The Haifa Wehbe Post
Before I get into the meat of this post, I’d like to thank the inept American mainstream media for giving me an excuse to write about Haifa Wehbe, Ruby, and Nancy Ajram on my blog. Frankly, I’ve never found a better one than this…
Pop quiz—What does more to galvanize radical anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world: (a) Israeli settlements on the West Bank; or (b) a Lady Gaga music video?
Thus reads the first sentence of Bret Stephens’ myopic Wall Street Journal opinion piece*. I’m sure most of you are thinking “a” but ah, wait…”If your answer is (b) it means you probably have a grasp of the historical roots of modern jihadism. If, however, you answered (a), then congratulations: You are perfectly in synch with the new Beltway conventional wisdom, now jointly defined by Pat Buchanan and his strange bedfellows within the Obama administration.”
Ah yes, I see where this is going. A thinly veiled statement on how Arabs hated America long before Israel occupied Palestine, based on writings by Sayyid Qutb on American decadence in 1951. The piece claims, of course, that these writings occurred “after” the occupation of Palestine, making the impossible case that Palestine wasn’t at all occupied until 1967, using the “only crazies believe that” to diminish the fact that Palestinian displacement is a fact. Regardless of whether or not the establishment of Israel was just, it is academically dishonest to claim that the creation of Israel in 1948 didn’t at all affect, hurt, or anger Palestinians.
But that’s not really a surprising stance. What is truly surprising is Stephens’ complete ignorance of reality in the Arab world, evidenced by his (or his editor’s) thematic example of “the American Temptress,” the term used by Qutb in his 1951 piece. Stephens posits that Arabs can’t tolerate 1950s America, let alone 2010 America (his symbol for that being Lady Gaga), saying, “In other words, even in some dystopic hypothetical world in which hyper-conservatives were to seize power in the U.S. and turn the cultural clock back to 1948, America would still remain a swamp of degeneracy in the eyes of Qutb’s latter-day disciples.”
Stephens appears to be suggesting that Muslims and Muslim culture (he says Arabs, but we all know what he means) have not evolved at all in the past 60 years. Not only is that terribly racist (pointed out earlier by Justin Logan at the Cato Institute), it’s flat-out wrong.
Now, it’s no Bad Romance, but Maria’s 2006 hit “Elaab” would not have been played in public in 1950s America. In fact, her video, and this 2005 one from Ruby, bring to mind a video by another young vixen who made it on the scene in 1998: Britney Spears.
I remember my own surprise when I went to Morocco for the first time; I knew about Fayruz, but not Haifa; Umm Kalthoum but not Nancy. Ah, Nancy Ajram. I remember the first time I saw this video, which is far more GaGa than Britney:
Nancy…
And then there’s Andrew Exum’s example:
Brett Stephens may have read a few books on Islamist thought, but how many Arabic-language music videos has he watched? I ask because I have seen a lot (as they play pretty much 24-7 in 90% of the cafes and restaurants of the Arabic-speaking world), and I have also, this very morning, made a careful study of the oeuvre of Lady Gaga to determine which are more provocative sexually. The verdict? Lady Gaga is, in the words of my office mate (like Sayyid Qutb, an alumnus of the University of Northern Colorado!), “a brilliant art school trainwreck.” She is a ridiculous mess who uses sex among many other provocations to entertain. And as I have well-documented soft spot in my heart for Italian girls from Westchester County, I feel I need to stick up for her.
Haifa Wehbe, meanwhile? Well, judge for yourselves, but whereas Lady Gaga is a Tisch School-trained provocateuse, Hizballah-supporting Haifa strikes me as a less sophisticated one-trick pony pretty much mixing sex with music with, well, more sex. Regardless, with music videos like this one, Stephens can hardly argue that Lady Gaga is the one importing sexual provocation into the Arabic-speaking world and stirring things up, can he?
I’m not going to use Exum’s creepy Haifa example (“Boos al-wawa” – Haifa does far too many videos with children; who knew you could turn a ho into a housewife?) and give you one my favorites, instead:
Now, to be fair, the aesthetics are totally different; Lady Gaga is edgier, fiercer, while Haifa, Nancy, Ruby, and Maria all represent a certain idealized image more akin to the Britneys and (early) Lindsay Lohans of the US market. Nevertheless, they are all pop (check out this great moment (2:27) in Haifa Wehbe history where she proclaims “Britney is not Pavarotti, Jennifer Lopez is not Dean Martin”). And of course, there’s plenty of controversy around these pop stars, but like Exum said, that doesn’t stop them from being played 24/7 in cafes all across the Arab world.
*note: I know what an opinion piece is, but let’s have some standards for our media
Tweet
2.04.2010Cory
Oh man, i LOVE this post! did you ever read Cat in Rabat’s post on music videos? http://catinrabat.blogspot.com/2007/05/how-to-become-millionaire.html
Haifa has videos with children because her sexiness need not prevent her from displaying great maternal skills…
for my money, it doesn’t get any better than Myriam Fares. Lady Gaga eat your heart out!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKg-cMrvzMM
3.04.2010Jillian
Ha, love Myriam Fares!
Thanks for reminding me of that post, Cory, it’s been years! I actually left a comment (as “taamarbuuta”) at the time.
3.04.2010JPRS
Very nice, but Haifa is a really important artist and model. She’s also Shi’i, a Hizbullah supporter (or was in 2006), and a mom. Here’s a more “arty” video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1aQoJYMP20 and also the more recent Gladiator video is notable: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaCLYJh8jS8
3.04.2010Jillian
Yeah, I’m aware of both of those facts, but still not sure that I consider Haifa to be “an artist,” let alone an important one. She’s a sex symbol, and she knows it.
3.04.2010Alaa
even in the 50s we had Hend Rostom and Shadia followed later by Souad Hosny all three where sex icons (and artists) among many stars whose sexuality was constantly on screen. and like today they much more popular and relevant than any american star, not even Marilyn Monroe could compete.
Sayyed Qotb’s fight whenever it had anything to do with sexuality was with them not with imports.
is the pre islamist resistance/terrorism discussed at all in the US? do people know about the Marxist and nationalist armed resistance groups of old?
4.04.2010Jillian
Admittedly, I haven’t read enough Qotb to know, but I can smell bullshit from a mile away.
is the pre islamist resistance/terrorism discussed at all in the US? do people know about the Marxist and nationalist armed resistance groups of old?
Ya Alaa, you overestimate the American education system. The answer is yes and no. Those who study these subjects in university most certainly learn about the Marxist and nationalist armed resistance groups of yore; I did. But average public school students, say pre-university or in other university subjects don’t even learn where Saudi Arabia is on a map, let alone the subtleties of MidEast politics.
3.04.2010John
have not evolved at all in the past 60 years. Not only is that terribly racist
This true, Although might had some biased racisms, if you live or walk in streets of ME cities you will feel the society like cuts from the today world. however there are some singe of change as you mentioned of new artists and may be more but still people mind have not changed still living in old tribal and corrupted manner.
But let be clear here its not Islam as religion made them like that, it old cultural and customs that deeply interfered to Islam made them backward not Islamic religion.
4.04.2010Jillian
John, that is your experience; it has not been mine. In the two short years I lived in Morocco, and the brief visits I’ve made to other Arab countries, I’ve met incredible people with incredible minds. Surely it’s only one’s perspective that defines how he or she sees other people’s differences.
4.04.2010Emomo
The problem of this guy and others who pretend to know the Arab &/or Islamic world is that they didn’t even try to visit these countries & to see by their eyes what’s hoing on really. No, they porefer to stay in their office & check on books or other sources which go with their opinion.
What I can say to American & westert scholars: make a trip not stay at desks. Personnally, I have to confess that I hear these sex symbols & they make me chilling. I bet the scholar doesn’t know even veiled & “conservative” girls love to hear them.
4.04.2010Jillian
I am graced by your comment, ya “Emomo.”
But yes – the problem is precisely that; that even those (like Ethan Bronner, Tom Friedman) who’ve traveled to the Arab world extensively don’t bother to speak with actual, average people (just as I’m sure many American journalists who comment on American affairs never bother to speak to the average American, assuming their experiences are representative). They pick and choose from what their Arabic-speaking stringers tell them, never bothering to dip below the surface.
4.04.2010Alaa
forgot to say great post Jillian
wasn’t thinking educational system since they don’t teach us arabs about our history in our schools either (I mainly know cause my father used to be an armed terrorist :-)
but I assumed debate on the WSJ and think tanks and what not is not limited to information gathered in high school.
doesn’t it change how you read jihadism to know that suicide attacks and kidnapping planes started with secular and even atheist groups?
or maybe it will be read as we they to kill israelis and americans regardless of religion :-P
4.04.2010Jillian
Thank you! (though it was pointed out to me that 24/7 is not accurate, given football obsessions!)
I personally think that suicide bombing (as opposed to older armed resistance tactics) is so foreign to most Americans that they don’t even bother trying to understand it.
Bret Stephens (author of the WSJ op-ed) appears to have extensive experience with Latin America. From what I can tell, his only experience in the Middle East is his prior job as editor of the Jerusalem Post. That tells me all I need to know.
4.04.2010Alaa
hmm interesting point
but the irish and south africans used bombing of civilian (and semi civilian) targets as a common tactic. what makes the suicide part of it so significant?
not that suicide missions are an islamist invention.
4.04.2010Jillian
I can only answer for myself (and yes, knowing they’re not an Islamist invention of course).
My opinion is this: Resistance means fighting as a group against an oppressor, thus there’s a sense that the ranks of the resistance must be kept strong. Of course, anyone who goes into battle does so with the knowledge that he is risking his life and is willing to die for the cause, but also knows that he may not. In any case, the ultimate goal of battle is to win, and to win you must keep the ranks strong.
Suicide bombing is a totally different animal. It’s inherently defeatist. It is not particularly brave, in my opinion.
I can only imagine that others feel similarly.
4.04.2010Alaa
eh tactics are tactics, they have meaning only within a larger context and I don’t know enough to judge effectiveness of military tactics.
but people make similar arguments about non violent activists putting themselves in harms way, or giving the state an excuse to imprison them. yet there are moments in history when it worked, when it ended up making the ranks stronger not weaker.
I could argue that (in the palestinian context) suicide bombing is inherently triumphant and sheer bravery. given the high probability of getting killed (or getting close to it) anyway by chosing the moment and method of death and making sure it comes at a cost to the enemy instead of being cheap and of no consequence you are resisting.
on the other hand I could also make an argument that it is indeed an act of desperation, being effectively contained and unable to make the enemy’s army suffer any defeats you choose random acts whenever they are possible relying on fresh volunteers instead of skilled well organized fighters.
but regardless of which view I choose I fail to see what is so exotic and different that warrants all this speculation about our cultural and psychological makeup
there has been suicide bombings before, even in europe, as well as other forms of suicide attacks and missions. sure their intensity and quantity do not match the contemporary islamist bombings. but then again no army matches the scale of the american army yet no one feels the need to treat it as a unique exotic phenomena, it is discussed as part of the same phenomena as every other army (or every other imperialist army). no one claims the US has such an army because americans hate om kalthoum, not even brain dead salafis say that.
4.04.2010Jillian
Just keep in mind that the above was my own, emotionally-formed opinion, not based in anything scholarly.
That said, I agree; I don’t quite understand what is so “exotic” about it either. Nor do I think it has much at all to do with cultural or psychological makeup, at least not as much as it does circumstance and desperation. It’s undoubtedly ephemeral.
But don’t you think that the American military *should* be treated as a unique phenomena? I believe it is and should be treated as such. I also believe that not enough observation is given to what drives Americans to join the military (which, as Michael Moore has said, is often based more in poverty and heavy educational incentives than in any actual hatred or desire to fight).
4.04.2010Alaa
again I don’t know enough about US and it’s military to feel strongly that it’s an anomaly or just part of the tradition including the romans and the british.
but scale does change things u can’t say nuclear weapons are just weapons. so I suppose you could argue US army is not just an army.
it would be too easy to render the US army exotic, it’s a volunteer force, there are enough anecdotes about how much the soldiers hate us. even scary ones about how many of them are fundamentalist christians convinced they are fighting god’s fight. a shallow look at american scholarships produces words like american exceptionalism. and this there is a massive propaganda machine surrounding it. if we abused the meaning of hollywood we could easily make arguments for how americans believe their troops are superhuman or whatever.
but no one does that. maybe to the point of not observing important nuances about US militarism (I’ve no idea). but fact remains no matter how many of “us” are killed directly and indirectly by it we don’t go and invent mythologies about those strange americans and their cult of death. and even if some of us do they are not in the mainstream at all. hell the mainstream wouldn’t even include people linking the US’ genocidal history with supporting Israel.
4.04.2010Jillian
I’m not remotely expert on the subject either, so I’ll refrain from too much analysis, but…
For every Christian fundamentalist in the US military, there’s a poor kid from somewhere like Detroit who joined because he didn’t see any other possible way out of his situation. Similar to the reasons people choose other violent paths, I would argue.
But back to the original point, which is the despicable American media…I think we’d be better off discussing that as a driving imperial force than the military, frankly. The media is what creates such monsters. The rest of us are just humans.
4.04.2010Alaa
sorry maybe I wasn’t clear. I’m not saying fundamentalism in the US army is relevant, I’m just saying there is enough juicy material there for anyone who wants to make americans appear as exotic fantastical evil creatures with completely irrational behaviour and non human incentives.
yet it rarely happens. and almost never in the mainstream.
on the other side, it seems too easy for US media, intellectuals and politicians to do exactly that.
maybe that’s normal. maybe the empire is always more understood that it’s victims. maybe cause it is the center of the world it is by nature more accessible.
4.04.2010Jillian
Oh, for sure. When a Muslim does something violent, be it throwing rocks or committing a suicide bombing, we call him a terrorist. When a Christian does, he’s at best “crazy,” at worst part of a “militia” (see recent evidence). There’s plenty of fodder there for journalists looking for a reason, so my suspicion is that…well, that they’re not looking.
maybe that’s normal. maybe the empire is always more understood that it’s victims. maybe cause it is the center of the world it is by nature more accessible.
I’m not sure “normal” is the right word, but consistent I suppose. Kids the world over certainly know more about the US than kids here know about…well, virtually anywhere else. And at the same time, they only know stereotypes, and quite often, only positive ones. It’s as if the negativity here exists in a vacuum.
6.04.2010Julia
Mindless entertainment serves two purposes: 1. To make money and 2. To keep the public distracted.
As for Arab distrust of the West – did it ever occur to the journalist in question that the Arab World has been tampered with and raped of its resources by Europeans and Americans even before World War I?
27.03.2011JOO
HELLO