How do I know ‘City of Life’ is a movie made in Dubai

Warning: heavy spoilers ahead.

Please. Do not read if you haven’t seen the movie yet.

And yes, go see it. It’s well worth watching.

So in answer to the question posed in the title, here we go:

- After you’ve bumped into an ex-model at the ballet center where your daughter go, you can rely on them, the ballet center, to divulge her contact info without her prior consent.

- Every white/Slavic person sleeps with every other white/Slavic person. (But not necessarily at the same time)

- When you pose a danger to the white man’s standing in society, he’ll tell you he owns the city and he’ll screw you through and through using his contacts. (oh, that is, after he screwed you the sweet way, so you might end up double screwed)

- The token Arab expat is such an overbearing, obnoxious asshole. But hey, his assholishness suddenly disappears when it turns out he owns a restaurant in the Marina.

- The Slavic lady is extremely outraged when she’s asked ‘khow much?’ at a nightclub. But she wouldn’t mind answering the question surreptitiously if the settings are right; that is, at pool-side party, especially when owning a restaurant in the Marina is part of the proffered answer.

- White people blame all their screw-ups on drunkenness. They are, otherwise, straight as a laser beam when sober.

- White people are and will always be fussing over abortion wherever they are anywhere in the world.

- The middle finger doesn’t really land you in prison. Oh, but it might actually get you deported.

- There are no road accidents in Dubai, only pile-ups. Involving minimum of 17 cars in each case.

- A cricket ball will get anywhere, any time. It's got one of my Lebanese friends in the nuts in a parking lot. To be on the safe side, you'd have to walk around with a jockstrap.

- Almost everyone treats the Taxi Driver like a doormat, including his company and his passengers.

- Like almost everyone in this city, the audience (yours truly included) will tend to profile the actors and overgeneralize about them. (like what yours truly have done in this post)

By the way, Nasir, the overbearing Arab expat, is none other than the Egyptian/American comedian Ahmad Ahmad. But as it turns out here, he could manage non-comedic roles just as well.

All the above notwithstanding, the movie is really well-made and engaging. I highly recommend it.

Reflection on Independence

Independence. What could be a grander occasion than a nation gaining its freedom from colonization? Syria, on the 17th of April 1947 gained its independence from the French after the last soldier of the French army regiment stationed there had departed our shores. Or perhaps he/she’d taken the bus. No one really cares how he or she had removed his or her sorry ass from our land. The French occupation was known to be benign, as compared to the British one, which was more controlling and repressive. The French’s is popularly deemed a ‘cultural’ colonization. The British’s is economical. But it’s colonization nonetheless. It is worth mentioning that the French/British sharing of the Levant had come after the Arabs, in the person of Sheriff Hussayn (the leader of the Arab uprising against the Ottoman empire), had coordinated their fighting of the Turks with the two European nations (more specifically with the Brits) who were also grappling with the ailing Ottoman empire in the events of the first world war.

What followed from this coordination is a classic cloak and dagger act by the colonial powers. The level of deceit and treason is present in two manifestations; first is the Sykes-Picot Agreement which sliced the Levant into four states that will be put under the control of both accordingly, despite promises made to Sheriff Hussayn that Arabs shall have the right to self-determination. The second one, the more ominous and dangerous one, was the Belfour Declaration. The pledge made by her majesty to allot a homeland for the Jewish folks of the world in Palestine. A bequest made by those who do not own to those who do not deserve, the thing that had put things in motion for a conflict that left millions of Palestinian refugees; robbed out of their lands and their livelihood, and more than a hundred thousands Arabs and Jews dead. A region still haunted by wars and instability. A belligerent nation that exercise apartheid rule over its residents, and a continuous tension that threatens to erupt into a war at any moment.

However, we can't just blame everything on colonial powers. The French occupation ceased to exist the moment we had our independence. Independence. What a versatile and all-inclusive word. Which could mean anything from the withdrawal of occupying powers to the self-reliance of young women on themselves through work and development, to a free thinking mind that is only restrained by the laws of science and logic.

How have we been doing at the latter? Well, I’m in pain to say not very well. We are still dependent on a whole set of social and traditional arrangements that are thought to be ideal to serve us, when, in my humble opinion, they’re stifling us and hindering change. Despite our keen experimentation with socialism and Arab nationalism, it’s clear that both hadn’t worked very well due to reasons I shall not get into now. Maybe it’s time we stop pondering and over-analyzing history. History books are all too well; they’re heavy and make for a great leisurely read. But what we need for a real and substantive independence is a hard look at ourselves in the present time. I’m not an expert on change, and we can all go on endlessly pontificating about its merits and why it’s applicable or not in our case. However, change, like independence, is a state of mind. Feeling in harmony with the world around you. Being in sync with the progress that is made all around. Communicating with others with grace and confidence. Having something to contribute to the collective human output. Being open to different ideas and accepting of others.

Change starts with a conviction; being convinced that idea B is better than idea A. Actions and adjustment will follow easily.

Happy Syria Independence Day, everyone!

Me and Grub

I have a tenuous and devious relationship with food. I’m not usually fussy. I can eat anything that is a) Halal (not only for religious reasons) b) Not alive.

Oh, and, to the chagrin of captain Pope-eye, I can’t eat anything spinach.

The only kind of food that I’m a little particular about is sweets. I love sweets. And, should it prove to be a healthy practice, I could eat them for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

Sweets are, in their own right, an entire industry in my home town, complete with diabetes clinics. You don’t know Aleppo enough if you’re not familiar with Mahrouseh or Saloura (who isn’t Aleppine, by the way). And people have gotten sophisticated about it. The thing about sweets is that it’s become very hard to make them at home. Look at all other Levant dishes; they are best sampled from home-cooking. Except sweets. At least, that is my experience. My cousins are moderately famous makers of a certain type of sweets called She’ebiyat (thin patches of dough, wrapped around a mixture of nuts or Ishta (concentrated whipped cream) – toasted together in the oven-- with sugar syrup on top). And the way they’ve developed their business is impressive. They add and subtract endlessly to the quantities. And most importantly, they guard their secrets with vengeance.

Right. Moving on from sweets, I have very few food preferences. As I said above, I’m not really that fussy. But there’s one proviso here; I’m one of those people whose mood is somewhat affected by the food they eat, and therefore I usually choose what I eat accordingly.

Sea food and well-done chicken fillet make me feel happy. Mlukhiah (cooked ground corchorus) makes me sad. Fruits and salads, believe it or not, have neutral effect. Kebbeh makes me irritated. Grilled stuff makes me sleepy. And spicy food, for the lack of a better word, makes me feel stupid……

The Gems of Michael Young

Ever since it’d become clear that Israel is actually a burden and not an asset as far as American interests in the region are concerned, the pro-Israel pundits have gone on a frenzy, trying all sorts of arguments and hypotheses to demonstrate that Israel’s behavior (war crimes, illegal settlements, desecration of Holy sites, oppression of Palestinians ..etc..), this behavior coupled with US conditional support, aren't really a significant problem for US and its interests in the region.

One of those is Michael Young, the editor-in-chief of the Daily Star. He writes an op-ed every Thursday for The National newspaper. And while his pieces vacillate between the obscene and the down-right racist, his today’s piece is particularly nasty.

Let’s have a look:

One of these has been the “resistance” card – the notion that because Israel does not want peace, the best option for Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular is to pursue armed struggle.

As we all know, and Michael Young is well aware, Israel demonstrates its desire for peace everyday. Latest gesture was the killing of four unarmed civilians in West Bank.

Also according to Young, Iran is the root of all evil in the Middle East and maybe it is even responsible for the expansion of illegal Jewish settlements and thus hindering peace process.

Here’s another gem:

The US is disliked, and will continue to be disliked even after a Palestinian-Israeli settlement, because it is powerful.

Disliked because it’s powerful? Apart from the racist undertone in this line of thought, let’s suppose that the US is indeed ‘hated’ because it’s powerful, how could you then explain the strong ties and alliances between some Arab states and other powerful—very powerful—states around the world? (e.g. the late USSR, China, France ..etc..?)

Actually, Mr Bush’s problem was that he stumbled in Iraq. If no one likes powerful nations, what people despise most is a nation that fails to use its power effectively.

How are we to interpret GWB’s 'stumbling' and the 'effectiveness' of the war in this context? That more people should have been killed? More sectarian violence flared up? According to Young, certainly the concept of illegally invading Iraq isn’t a mistake; it’s ‘stumbling’ in its quagmire that is harmful to US image of power. Maybe the US should have spent more money, got itself into more debt, got more of its youth deployed and killed. That would sure help bolster American strength and image alright.

Worst than being hated is not being feared.

I wonder how successful Michael Young would be should he choose to change his career into marriage counseling; the unmistakable message here is that fear serves American interests best. Fear is the best propeller of cooperation. Fear doesn’t beget hate. Instilling fear in those sand niggers is what Obama needs.

And you wonder why Bush ‘stumbled’ in Iraq.

But maybe I should be thankful, at least Michael Young hasn’t pulled a Lady Gaga on us.

"The Sound of Freedom"

Rajiv Chandrasekaran, the former Washington Post Baghdad Bureau chief, had written a book about his experience in the Green Zone. Among the 'revealing' things he'd mentioned, was a story about a General. Some reporters, having heard complaints from Iraqi families about the loud noise of helicopters during the night and how it's scaring children, asked him about it. He replied that they should appreciate the 'sounds of freedom'. I thought this story pretty much sums up the entire war. You think you'd heard it all -- all the delusion and lies -- until you come across something more horrific and bewildering.

You've probably seen this video already. First of all, be warned it's a graphic material, and, even if you're accustomed to video games where dead bodies are perforated like sieves with machine-guns, this video is bound to make your blood boil. If it doesn't, I recommend psychotherapy.

First of all, American army has no business being in Iraq. Period. This war is illegal by any metric you chose to use (except the metric of Michael Young, perhaps.)

Apart from the obvious, what I find sickening about this video is this:

The ROE of the US army in Iraq, it seems, allows the gunner to shoot anyone who's armed. And to do so from the helicopter without caring to discern who's armed with real weapons and who's just slinging a camera over his shoulder.

The ROE allows for the gunner to shoot the entire group of people when only one or two are armed.

The US army can shoot at armed people without being provoked: but what if these guys on the grounds were worried about sectarian violence? patrolling the streets to repel thugs or mobs? What do you say, O you who believe in the second amendment?

It seems to me that had the Reuters cameramen not been amongst the dead, NO ONE WOULD HAVE FUCKING HEARD OR CARED.

Even though the guy who was being medivac-ed was seriously wounded, they didn't only shoot at him, but also at the van rescuing him without knowing or caring who's inside (turned out it's two children). And what about the driver and the other guy who was helping him? does the ROE manual says that anyone who's medivac-ing suspected armed persons shall be shot without warning?

But maybe I shouldn't be so sick to my stomach. After all, these bullets, like the whine of the rotor, are the 'sounds of freedom'.

...

Next Friday is the 7th anniversary of the fall of Baghdad.