And so it turned out, as the LORD, the Triune YHWH, had promised: a single civilisation. Specifically, a civilisation Christian, Muslim, Jewish and Druze; celebrating its Roman, Hellenistic and richly pre-Hellenistic past; with Arabic as its lingua franca and with its de facto capital at Damascus.
Ah, Damascus. Seat of three of the five Patriarchs of Antioch. And today protected by the vote of the country where the other two are seated, as well as by the seat of the Assyrian and Chaldean Patriarchs, numerous of whose faithful have been driven thence to Syria by our own pig ignorant foreign policy. This is the day when the distinctive civilisation of the Levant, a bulwark against the Islamism of those who are engaged in the Syrian insurrection, powerfully reasserted itself.
If Palestine east of the Jordan were properly democratic rather than ultimately ruled by an imported Bedouin royal house and entourage from deep in the Peninsula, then that would have been another vote to protect the Syrian heartland. Another would have come from Palestine west of the Jordan if representation at the Arab League were not bizarrely still in the hands of the hugely compromised PLO rather than the functioning democratic institutions.
And Egypt? If she had, as she ought to have, a constitutional settlement which included the Coptic Patriarch and the Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood alongside the products of conventional representative democracy, then yes, of course. It is the Brotherhood, created by British intelligence, always well-connected in the Foreign Office, Anglophile, historically social democratic, and still fundamentally so in its activist base and in its enormous core support, that is the ultimate guarantor of a pro-British Egypt, Christian as well as Muslim, against the Salafi who have been given a constituency by our failure to capitalise on these advantages and whom we wish to see installed in Syria as part of a re-formed and reformed Ottoman Caliphate.
As the centenary of the First World War approaches, nothing could be more disgraceful.
Let's get this right, then, shall we?
ReplyDeleteAlready, we have had your proposals for a system whereby half the Egyptian Parliament was appointed by either the Coptic Patriarch or the Supreme Guide, both of whom together with two elected figures would have to approve any legislation.
We have had your proposal for reunion between Jordan and the West Bank, including the Christian quota that already exists for both the Jordanian Parliament and the Palestinian Authority. Uncharacteristically, you don't seem too keen on the Jordanian monarchy. Instead, you want the President to have to be a Christian even if that meant the Prime Minister having to be a Muslim.
We have had your proposal for a tricameralism in Israel, with separate chambers for Arabs, ultra-Orthodox Jews and everyone else so that all had to approve any law and each would elect one of three joint Presidents.
We have had your strong support for continuing to reserve half the seats in the Lebanese Parliament for Christians, the Presidency for a Maronite and the Deputy Speakership for a Greek Orthodox even though that means reserving the Prime Ministership for a Sunni and the Speakership for a Shia.
And now, we have what I think we can safely say is a call for some sort of legislative veto in Syria for the Damascus-based Greek Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox and Melkite Patriarchs, presumably in return for the same for a Sunni, a Shia and an Alawite leader. Plus some sort of legislative veto in Iraq for the Assyrian and Chaldean Patriarchs, presumably in return for the same for a Sunni and a Shia leader.
All within "a civilisation Christian, Muslim, Jewish and Druze; celebrating its Roman, Hellenistic and richly pre-Hellenistic past; with Arabic as its lingua franca and with its de facto capital at Damascus."
You know that you are widely read and highly respected among Arab Christian activists. Yet you come out with this, a variation on Greater Syria rooted in the same Christian particularism. You are rapidly becoming a very dangerous man. I don't mean that as a compliment.
Nevertheless, I certainly take your whole comment as one.
ReplyDeleteWhat, exactly, do you propose instead? And why, exactly?
Would you really want to see that? Sunni, Shi'ite and Alawite leaders given a veto over legislation in Syria if the Greek, Syriac and Melkite Patriarchs did as well? Sunni and Shi'ite leaders given a veto over legislation in Iraq if the Assyrian and Chaldean Patriarchs did as well?
ReplyDeleteI had never thought of it like that, but it would be very well worth considering. However, in the Syrian case, the Druze would also have to be included.
ReplyDeleteOnly at Durham, folks.
ReplyDeleteOnly at Durham does upper-class Arabism and spookery come together so completely with Catholic and High Anglican traditionalism to come up with the position that the large, very High, very traditionalist Christian minorities in "Greater Syria" constitute the fulfilment of Biblical prophecy about the occupants of the Promised Land. After all, who else could those inhabitants possibly be?
The trick is to bring them and their Muslim neighbours into the orbit of British intelligence. Also a self-evident good, like giving the duly spooked grand old men of each community a veto over the legislation proposed by mere elected politicians. Secular Jews are so dangerous that even in a tiny postage stamp of territory they have to be balanced by not one but two entire parliamentary chambers of grand old men, an Arab one and an ultra-Orthodox Jewish one.
But all of this is supposedly the left-wing view, who dares suggest that it might be anything else? Pass the port. And the brandy and cigars while you are at it.
Only at Durham, folks. Only at Durham.
The weather up here in the north east reminds me of Europe, it's either Sunni or Shi'ite.
ReplyDeleteThe old ones are the best.
ReplyDeleteSince the invasion of Iraq, the BBC has taken to using "Shia" as a noun. Whenever they say "Sunni and Shia", they should be required to play 'I Got You, Babe'.