of not trusting the mainstream political parties to take up the cause of multiculturalism. And that is the point! The fact that the SP (Socialists), VLD (LibDems) and the CVP (Christian-Democrats), as well as other smaller parties such as Groen! (Greens) and VU ("Flemish Union", not even sure they exist anymore!) have been unable to combat the VB in Antwerp, makes it understandable to the point of necessary that alternative voices speak out. Voices that will be in no doubt that the VB has no place in Flanders! However, the VB has now unfortunately become part of the political landscape, and yes, mainstream for many... I remember going on marches with school (during schooltime) after the VB made its "great leap" in the elections of 1994 (some would say the great leap happened in the previous election, enfin soit). It seemed at the time that the election was all a great abheration (spelling?), a mistake, a lapse. The fact that the VB is now as everyday as Belgian(!) Fries with hot peanut-butter-sauce (yes, we eat that over there!) makes it more understandable that other parties like AJ's will pop up. Again, it's not as much that I agree with the demands, but I find it necessary, considering the recent political history, that alternative voices rise up. I would of course also back the rise of other identity-kit-political groups if they also helped the debate along. It is possible, I believe, that minority voices which sound exclusivist are ultimately there to move the debate along back towards multiculturalism, and are thus not exclusive or divisive after all (if they ever were to begin with). What do you think? JD > > Message was edited by: Paul Wilson - make it clear > that the comments were aimed at Abou Jahjah not > Julien... > > Thanks for this last bit. Wasn't sure for a minute...

Paul Wilson on "Abou Jahjah - typically one-sided"

Paul Wilson — Mon, 12 Jul 2004 18:31:23 +0100

"Julien's comments are so interesting - they make me wonder if people who have experience of identity politics don't have more in common - despite everything we might imagine that divides them - than more traditional allies - for example, the people living in white ghetto estates in Belgium who see nothing in common at all with their Moroccan neighbours..." All the more unfortunate then that Abou Jahjah is promoting yet more regressive nationalism in a society already (by his own vivid descriptions) riddled with it. This can only encourage people to continue to focus on the arbritary, relatively trivial cultural differences between them rather than the much greater body of commonality that exists. It amazes me that a university education can nevertheless leave an obviously intelligent man apparently ignorant of the inevitable divisive effects of the gravitional polarisation of this type of militant organisation (20th century history anybody?). Worse still, allowing the movement to be influenced by religion pushes it further back into the middle ages and reduces the breadth of inclusion. Of course, one of the reasons for their regular emergence is that they represent an excellent vehicle for the acquisition of status, power and personal self-esteem for their leaders. Why does nobody seem to identify this and factor the inevitable self-interested motivation into an otherwise balanced assessment of his position - are we really still sheep? Message was edited by: Paul Wilson - make it clear that the comments were aimed at Abou Jahjah not Julien... Message was edited by: Paul Wilson

Rosemary Bechler on "Abou Jahjah - typically one-sided"

Rosemary Bechler — Tue, 22 Jun 2004 23:18:52 +0100

Julien's comments are so interesting - they make me wonder if people who have experience of identity politics don't have more in common - despite everything we might imagine that divides them - than more traditional allies - for example, the people living in white ghetto estates in Belgium who see nothing in common at all with their Moroccan neighbours... But really I just want to thank you for telling us about your experience of living in Antwerp and rising to Dyab Abou Jahjah's challenge.

Julien Djerzinski on "Abou Jahjah - typically one-sided"

Julien Djerzinski — Mon, 21 Jun 2004 16:37:21 +0100

Europe is diverse, but the common aspect, recognised worldwide, is the western European Judaeo-Christian heritage. This has both a racial connotation related to being white; and a civilisational claim, Judaeo-Christian in character. The above statement by A.J., taken from the interview, is both accurate in its description and its implications. As such he is right to question it - literally, debate it. The statement seems to me the central starting point for his whole intellectual framework. By debating it, as a member of the "Other" (ie coming from outside that "civilisational claim"), A.J. will undoubtedly offend. Outside criticism about any institution can be a good thing, as in A.J.'s case, but because of the nature of the debate - what it is about - it is understandable that his views will not be welcomed by all those who strongly identify themselves with the group he has outlined, and see it - as he does - as exclusionary. I don't want to write about the discussion that he raises (as with the first poster above) per se, but rather with what he rightly identifies as a Belgian, and more specific Flemish problem. I grew up in Belgium, lived there for 15 years (between the ages of 4-18) and can undoubtedly say (after extensive travels) that Flanders, and specifically my home town of Antwerp, is the most racist city in Europe. It is shocking to me, merely a decade after being The Cultural Capital of Europe, that Antwerp is continuously sinking into a xenophobic and close-minded quagmire. Undooubtedly it seems, it will have the first Flemish Blok (Vlaams Blok) mayor in 2006. (Shudder.) A.J.'s article must be read in this context (at least I think so). If you do feel offended by what he says, or you feel, as poster above, that "he should compare Europe to Saudi Arabia", I urge you to look into more detail in the "Flemish-connection" (if this is at all possible on the web I don't know). Moving to Britain at the age of 18 I was shocked to discover that I was considered white. What An eye-opener! Mum it turns out I'm white. In Belgium I was a "vreemdeling" (a foreigner, but with all the connotations of the Germanic "vreemd" = "strange" or "odd"). Walking down the streets of Antwerp all those years, I got used to being considered Turkish, Algerian, Greek, Jewish (that's the right one), or "the worst"...Moroccan. In Britain I'm just plain white. It's up to me if I want to assert my heritage, and if so, how to as well. In Antwerp, I had no choice. We - Jews, North Africans, Middle Eastern - were all looked down upon; it's something which I simply cannot describe to anyone in London (which is great, i don't wanna have to describe it). Although I am no Tory, it amazes me that Howard, Letwin, Saatchi, aren't described as "the Jewish Shadow blablabla". Their background is completely left out. In Belgium this is simply impossible. "De Joodse voorzitter" (chairman)..., "De burgemeester van Marokkaanse afkomst" (the mayor of Moroccan origin)... I'm not talking of cursory mentions of origins or race (which of course happens in Britain), but a constant obsession with racial stereotyping and backward racism. For this I am grateful for A.J.'s contribution, even though I am not Arabic, and possibly in his eyes a Zionist. But so be it, Belgium is a lot better off with Abhou Jaja. He is doing them a favour.

davebelden@earthlink.net on "Abou Jahjah - typically one-sided"

davebelden@earthlink.net — Wed, 26 May 2004 22:08:59 +0100

I clicked on the Discussion site to give a big thank you to Rosemary Bechler for this interview, and to Abou Jahjah for speaking at such length with her - a testament to openDemocracy's reputation for fairness. I am no expert, but I haven't seen anything like this interview elsewhere. To the first writer here, I would suggest you take a step back and think what this approach by Abou Jahjah means. The entire history of democracy has been created by people who were excluded in one way or another getting together to argue and push their way in. A great deal of that pushing was hugely violent - in the Anglo/American tradition think of the English and US Civil Wars, the American revolution. A great deal of it was successful in large part because of the threat of violence: the street demonstrations of the Chartists that led to advances like the secret ballot and wdiening the list of people allowed to vote, the threat of revolution in the Depression that spurred FDR to pass the New Deal, etc. And much was more a question of making mass organizations, breaking the law when necessary (e.g. the first trade unions were illegal), but mostly showing that this group had muscle: e.g. the religious groups who were excluded from the vote and from various civil rights, and who one by one got those rights - in England, the Christians who were not Church of England, and then Jews; or the struggle for women's right to vote, own property etc. The whole breadth and quality of modern democracy has been created by these groups. Abou Jajah's group appears to be centrally in this tradition. He combines argument with mass organization. One of his best lines is "you cannot be liberated - you liberate yourself." This is true for every major group that has come to political equality. Abou Jahjah's determination to stay within the law is firmly stated, along with the warning that this may not hold true if the state abuses its powers against his group - that could have been said by any number of democrats in history who were starting their struggle towards their fair share in the political universe. So he is highly critical of Europe - that's his right, (you should read what other groups at the bottom of European society have said about it in the past - Abou Jahjah is mild by comparison) and one of his best points is that his people can give to Europe a little sense of other people's perspectives. At the same time, he was clearly struggling for democracy in the Arab world as well. In his organization, there is a lot of diversity - he is not one of those people he calls extremists and are often called fundamentalists who criticise democracy itself, and want a theocracy - those are the dangerous people. I'd better stop before I write a column's worth of opinons! But I was happy to see that my own rejection of the French anti-headscarf law as expressed in a column here (at www.opendemocracy.net/themes/article-5-1707.jsp) was rejected by Abou Jahjah for the same reasons. I have seen so much defence of that law by liberals I was beginning to think I was in a very small minority about it.

Omair Ahmad on "Abou Jahjah - typically one-sided"

Omair Ahmad — Mon, 24 May 2004 09:45:28 +0100

Yes Abou Jahjah's point of view is one-sided, that is what he is trying to do. As for positing Saudi Arabia against the UK, do understand that you are comparing apples and oranges. Abou Jahjah is saying that the rules of the countries in Europe are being applied in a discriminatory fashion, in KSA the rules are still developing, and being apllied by a regime that doesn't answer to its public. Abou Jahjah is judging Europe by European ideals, (and Abou Jahjah categorically condemns policies by Saudi) it is bad logic to try to judge KSA by the same ideals. I am actually trying to understand what is causing you offence. That some people compare the countries of their origin favourably to the UK? Or that Western countries are getting bad-mouthed? I would encourage you to ask your friend who has just returned from Saudi if the expatriates who were living in Saudi Arabia did not spend a significant part of their time bad-mouthing Saudi. From the time that I spent there it is one of the things that I remember quite well. Few expats speak well of the country they work in, they are raised in markedly different cultures, and except for those that reject those roots, most remember their homelands with nostalgia, no matter how silly that might seem to the rest of us. Lastly "As it stands, it sounds like entirely unjustified whining against countries, cultures and people who have welcomed you far more than they could possibly hope to receive in exchange from your country." Bad choice of words, maybe for you colonialism is history that happened before your time and something to be forgotten, but most of the world, which happens to be non-Western, remembers the rape of their resources and wealth quite well, the Kohinoor sitting on the British crown and sceptre exemplifies it. I am not trying to shoot you down, but would like to ask you to enunciate what exactly you define as the problem so we can talk about it.

Abou Jahjah - typically one-sided,

lovethemath — Fri, 21 May 2004 13:39:51 +0100

I read the views of Abou Jahjah with some interest, little surprise, and also disappointment. It seems that the ideals of western society are under constant attack for apparently segregating certain groups such as Arabs. I'm personally sick and tired of these views. One of my best friends families returned 2 years ago from a long period of working in Saudi Arabia. They were not allowed to drink, celebrate Christmas, and unable to go to a Christian Church. Can you imagine the uproar in this country if the eating of Halal meat was banned?! The building of Mosques?! I often hear from Muslim friends (of which I have many) that Pakistan is so much better than this country. What I do not ask them, because I do not wish to cause offence, is if its so much better, why come here? Muslim countries are infinitely more discriminatory and intolerant of others than the countries which Abou Jahjah verbally attacks. He talks of needing to preserve Arab ideals an culture. Why are western societies not allowed to do that, and made to feel ashamed if they do? Read the rest of this post...