Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, October/November 1998, pages 109-111

Waging Peace

Middle East Institute Hosts Prominent Iranian Artist

“Persian Art and the Impact of Iran’s Revolution,” was the title of a Sept. 11 presentation by Amir H. Zekgroo, head of the department of art research at the Art University of Tehran, held at the Middle East Institute in Washington, DC.

Discussing differences in artistic style between East and West, Zekgroo said that Eastern art focuses on the concealed truth of human existence, while Western art emphasizes the manifested aspects of human existence. The greatest difference Zekgroo sees is an Eastern proclivity to blend in harmoniously with nature and glorify the magnificence of God, contrasted with a Western desire to exalt individuality, identity and personal achievement.

Zekgroo’s first-hand experience with Indian art began when, after teaching in Iran for five years, he went to India as cultural attach’ in the Iranian Embassy in New Delhi. While there he was intrigued by Indian mythological art and began to incorporate many of the methods pursued by Indian painters into his own works.

Discussing Persian art, Zekgroo explained that Iranians do not consider themselves artists, a sublime elevated place not accessible to most, but instead describe themselves as painters, sculptors or musicians. After Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, artists in Iran became confused. Their understanding of art, considered unity between content and form, was severely damaged by the event, according to Zekgroo. People were overwhelmed by the fast pace of events, which made it nearly impossible to create art.

In their attempt to cope with the revolution, Iranians copied from the concepts of Soviet and Mexican art, which had their own revolutionary influences, for the first five years after the Iranian events of 1979, according to Zekgroo. After this period, however, Iranian artists began to produce art with a singularly Iranian origin dealing with the revolution and its aftermath.

For instance, he noted, blood was portrayed prominently in art after this time to signify the sacrifices of the martyrs of the Iran-Iraq war. As the paintings became more sophisticated, Zekgroo said, painters began to employ red tulips in their works to signify the same theme. Other outlets for post-revolutionary art were found in calligraphy, miniatures and Arabesques. He added that with the newly religious atmosphere present after the revolution, art began to show a resurgence in Islamic and overtly spiritual designs.

—Michael S. Lee

FAISAL HUSSEINI AND YOSSI BEILIN DISCUSS PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST ON FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF OSLO ACCORDs

Emotions ran high at a World Affairs Council presentation at the Mark Hopkins Hotel in San Francisco on Sept. 15, the fifth anniversary of the signing of the Oslo accords. The featured speakers, East Jerusalem Palestinian leader Faisal Husseini and Deputy Foreign Minister in the Israeli Labor government Yossi Beilin, addressed an enthusiastic audience on the “Future of the Middle East Peace.”

Among the 450 guests in attendance were the consuls general of Egypt, Yemen and Great Britain. Both speakers were prime movers in the negotiations that culminated in the historic signing of the Oslo accords on the White House lawn on Sept. 13, 1993.

Jane Wales, president of the World Affairs Council and a guest at the White House signing of the accords, introduced the speakers and asked Mr. Beilin, “How can we prevent a return to violence?” Beilin responded that regardless of the present stalemate, the progress made under the Rabin government is to some extent irreversible.

“I don’t see any way it can be reversed,” he contended. “No one would reverse the situation. The only question is whether we [the present Israeli government] will slow down or freeze the process.” If progress is not made soon, he speculated, new elections may be called early next year. These would be prior to May 4, 1999, which is the date for final status talks to end and the date at which time Yasser Arafat has vowed to proclaim a Palestinian state if negotiations have not been concluded.

Referring to the day five years earlier when the Oslo agreement was signed, Ms. Wales then asked Mr. Husseini, “How can we return to that moment of hopefulness?” The Palestinian leader responded that it had been difficult to sign the Oslo accords since the Palestinians were receiving only 20 percent of their land, but that it had been clear to both parties that “no one of us would succeed in getting rid of the other” and “we had to find a way to live with each other.”

He said, however, that no progress has been made with respect to safe passage between the West Bank and Gaza, and expressed his concern about the areas from which Israel has not withdrawn. He expressed further concern with the Netanyahu government and the changes that it is making in Jerusalem, including changes in municipal borders, land confiscations, and settlements.

He said the Palestinians have these same concerns with respect to the West Bank and that this is creating a dangerous climate of instability. “If the peace process collapses, the Palestinian leadership will collapse and extremist factions will pick up the leadership, which will affect all of the Middle East,” he warned.

While both Husseini and Beilin agreed on the irreversibility of the peace process and the need for speed in carrying out the next stage of Israeli withdrawal from the agreed- upon areas and the creation of a Palestinian state, they did not agree with respect to Jerusalem. Husseini stated emphatically that East Jerusalem should be the capital of a Palestinian state, citing U.N. Resolution 242 which provides for Israel to withdraw from lands seized in the 1967 conflicts and citing also the fact that 210,000 Palestinians live there.

Beilin stated Israel would not agree to Jerusalem being a “shared capital,” that the issue was “incontestable,” and that Jerusalem would remain the capital of Israel only. Mr. Beilin added, however, that he believes “None of the issues are unsolvable.”

Cooperating with the World Affairs Council of Northern California in hosting the program were the Jewish Community Resources Council, the Palestinian American Congress, the Ramallah Club, the Women’s Interfaith Dialogue on the Middle East, and the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue.

—Elaine Pasquini

The War on Terrorism: a panel discussion at Georgetown University

At a panel discussion held at the Georgetown University Center for Contemporary Arab Studies on Sept. 3, Georgetown University faculty members were unanimous in calling for a re-examination of American policies that have become the catalyst for terrorist attacks against U.S. diplomatic and military installations overseas.

The discussion, entitled “The War on Terrorism: The Impact on U.S.-Arab and U.S.-Muslim Relations,” sought to explore both the roots of recent terrorist attacks and the repercussions of U.S. retaliatory strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan.

“I don’t believe terrorism can be analyzed when it is divorced from its political context,” said Michael C. Hudson, professor of Arab studies at Georgetown and moderator of the panel.

Dr. John Esposito, director of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown, focused on the religious aspects of terrorism. He noted that religious motivations for terrorist acts are examples of twisting religious texts to mean whatever an individual wants them to mean. Esposito said a distorted picture of a religion is what emerges after an act of terrorism, but people must not confuse the distortion with the real message of the religion. “You have to distinguish between belief and the manipulation of belief,” Esposito said. In response to the charge that America is targeted because it is “secular,” Esposito said instead that terrorists are responding to what they perceive as real injustices in American foreign policy.

Dr. Yvonne Haddad, a professor of the history of Islam and Christian-Muslim relations at Georgetown, agreed. From U.S. inaction in Kosovo, Chechnya and Palestine, to American military presence in the Arabian Gulf, and the American double standard regarding nuclear weapons, Haddad said that Muslims feel American foreign policy is decidedly against them.

The irony of America’s recent declaration of war on terrorism, according to Dr. Ahmad Moussalli, professor of political science at the American University of Beirut, is that “These people were trained by the CIA to drive out the Russians, but then went home and attacked their own people...Bin Laden is an American creation.”

Dr. John Voll, deputy director of the CMCU and professor of Islamic history at Georgetown, pointed out that “Sudan had followed our advice and gotten rid of Bin Laden, as well as expelled major terrorist leaders...With these airstrikes, we’ve turned moderates in Sudan into extremists,” Voll said.

All of the speakers suggested that America must take a more proactive role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

—Rob Swanson

Aramco Services Company Annuitants Reunion

Nearly 550 people who, in their lifetimes, were instrumental in helping the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia emerge into the Middle Eastern power it is today gathered for a Sept. 7 reunion of former Aramco Services employees in Scottsdale, Arizona. Many of the participants were in their 80s and 90s, but with minds as clear as when they were in Arabia before, during and after World War II, a lot of talk and fond memories were exchanged.

Principal dinner speaker was Shafiq Kombargi, a Palestinian-American Aramco official in Houston, Texas. His topic was the Palestine problem, and the unfortunate consequences for U.S. interests throughout the Middle East of the dominant role played by national Jewish organizations and the Israel lobby in formulating a one-sided U.S. Middle Eastern policy. He pointed out the many discrepancies that exist between U.S. interests in the Arab world and those of the Jewish state.

He elicited strong agreement from members of the audience, who had lived for much of their lives in the Islamic world and who had seen at first-hand the many ways in which U.S. policies had been skewed to serve Israeli rather than U.S. national or strategic interests.

Aramco Services Company President Mustafa Jalali gave a very detailed and excellent speech at a breakfast meeting of the group about the progress and modernization of Saudi Aramco and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Former employees left the meeting with old friends and colleagues assured that the company which they helped build is in good hands, as is the country they remember so fondly.

—Mike Crocker