| Submit your comments on this article |
| Middle East |
| 22 dead in vendetta in Egypt... |
| 2002-08-10 |
| Twenty-two family members were gunned down on Saturday in the country's bloodiest vendetta killing since 1995. Three other members of the Al-Hanashat family were wounded in the ambush set up by members of the rival Abdul Haleem clan near Sohag, in Upper Egypt, 250 miles south of Cairo. The victims were on board two minibuses, traveling from their village, Beit Allam, to Sohag, the provincial capital, when they were ambushed by five or six gunmen from the rival clan hiding in the fields. The Abdul Haleems ordered the buses to a halt and began firing machine guns, killing all passengers except the three, who took shelter under the seats. Seems they were unarmed, too... The Al-Hanashats were heading to Sohag to attend the court hearing of two relatives charged with the murder of a Abdul Haleem family member last April. Helmi Ahmed and Ali Mahmud, members of the Al-Hanashat family, were accused of killing Hamman Abdul Haleem in revenge for the murder of a relative 11 years ago by the rival clan. An official, who ruled out the possibility that the violence was a "terrorist" act, said security forces have been deployed in Beit Allam and sealed off the village in order to bring the situation under control. And the coppers did one hell of a good job at that, didn't they? Or was that after 22 people had been slaughtered? The interior ministry confirmed in a statement that the rivalry between the two families went back to 1990. Police have raided the village several times since, confiscating firearms, said the statement, adding that during the last operation, in April, seven weapons were seized, including three machine guns. Vendettas are fairly frequent in Upper Egypt, and this one was the bloodiest since 1995, when 24 people were killed with gunfire and knives in a clash between two families outside a mosque in the Minya province. In March 1998, a man involved in the 1995 vendetta, killed seven people and injured nine others from the rival family. Past feuds have also been linked to fundamentalist groups. Mr Official ruled out the possibility that it was a "terrorist act," even though 22 people were killed in the kind of atrocity that would even draw attention in Kashmir or Algeria. Then the writer (Marwa Abdel Rehim, of Agence France-Presse) tosses out the throwaway that such feuds have been linked to fundamentalist groups. And this brings up that old chicken and egg question: how much of the terrorism were see, specifically in the Islamist movements, is a cultural thing? Even without the involvement of terrorist organizations, this sort of thing is common enough in Pakistan and Yemen and for that matter in most other countries where turbans aren't out of style. A while back, Bill Quick touched on the honor-shame culture that's dominant on The Other Side. And I've made passing reference time and again to the fact that the laws of cause and effect are a Western discovery that's viewed with suspicion by ayatollahs and mullahs and muftis and similar nasty people. That's why "Islamic" science has never taken root. There has to be a disbelief in cause and effect for a proper vendetta culture to work: "We'll avenge our dishonor in blood and then the issue will be over." Just ask Hamas. There's not a sense of guilt associated with the death of the other side's innocents, never an apology. After all, "our side suffered, so we have the right." That's a depth of insularity that's missing from almost all of western culture. That still leaves the question of how to deal with this kind of thing. It's obvious that we'll never root out terrorism world-wide if it's rooted that deeply in the culture. But we can look at western cultures where vendetta has figured prominently until recently (some as recently as a few months ago) and try and apply the factors that brought, say, Sardinia from a land of banditti to being a place where lawnorder (usually) prevails. I'm not a social psychologist, but it would seem that three factors seem to go into the breakdown of honor-shame: I think those are the conditions that are necessary to "defeat terrorism." That, and the eradication of the wahhabi sect and its offshoots, of course, since they're so closely tied to the feudalists who make the culture possible. We're trying to get outside opinion into their societies, and the Bush administration has expressed its expectations. But there isn't a regime in the world more literally feudal than the House of Sod, and the very concept of individual liberty and its attendant responsibility seem alien to the Arab mind. So that's a tough one. It isn't going to be an easy win for our side... |
| Posted by:Fred Pruitt |
| #2 Corsica's the home of the word "vendetta," and all the areas I mentioned have historically been serious practicioners. The other thing they have in common is that for most of their history they were very devout. Spain also had a long history of a tetchy personal honor culture, though I don't believe the vendetta concept caught on as thoroughly as it did in the island enclaves. I'd like to hypothesize that it had something to do with the high priestly headcount and the tight control of the Church over daily life, but there's always the example of the Papal States to prove me wrong - I don't recall that vendetta ever caught on seriously there. So I think it's maybe high priestly headcount, coupled with insularity and maybe another couple elements. |
| Posted by: Fred 2002-08-11 06:45:34 |
| #1 I like the idea of honor/shame but note that you can hardly compare Corsica, Sardinia etc which are small enclaves and island belong to a larger ok country. In the ME it is the country itself rather than a smallish offshoot that is the root cause of the problem. what do these countries have in common? Muslim beliefs and lack of democracy. |
| Posted by: freddie 2002-08-11 03:17:54 |