Categories
Literary

Jewish-Arab Coexistence and the Lost Cosmopolitanism

In André Aciman’s 1994 memoir Out of Egypt, he recounts the first meeting of his two grandmothers in an Alexandria, Egypt fish market. They two women discover they are both of Italian ancestry, by way of Ottoman Turkey, and as they talk further, “it suddenly occurred to them that of the six or seven languages they each spoke fluently, neither knew the name for mullet except in Ladino.”

This minor anecdote illustrates the extraordinary cosmopolitanism of Alexandria in the mid-20th Century. Aciman’s family was Jewish and had been in Egypt since the early 1900s, where they spoke French, which was the lingua franca of the upper-strata European community, who formed the commercial and trading backbone of the city, and were of British, Italian, Armenian, Greek, French or Jewish extraction.

When the U.N. recognized the state of Israel in 1948, there were approximately 80,000 Jews living in Egypt, primarily in Cairo and Alexandria. Jews in Egypt were part of a continuous community that went back over 2,000 years, predating the advent of Islam by seven centuries. This was also true for a number of Arab-majority countries prior to 1948. At the end of World War II, 130,000 Jews lived in Iraq, some of whom were descended from the Babylonian exile.

Today it seems nearly inconceivable that large Jewish communities could exist and thrive in Arab countries. It wasn’t until the mid-to-late 20th Century that a complex set of events: the rise of Zionism, the Holocaust, Israel’s creation, Arab nationalism, the Six-Day War, Islamic terrorism, the 1979 Iranian revolution, and so on, led us to our current moment.

Historian Avi Shlaim in his new book Three Lives: Memoir of an Arab-Jew, reminds readers that, not so recently, this rigid segregation of Jews and Arabs was not an insoluble fact. “There was a cosmopolitanism and coexistence that some Jews, like my family, enjoyed in Arab countries before 1948” and that these examples offer “a glimmer of hope.”

Avi Shlaim, far left, as a child in Iraq in the late 1940s.

*

Coexistence is undoubtedly a rather low bar for human affairs. It does not imply equality between communities, cooperation, and certainly not harmony. But as an alternative to war and inter-communal violence, it is an enviable state-of-affairs, one where people can focus on what matters: getting married, going to school, starting families, pursuing careers, and so on.

For over six centuries (circa 1400 to 1918), the Ottoman Empire ruled over a pluralistic, multi-confessional empire, much of which consisted of Arab lands. Islam was the official religion of the state and Muslims were privileged within it, but Jews and Christians could practice their faith and manage their affairs with some measure of certainty and security.

“The Ottoman approach was wholly pragmatic,” writes historian Andrew Wheatcroft. “Jews and Christians were allowed free practice or their faith, but were required to pay a special tax for their privilege.” This does not imply, however, there were no persecutions. Wheatcroft documents how Jews were sometimes killed when they refused to pay the Janissary soldiers (the Ottoman Pretorian Guard) for “protection,” but these were not systematic or state-sponsored persecutions.

In 1844 the British Consul in Constantinople (now Istanbul) noted that the Muslim population was decreasing, while the “Christian and Jewish populations tend to increase in rapid ratio.” By 1878, the European population in the city had grown to more than 120,000.

It’s worth stating the obvious: the Ottoman Empire was neither a democracy, nor a free society in any sense of the word. It was a Turkish-centric empire with no elections, no independent judiciary, and the state of affairs for women, in particular, was horrendous. There should be no nostalgia for this colonial operation, but the mere fact that in 1900 there were approximately 390,000 Jews in the Ottoman Empire, speaks to a reality that today’s intractability is not the final word in Jewish-Arab relations.

Shlaim writes that the history of Jews in Iraq, for example, was one of largely successful integration and prosperity, “Iraq’s Jews didn’t live in ghettoes nor did they experience the violent repression, persecution, and genocide that marred European history.” Shlaim adds that “of all the Jewish communities in the Ottoman Empire, the one in Mesopotamia (present day Baghdad region), was the most integrated into local society, the most Arabised in the culture and the most prosperous.”

*

For the sake of clarity, I should declare that I’m a Zionist and I believe the creation of the state of Israel was right and just, and a logical response, not just to the Holocaust, but centuries of pogroms and antisemitism, from Portugal to Russia. The Zionist project to defend Jewish people, revive the Hebrew language, and forge a national identity from Jews across the diaspora, remains an extraordinary achievement.

I’m also certain that democratic, open societies are our sole bulwark against tyranny and oppression. For this additional reason, Israel remains a critical nation state in a region where strong men and military regimes predominate. But you’d have to be blind or foolish not to understand why the creation of the State of Israel was a disaster for the Arab population, in what was formerly Palestine.

Israeli military and political leader Moshe Dayan.

One thinks of Moshe Dayan’s famous 1956 eulogy for an Israeli murdered by Palestinians, where he acknowledges the source of Arab hatred and why Israelis will need to continually fight. “For eight years they have been sitting in the refugee camps in Gaza, and before their eyes we have been transforming the lands and the villages, where they and their fathers dwelt, into our estate . . . we are a generation that settles the land and without the steel helmet and the canon’s maw, we will not be able to plant a tree and build a home.”

The creation of Israel led, not only to the immediate 1948 War of Independence, and subsequent displacement of Arabs in what is now Israel proper, but to the humiliation of leaders in Egypt, Iraq, Syria, and Jordan as a result of losing the war. To deflect from this failure, Arab governments fomented domestic hatred against their Jewish citizens.

“A powerful popular wave of hostility towards both Israel and the Jews living in their midst swept through the Arab world in the wake of the loss of Palestine, and Iraq was no exception,” writes Shlaim. The Iraqi government passed a law in 1948 making Zionism illegal in the country, and Jewish people were subsequently dismissed from government and private sector jobs.

During the years 1950-51 over 110,00 Jew emigrated to Israel from Iraq, including Shlaim’s family, as life become more difficult for them. Similar factors in Egypt led to an exodus of Jews and other Europeans, though in Egypt’s case, it was more directly linked to the 1956 Suez War and Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Arab nationalism.

Aciman’s family held on for as long as they could. His father owned a successful factory, but one night in 1964, his father received a phone call. He put down the phone, looked at his family and said, “It’s started.”

Aciman writes how this was the beginning of calls “at all hours of the night . . . threatening, obscene, abusive calls . . . reminded us we were nothing, that we had no rights, and would be soon driven out, like the French and British before us.” His family left Egypt soon after.

*

“Jewish life in North Africa and the Middle East may not have been perfect, but Jewish people thrived for generations and made countless contributions to their societies in these Muslim-majority regions,” writes U.S. Foreign Service official Jairo Tutillo Maldonado. “This is a history that, if rehabilitated by governments of the region, could potentially rekindle friendships and even a renaissance of historic coexistence.”

The Ahrida Synagogue is the oldest synagogue in Istanbul, founded in 1453.

A multi-ethnic, cosmopolitan Middle East is a possible path out of radicalism and antagonism toward the other. We see today that cities such as Algiers, Alexandria, Baghdad, Amman, are largely homogenous societies, inward-looking and parochial. Without Jewish or Christian residents, without peoples from across the Mediterranean, they have become cities bereft of the kind of dynamism that comes from the meeting of cultures.

The same can be said for parts of Israel, whether in the West Bank or East Jerusalem, where some Arabs have been removed, chased off, or even worse. The Arabic character and history of these places is indisputable, and these regions require vital Arab communities to retain their wholeness.

Aciman writes poignantly of the Jewish residents leaving Egypt in the 1950s and ‘60s. “On them . . . loomed the stigma—even the shame—of the fallen, the ousted, and it came with a strange odor that infallibly gave them away: leather.” He described how every family, knowing they’d eventually have to leave Egypt, usually had “thirty to forty leather suitcases, in which mothers and sisters kept packing their family’s belongs at a slow, meticulous pace, always hoping things might right themselves in the end.”

Aciman’s domestic reference to suitcases made me think—rather inexplicably—of the “coffee spoons” in T.S. Eliot’s “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock.” It’s a rather unsettling poem, a bit of stark modernist verse, where alienation and death are impossible to ignore despite the rather cozy, domestic details: “coffee spoons,” “taking of toast and a tea,” “I grow old . . . I grow old . . . I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled,” and so on.

It’s been many years since I’ve read the poem and as I re-read the section referencing coffee spoons, I discovered that—as can happen with great poems—it seems to be addressing contemporary events, reflecting and refracting light in an entirely new way.

I can’t help but picture two people, old men perhaps, a Palestinian man in East Jerusalem and his Jewish counterpart in Haifa. They are both standing in their respective kitchens, after yet another difficult sleep. They don’t know one another, and will never meet or become friends . . . for this is impossible. They are world-weary, taciturn, wishing nothing but an end to trouble, but no longer knowing what to do . . . or even what to say:

“For I have known them all already, known them all—

Have known the evenings, mornings, afternoons,

I have measured out my life with coffee spoons;

I know the voices dying with a dying fall

Beneath the music from a farther room.

So how should I presume?”

Robert Fay has written for The Atlantic, The Los Angeles Review of Books and The Chicago Quarterly review.

Categories
Literary

New Nonfiction Story in The MacGuffin

The MacGuffin Literary JournalI have a new nonfiction story in the Spring 2015 issue of The MacGuffin literary journal titled Fin de Siècle. It is a memoir piece about growing up in Bridgewater, Mass., in the 1970s. You can order a copy at the NewPages Magazine Webstore.

Categories
Literary

Review of Arts & Entertainments

I published a review of Christopher Beha’s second novel Arts & Entertainments in the January print edition of First Things. The review is now available online. Beha, a deputy editor at Harper’s Magazine, is a fine novelist and his debut work What Happened to Sophie Wilder? is worth checking out as well.

Arts_Entertainment_Beha_Fay

Categories
Literary

Philip K. Dick, the Unreliability of Language & the Writer’s Struggle

The following is an email from Roman Tsivkin to myself regarding an essay in the Los Angeles Review of Books titled “Writing is a Lonely Business: James McKimmey, Philip K. Dick, and the Lost Art of Author Correspondence” by Jason Starr. I think Roman’s letter is both an informative riposte to the essay, as well as a valuable piece of literary criticism regarding the entire Dick oeuvre. Yet even more illuminating is how Roman intertwines his literary criticism with his own struggles to write fiction. The email was published with Roman’s permission. -Robert Fay

Rob,

It’s been too long, as usual. Loved the link you tweeted to that article on Philip K. Dick (PKD) & McKimmey’s correspondence, but as usual the author of the article got some things wrong about PKD. No, he did not “devolve” into mental illness sometime in the ’60s. He wrote his best stuff in the mid and late ’60s, got increasingly paranoid due to amphetamine abuse (& due to real reasons; the FBI was spying on him from way back in the ’50s, when they sent two agents to “ask” him to spy on fellow Berkeley radicals), tried to commit suicide, moved to SoCal, had a visionary experience (or, if you like, a mental breakdown…but the two are often indistinguishable), and then wrote novels that were even better than his output in the ’60s.

The tendency to view Dick’s later period as being characterized by drug-induced hallucinations, paranoia and mental collapse are a cop-out — he was onto something very, very important. His last works — the VALIS trilogy — are, to put it simply, incredible, and are really all about ontology and metaphysics, something we normally call “religion.” All of his later works tie in to his earlier stuff, so there’s no big break like some people claim…VALIS et al. are a logical extension of his earlier world-buildings and world-views. I’m still trying to digest VALIS and The Exegesis, a process that will never end because, well, hell’s bells, have you seen The Exegesis? It’s goddamn 9,000 pages long; the print version is “only” about 1,000, but it has so much stuff to mull over, I’ll never exhaust its deep mental pockets. Mixing metaphors here, but that’s a writer’s prerogative.

Photo

The book that keeps coming up for me lately is PKD’s Ubik which, if you haven’t read it, deals with life and death, mixing the two states up to the point where the reader is not sure who’s alive and who’s dead — not just characters in Ubik, but the readers themselves (well…some readers, anyhow :). PKD has that effect on readers, it’s why he’s become the uber-cultural artifact of our late 20th/early 21st Century existence (of course the movies based on his books helped spread the word to the unworded, i.e., the masses). Somehow he found a way to transform readers via words, a magical/religious ability. And not just transform them in the sense that some other great writers can transform — as in, “wow, this book changed my life” or “I look at the world differently now that I’ve read this book” or “I am now much more attuned to the human condition” or whatever – but rather change them directly, induce mental change, like the spacetime displacement I felt in Santa Ana, Calif., while reading VALIS. The weirdness and sense of irreality I felt at that moment was more “real” than a psychedelic trip, more embodied, and much, much scarier, like I was having a stroke or something. While I’ve had transformative experiences from other writers (Dostoevsky, Bernhard, Joyce, et al.), PKD’s effect on me was much more powerful by great orders of magnitude: while those other writers excited me, made me chew the bone of existence and taste its bittersweet, fatty marrow, PKD’s writings somehow (magically???) made and continue to make me unsure of anything and everything, but with the added and all-important caveat of that existential uncertainty being backed up by a supra-existential certainty.

At the moment, PKD seems to me to be the most important religious writer of our times. (Curiously, the print version of his posthumously published The Exegesis has a gold hardback that’s very reminiscent of the cover of the Five Books of Moses (the Jewish Torah) on my shelf.) The way he was able to reach out into the noösphere and grab hold of the visions he experienced in February and March of ’74, and then write and write and write his way through them, so that his readers were able to not just read about them (the visions, etc.), but experience them through repeated readings…well, that’s just plain Kabbalistic, mystical stuff. He knew not only how to spell, but how to cast a spell.

Looking for Philip K. Dick

Detour here with PKD…but not really a detour, because it relates directly to what I’ve come to call my “false move” vis-a-vis writing: thinking that words are not trustworthy, that they can easily deceive and cover up instead of uncovering, that I was trapped in a linguistic, artificial universe and that writing just a little bit here and there showed me how writing failed, how my writing failed, and by extension how I failed…all of this was my own deception played at my own expense, and now PKD has somehow pushed his way into my consciousness again (“somehow” is not the term…I felt compelled to revisit his universe; again, his life/death novel Ubik just kept jumping into my mind, uninvited, and I’ve been noticing more and more references to PKD in my daily life, including your tweet a while ago about PKD being some musician’s favorite writer) to show me that there is a way to use words to free me from words, or at least from their tendency to obfuscate what I tasted during successful meditations, that space behind words from which words – or more precisely the linguistic categories we unconsciously impose on our world — arise. I was so in love with silence that I thought words opposed it, and therefore were to be avoided or at least their use minimized. I was simply wrong in that assumption, but the kicker is that I was wrong about it because of my reliance on words in the first place. All that Zen & Taoism stuff I imbibed — I simply misunderstood it. That’s all, a simple misunderstanding that led me down a false path lo these many years. So my new revelation (appropriate word here) is that I can use words to free myself of whatever existential bug has been infesting my system. Perhaps this is the way for me to become a writer, one who uses words and not vice versa. Keep writing, motherfucker. Words are your friends and allies, and most importantly, you can’t live without them.

I just finished a PKD novel I’ve never read before — Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said. Wow. Wow again. Wow yet a third time. It’s a very moving work, so emotional, so much about love and the relationships we have with loved ones. Yeah, sure, there are crazy plot twists and nutty science fictioney scaffolding, but what a book! It just kept getting better and better, and it’s head and shoulders above the novel he wrote immediately before this one, Now Wait for Last Year — which is good (and you can see how PKD’s working out the theme of love in the earlier book) — but then comes Flow My Tears, and WHAM! you’re suddenly reading an amazing, psychologically astute (and how!), book. I highly, highly recommend it. I’m currently going through all the books that I skipped during my ’80s-’90s PKD period, so next up is A Maze of Death, then a revisit of one of my all-time fave PKD books, his last mind-blower, The Transmigrations of Timothy Archer. You really, really should read this book — it deals with Christianity in a much more explicit way than his other books. In fact, I’m surprised you haven’t read it yet (I’m assuming here, but I think I’d have heard from you if you’d read it already). Go get a copy, will ya, so that we can talk about it.

Damn, this is a PKD-heavy email/letter. So be it. Sending now before I change my mind 🙂

Your friend,
Roman

Follow Roman Tsivkin on Twitter @zenjew or visit his blog.

Categories
Literary

Book Review for First Things Magazine

In the March print edition of First Things I reviewed the book The Fine Delight: Postconciliar Catholic Literature by Nicholas Ripatrazone. The review has been posted online, but to read the entire article you need a First Things subscription or must pay $1.99.

Ripatrazone has written that my 2011 essay in The Millions titled “Where Have all the Catholic Writers Gone?” was in part an inspiration for his book.

Categories
Literary

French, Marcel Proust & Justice Stephen Breyer

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer recently gave an interview to the French literary journal  La Revue des Deux Mondes (a review that Proust once wrote for) where he revealed his love of French literature and how he learned French by reading Marcel Proust‘s In Search of Lost Time in the original:

“I read the Recherche when I was working as a legal intern at an American law firm in Paris. I was trying to learn French, so I read all seven volumes in French. Every night I drew up vocabulary index cards with lists of the new words that I’d learned from Proust. But luckily I found that the lists became shorter and shorter as I made my way deeper into the book!”

A English translation of the interview was published in The New York Review of Books.