Keyboard shortcuts are available for common actions and site navigation.
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Your regular reminder on how partisans of the Qatar-AKP-MB axis and the Egypt-Saudi-UAE axis are ruining our discussions and understanding of the wider Arab world region. Principled analysis means calling all actors out on the basis of their power and flaws - not more, not less.
Within our media analysis; our commentary; our think-tanks; our universities; partisans galore, all posing as being motivated by principled opposition or support. But principles that change according to one's own partisan preferences are not principles - they're hobbies.
I'm sure no-one will get this just right. I'm sure I've not got it quite right either. But we've moved into a world where most do not even bother trying anymore. It's blatant, obvious, and shameless, in petty squabbles. Ironically, by people who will not pay the consequences.
Anyone who has been looking at the region for more than five minutes will note this phenomenon. Money and support from either axis has spoiled so much within our analytical arena. I'm actually grateful when people are clear about it, as opposed to pretending independence.
The best irony of all - partisans of one side calling out partisans of another side... for being partisan. "My apologia for authoritarianism and autocracy is better than your's, damnit!"
It has got to the point where if I see a critical article about one of the axes involved, and I don't know the site or the author, I check to see what they've said about the other axes. If there is apologia in that, we're done.
It isn't that people can't be partisan. We have Labour/Tory partisans, Democrat/Republican partisans; etc. But then let's be clear about it, rather than pretend we're at least trying for objectivity. To do otherwise just ruins the integrity of our academic and analytical arena.
It bears repeating: deciding to arbitrarily declare "they are all as bad as each other all the time in every way, a pox on all their houses" etc is just escaping that need to be precise, accurate and not allow anyone to get off the hook.
This thread by the always excellent Hisham.
that's you, habibi
But there is no "our" from which it is possible to have principled disagreement -- there is outright civil war that has become existential, and that's squarely the fault of one side.
That in itself is a framing that I don't think tells the whole picture and also happens to privilege the narrative of one of the sides. The whole story is more complex and complicated, and that complexity can be discussed without framing that makes both sides 'the same' nor this.
Only one side said that the existence of the other is an existential threat. Sometimes things are simple. There is one side that will kill every one to stay in power, in alliance with every foreign power on the planet, and one that accepts in principal political pluralism.
Spot on, Dr. Hellyer! It is sad to see this phenomenon rampant within ME scholars' circles, and that it is alarmingly escalating into scandalous proportions.
Agree 100%
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
