An account of Arab cultural norms, mentality and behavior from the 1920s & 30s

One issue that always seems to re-enter the international news is how Fatah & Hezbollah have rounds of fighting in these parts that many think will end in a mass civil war. For all the times that we’ve seen those periods they always seem to cool down and not end in the bloodbath of terrorists that many hope will reduce the numbers of those who are out to kill Jews. It seems that Fatah leaders use these periods of fighting to beg for weapons from the US and since their more image-conscious leaders claim that they are “moderate” the US swallows this hook, line & sinker and provides Fatah will lots of small arms, ostensibly to fight the Hezbollah. In the end those weapons are shared beteen Hezbollah and Fatah because, deep down, they're really brothers who have little spats now and then, but they hate Jews the most.

Well, I am reading Clark Hopkins work: "The Discovery of Dura-Europus" which is an account written by the head archeologist who excavated the city of Dura-Europus in Syria along the Euphrates River which was one of the richest archeological finds in the mid-East. Clark Hopkins was in charge of the dig which took place in Syria the 1920s and 1930s. The following paragraphs are taken verbatim from that book. They contain a description of the mentality and behavior of the Arabs. I wish to point out that Hopkins noticed that a cycle of violence (he called it a “cycle of murder and revenge”) that exists within Arab society and that the Arabs of his day got adventurous, stepped on another Arab group’s toes, violence erupted in reaction, someone got injured or killed in the encounter, and then the opposing group did seek blood revenge on the (perceived?) offenders. And this pattern, this cycle of violence, went on and on and on in those days between Arab and Arab. Oddly enough, that mentality seems to persist unchanged today among them. It’s a frequent occurrence for in these parts clans have clan wars and outbreaks of fighting among other groups. And then Fatah & Hezbollah have their frequent violent tiffs. This behavior is another expression of what Clark refers to in the second paragraph as “childlike simplicity”. That’s a very positive spin on some very destructive attitudes and behavior when it erupts in adults who are angry or carry a grudge. When children are hurt they react quickly, emotionally, and lash out in revenge at the one they perceive as having done the harm. Culturally speaking, when Arabs feel sighted or hurt it’s typical for them to react childishly and lash out to each other, and especially toward Jews. When adult reacts the same way, particularly one carrying firearms, death and destruction result.

All in all, their mentality remains constant and there’s little hope for them to change toward more civilized ways. So liberals: give up thy ideals, hopes and illusions, ye who enter the Middle-East!

Dale

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

The following excerpt is from Clark Hopkins book, ‘The Discovery of Dura-Europus’, Yale University Press, 1979, pp 43-48:

“The desert offered little opportunity for remunerative work beyond raising the flocks and herds. When times were hard with famine, the villages were crowded with desert Arabs seeking any means to earn subsistence. There were no fat men in the desert, while in town the Arab put on flesh easily enough. The desert Arab knew bitter cold in winter and unrelenting heat in summer; he fought the climate and indigenous diseases—particularly anemia, syphilis, and ringworm—and he subsisted on a minimum of nourishment. Rice and bread, dates, figs, and nuts were the unvarying staples, but meat remained a luxury. For a special feast, a sheep was killed and the flesh roasted. Milk and sour cream were added in season, eggs and chicken occasionally, and a desert bird would be served as a special treat when the shot from a whirling sling found its mark.

“The Arabs displayed their pleasure with childlike simplicity when they came to the pay table, singing noisily and brandishing their shovels and picks as if they were guns and all were off on a hunting party. Their dance was the Turkish line of men with arms around each other's shoulders, with the end man performing fancy bends and turns. The music was high and wild or melancholy and elusive.

“A man bought his bride from a family within the tribe, and he settled down in his own tent, keeping his sheep in the common herd. There was no opportunity for school, for the herdsmen were constantly on the move. When the French insisted on an elementary school in one village, the tribal units gave money for a building, a teacher, and books, but providing the children was a different matter. The boys could not be spared from the flocks they tended, and the girls had no need for education. Schooling, if there was to be any, was only possible when the tribes remained in one place: in the spring when they settled by the river, and in the winter when the thick desert mud made migrations impossible.

“The movement of tribes was to the northern highlands for the summer and to the south for the winter. Modern political frontiers were ignored, for the desert had always been free and movement unchecked, except as the large tribes demarcated their territories and the smaller tribes concluded agreements, usually by marriage alliances and for mutual support. The broad desert was the grazing grounds of the tribes, much as the forest and plains were the hunting grounds of the American Indians, and little sympathy was expected or given between unrelated groups. Recognition of and respect for landmarks were phenomenal, but the ownership of border districts was left vague and came into question only in times of famine or unusual expansion. Raids, however, remained the popular pursuit of the daring younger men on their Arabian ponies, and the raids often evolved into deadly feuds. A rough justice prevailed, and a strong claim of injury, even against a superior tribe, might be honored, but the debt of blood devolved not on the law court but on the next of kin, and in the desert the round of retaliation rarely stopped.

“Passing through Palmyra during one of our later seasons, we found the French officer of the Meharists, the desert police, trying to settle a feud between local tribes. It had begun with a small dawn raid by some impetuous young men eager to show their strength. They had cut out a few sheep and goats and driven them back into their own tribal territory. In a retaliatory raid a few shots had been exchanged at long range, and by chance a man had been injured. This called for more serious retaliation. By the time the Meharists intervened a nephew of one sheik had been wounded, one man had been killed, and to further complicate matters, it was discovered that a woman from one tribe had been carried off by her lover from the other tribe.

“All might have been settled without too much trouble, except the death of one man called for the nearest of his kin to avenge the shooting by killing the murderer. In a raid, who fired a fatal shot is rarely known, but the blood debt could be satisfied if any member of the attacking tribe were dispatched. Of course, without proof that the random victim had committed the original crime, his next of kin was obliged to avenge his death. The CYCLE OF MURDER AND REVENGE (emphasis mine – Dale) went on and on; feuds of small tribes grew in intensity, involving larger allied tribes, until all too often desert wars erupted.

“In the Palmyra case the sheiks of the two tribes were summoned, and the injuries were reckoned in cash: How much for the wounding of a sheik? How much for the abduction of a not unwilling girl? How much for the life of one man killed? The details escape me, but I remember the life of the Arab herdsman, not related by blood or marriage to the sheik, was valued at twenty-five dollars. The French insisted that the amount be paid in silver on the spot and that both sheiks swear that particular feud was over. Life was plain but not entirely simple in the open spaces of the desert.

“Fillet dreaded a native Arab attack on his mission, and he built accordingly. He had the great, wide courtyard surrounded by a solid wall of rubble and cement higher than a man's head. A corridor ran along one side of the staff quarters, and the private rooms opened off it, each long and narrow and lighted by a single small window cut through the thick cement much like an archer's slot.

“One might be amused by his over-anxiety, but there was some justification, as we discovered in later campaigns. In the summer of 1932 the few soldiers comprising the French garrison at Abou Kemal were attacked and as the lieutenant was returning to his fort in an army truck, he was ambushed and killed. One night our foreman's house in the great courtyard became someone’s target. On another occasion, an old and experienced French archaeologist traveling alone at night was signaled to a stop by an Arab, who approached the car with one hand held high, the other behind him. When the car door opened, he pulled up the rifle he had been dragging behind him by the barrel and shot the archaeologist. Whether robbery or a fancied grudge was the motive we never knew. Our own expedition on a special investigation across the Euphrates at Baghouz, close to the Iraq frontier, was saved from attack by a sandstorm that rose at the right moment. Apparently the would-be attackers thought archaeologists carried their wealth with them and that the robbery could be covered by a quick flight across the border.

“On the other hand we drove into Deir-ez-Zor once a week, withdrawing from the bank a thousand dollars in silver and gold to pay the workmen. Our route was well known and we had to drive through one or two narrow, steep passes where a roadblock and attack would have been easy. Although a thousand dollars was a fortune in the desert, we were never molested, nor was there ever any hint that we might be.”