{"id":36674,"date":"2011-04-06T15:08:49","date_gmt":"2011-04-06T20:08:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/planetwaves.net\/news\/?p=36674"},"modified":"2011-04-06T18:11:31","modified_gmt":"2011-04-06T23:11:31","slug":"mercury-eris-in-aries-and-the-middle-east","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/planetwaves.net\/news\/daily-astrology\/mercury-eris-in-aries-and-the-middle-east\/","title":{"rendered":"Mercury-Eris in Aries and the Middle East"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
Thousands of Egyptians went to Tahrir Square after prayers Friday to show their dissatisfaction with the Egyptian military. Unlike the cohesive national identity shared by Egyptians in their ouster of former dictator Mubarak, Libyan protesters seem to be reflecting a fractured identity akin to what we associate with Eris. Photo: Andrea Bruce for the New York Times<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

By Amanda Painter<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Since the still-unfolding disaster in Japan has been holding our attention here at Planet Waves, I was especially intrigued by an interview today on Democracy Now!<\/a> with Anthony Shadid, one of the four New York Times correspondents who was recently held by pro-Gaddafi forces in Libya. Part of the interview focuses on what he and his colleagues, including photographer Lynsey Addario, endured. But the segment I am posting here involves Shadid’s thoughts on the revolution in Libya compared to those in other parts of the Arab world.<\/p>\n

The influence of the recent Jupiter-Pluto square and the still-forming Uranus-Pluto square have received significant attention with regard to these ‘rolling revolutions’. But the transit that came to mind as I read Shadid’s descriptions of Libya’s struggle made me think specifically of Mercury making its three conjunctions to Eris in Aries as it has moved into retrograde motion and will move back again.<\/p>\n

Eric has mentioned time and again that one of the qualities of Eris is a fractured sense of self which, with awareness and attention, can become unified. Mercury, in addition to relating to communication and what we articulate, also relates to state of mind. And both of these planets are in Aries, home of our sense of self in the zodiac which, intriguingly, is ruled by the god of war — Mars.<\/p>\n

And there in this corner of the world poorly understood by westerners, we have these revolutions — some involving more warfare and violence than others — in which national identity is being fractured, identified, articulated and unified to various degrees. Libya is the next-door neighbor of both Egypt and Tunisia, sandwiched between the two of them on Africa’s northern coast. But according to Shadid, Libya’s national identity is much less cohesive. He remarks that while Tunisia and Egypt are still very much works in progress, they qualify as the two “easy revolutions.” By way of explanation, he remarks, “It\u2019s not coincidence that those two countries have, I think, the deepest sense of national identity. The divisions within those countries are not that great, are not that pronounced.” That means that regardless of the struggles these countries face, the populist forces that have brought about change share a common starting point amidst whatever diverse viewpoints may also exist. The populations of Egypt and Tunisia were able to articulate a unified vision, at least in these early stages of change, to get the ball rolling constructively.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Shadid describes Libya, by contrast, as having suffered a continual fracturing of identity under the 40-plus years of Gaddafi’s rule. One might think that four decades of one ruler would provide continuity and cohesion, whatever the dictator’s abuses of his people. But Libya has an unusual structure for its government, which I am still trying to get a handle on. There is a legislative branch of the government which the citizens vote for, and then there is the ‘revolutionary sector’, headed by Gaddafi, who himself took power in a revolution against the previous government. This ‘revolutionary sector’ cannot be voted out of office. How revolutionary.<\/p>\n

Shadid says of this contradictory situation:<\/p>\n

What strikes me about Libya is just how this idea of perpetual revolution, which, you know, was rhetorical, obviously, but how this idea of perpetual revolution over more than four decades basically just wiped out the institutions that were within Libya. When I was in a town in eastern Libya called Bayda, it was remarkable to me how it wasn\u2019t just the challenge for the opposition to build\u2014you know, to kind of reform or revise the state or to try to create some kind of transition toward a new form of rule; it was how do you construct a state from the very beginning. There was the sense that it was basically managed chaos or managed anarchy for four decades, and they really were starting all over. I think that\u2019s the challenge that the opposition and the rebels are going to face, looking forward. You know, how do you build institutions in a state without them? What kind of institutions\u2014or, I guess, what kind of\u2014what can you rely on to navigate a transition? What is going to be the genesis of this new vision for the country? It really is a wreckage right now, and I think that\u2019s one of the greatest legacies of this\u2014of four decades of Colonel Gaddafi\u2019s rule.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This “barely managed chaos,” unsurprisingly, seems to have rendered Libya’s national identity into something fractured. And without that sense of self, it can be damn near impossible to articulate a vision for one’s becoming. We can see that play out on the personal, individual level in ourselves. And now we can see it play out in terms of national identity and revolution in Libya. As Shadid describes, the opposition in Libya is “very loosely united, if even that. It\u2019s an opposition that hasn\u2019t articulated a vision for the future necessarily, and it doesn\u2019t articulate that vision because it knows the divisions that reside within its ranks.”<\/p>\n

I am including here the portion of Amy Goodman’s interview with Anthony Shadid with the greatest relevance to this notion of fractured versus unified identity and the ability to articulate that vision of self. He discusses more than just Libya, branching into his take on several of the other Arab nations involved in the ‘rolling revolutions’ we’ve been witnessing. One important thing I do want to highlight is Shadid’s phrase, “indigenous vocabulary.” He keeps coming back to it to describe what he is seeing and hearing in the countries whose revolutions seem to carry some cohesion and potential evolution. He uses it in reference to Egypt and to Lebanon, the latter of which is, for the first time that he has seen, “speaking about its own vision. It\u2019s articulating its own vision.”<\/p>\n

In contrast, Libya’s people do not seem to have an “indigenous vocabulary” in the same sense; the dictatorship that refuses to let go has undermined the people’s ability to formulate one over the decades. Unfortunately, US involvement in Libya’s civil war may very well interfere in that development further, as the violence continues. I’ll be curious to see if these themes, which to my mind are highlighted by Mercury’s conjunctions to Eris in Aries, continue to surface in the news over the next few weeks. I’m not pointing to these conjunctions as causes per se, but simply as timely beacons for interpreting one aspect of what we’re witnessing in these days.<\/p>\n

Below the most relevant portion of the Democracy Now! interview with Shadid. For all of this conversation with Amy Goodman from today’s show, please click here<\/a>. You can read Shadid’s account of his capture in Libya here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *<\/p>\n

ANTHONY SHADID<\/strong>: I mean, I think in some ways we\u2019re\u2014you know, we\u2019ve seen the easy revolutions, if we can call them that, in Egypt and Tunisia. I think Libya, in some ways, is a window on change, that\u2019s going to be\u2014you know, it\u2019s going to be violent, it\u2019s going to take a long time. I think we\u2019re on the right trajectory toward a far healthier, far more vibrant Arab world, but I think Libya is a window on some of the challenges that are going to be out there. It\u2019s an opposition that is very loosely united, if even that. It\u2019s an opposition that hasn\u2019t articulated a vision for the future necessarily, and it doesn\u2019t articulate that vision because it knows the divisions that reside within its ranks. We\u2019re seeing a government that\u2019s utterly unaccountable, that\u2019s determined to hang on. I think we\u2019re already seeing the cracks and fissures within that government that could lead to more fighting as the remnants of the regime try to maintain or try to keep some shred of power.<\/p>\n

AMY GOODMAN<\/strong>: And your thoughts on this latest news about the possibility of the Gaddafi sons being involved with a future of Libya with the father, well, perhaps stepping away, Muammar Gaddafi?<\/p>\n

ANTHONY SHADID<\/strong>: Yeah, it\u2019s hard to imagine, I have to say. And it\u2019s hard to imagine\u2014I mean, who knows what deal some in the opposition might cut, you know, with the sons? But it just\u2014you know, given how entrenched the sons, especially Saif al-Islam, are in the regime, how closely identified they are with the regime\u2014and we have to remember, Saif al-Islam was using some of the most vulgar language, you know, I think mimicking his father, when he was talking about crushing this uprising and crushing the opposition. He does seem too closely identified with the government, for me, to\u2014to me, to be an alternative figure. But, you know, again, I might be wrong about that. I think what\u2019s more likely probably is the sons, you know, perhaps fighting each other, as they try to push the father aside. And again, I think that\u2019s more of a short-term thing. You know, I think we are looking at a far more sweeping change in that country, but I think it\u2019s something that could last\u2014it could take years.<\/p>\n

AMY GOODMAN<\/strong>: You covered Iraq for years. Do you see parallels between Saddam Hussein and his sons and Gaddafi and his sons?<\/p>\n

ANTHONY SHADID<\/strong>: You know, I think there are some loose parallels, some kind of superficial parallels. I think Saif al-Islam is far more sophisticated in some ways than Saddam\u2019s sons were. I don\u2019t\u2014that\u2019s not praise, by any means. I think just the way he fashions himself and tries to come across.<\/p>\n

What strikes me, though, I think, in especially the difference between Iraq and Libya is that, Iraq, there were the institutions of a state, there was the party, however much that was beholden to Saddam in the end. I mean, it did become an instrument of Saddam in that kind of very small clique around him from Tikrit. What strikes me about Libya is just how this idea of perpetual revolution, which, you know, was rhetorical, obviously, but how this idea of perpetual revolution over more than four decades basically just wiped out the institutions that were within Libya. When I was in a town in eastern Libya called Bayda, it was remarkable to me how it wasn\u2019t just the challenge for the opposition to build\u2014you know, to kind of reform or revise the state or to try to create some kind of transition toward a new form of rule; it was how do you construct a state from the very beginning. There was the sense that it was basically managed chaos or managed anarchy for four decades, and they really were starting all over. I think that\u2019s the challenge that the opposition and the rebels are going to face, looking forward. You know, how do you build institutions in a state without them? What kind of institutions\u2014or, I guess, what kind of\u2014what can you rely on to navigate a transition? What is going to be the genesis of this new vision for the country? It really is a wreckage right now, and I think that\u2019s one of the greatest legacies of this\u2014of four decades of Colonel Gaddafi\u2019s rule.<\/p>\n

AMY GOODMAN<\/strong>: Anthony Shadid, we last spoke to you in Tunisia, this rolling rebellion that has been taking place\u2014Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya. Can you talk about the different natures of these rebellions, different characters, and also what makes them similar, what you\u2019ve observed?<\/p>\n

ANTHONY SHADID<\/strong>: You know, I do think that Egypt and Tunisia were, in some ways, the easy revolutions, and they\u2019re revolutions that are still unfolding, and I think especially Tunisia, where the demands are very pronounced over what kind of change the opposition are\u2014or the revolutionaries want to see in Tunisia. I think Egypt is absolutely still a work in progress, and I think\u2014and it\u2019s a fascinating one. It\u2019s not coincidence that those two countries have, I think, the deepest sense of national identity. The divisions within those countries are not that great, are not that pronounced.<\/p>\n

I think when we look at countries elsewhere in the Arab world, it does become much more complicated in some ways. I think in Libya we have that problem that I was just talking about, the lack of any real institutions to navigate a transition. I think when we look at countries like Bahrain, Yemen, and especially Syria, there are divisions\u2014you know, ethnic, sectarian divisions\u2014under the surface that I think frighten a lot of people, and I think especially so in Syria. I think Syria is the country that a lot of people are going to want to watch, that the implications of change there, I think, are as great as the implications were in Egypt. Syria is obviously a much smaller state. It doesn\u2019t have the power or the prestige. It doesn\u2019t have the history of Egypt. But it is at this kind of nexus of interest between Iran, Israel, Hezbollah in Lebanon, in neighboring Lebanon. And I think any change in the calculus there, any change in the arithmetic in Syria is going to have far-reaching impacts across the region.<\/p>\n

AMY GOODMAN<\/strong>: You are the Beirut bureau chief for the New York Times. Talk about Lebanon and Jordan.<\/p>\n

ANTHONY SHADID<\/strong>: You know, Lebanon\u2014how do you describe Lebanon? It\u2019s so\u2014it\u2019s remarkable to me that amid all this change in the region\u2014and again, it\u2019s hard to overstate how great this change and this transformation is. I think for the first time\u2014absolutely, since I can remember, but perhaps that a lot of people can remember\u2014the region is speaking with an indigenous vocabulary. You know, it\u2019s speaking about its own vision. It\u2019s articulating its own vision. It\u2019s so radically, fundamentally different from the change that was imposed on Iraq through invasion and violence in 2003. This is a remarkable moment, I think, in the history of the modern Arab world, and it\u2019s being articulated in a very forceful, fundamental way, in a way that\u2019s never been done before.<\/p>\n

Lebanon almost seems like a sideshow amid all these changes. And I think for a lot of Lebanese it\u2019s difficult to see societies being transformed all around them, and Lebanon is still entrenched in this centuries-old or decades-old\u2014let\u2019s say decades-old\u2014system of rule that in some ways makes the smallest identities the most relevant, you know, form of affiliation. There is an effort, I think, in Lebanon to change that, to get beyond these narrow sectarian identities and create something more\u2014something broader, some broader notion of belonging. But it\u2019s\u2014those efforts are so far hamstrung. There have been a few protests, but they really haven\u2019t gone anywhere.<\/p>\n

I think Jordan is going to be more interesting. And again, Jordan, I think, falls in\u2014in some ways, it falls into that arithmetic that Syria still plays by. Jordan is obviously an American ally. You know, you don\u2019t see the American government abandoning the monarchy there anytime soon. But it\u2019s also a complicated society, with its mix of Palestinians and Jordanians. The King, his wife are not popular. You keep thinking that this is going to be one of the places that we\u2019re going to see change, you know, rather quickly, like Algeria, for instance, but it hasn\u2019t happened so far. But again, this is a years-long process, and I think it is going to take years. And, you know, like I said, I think the easy revolutions are over. Now we\u2019re in store for a much more difficult, much more precarious, you know, but no less promising, path toward fundamental change across the region.<\/p>\n

AMY GOODMAN<\/strong>: And then can you talk about the U.S. response to these rolling rebellions? President Obama giving the major address he did in Cairo, soon after he was elected, to the Muslim world, and then the responses to the despots who not just Obama, but the administrations before, had shored up for decades, and holding on to the end and then, seeing when it\u2019s inevitable, making the shift. Can you talk about what the role has been?<\/p>\n

ANTHONY SHADID<\/strong>: Sure. You know, I have to suggest at the outset, it is\u2014it\u2019s so\u2014you know, as a reporter in Iraq, it so much was about Iraq and America, this conflict between\u2014I mean, obviously, the United States invaded that country, and the society was wrecked over, you know, a truly heartbreaking conflict that went on for years. It did strike me in Egypt, especially in Tahrir Square, when\u2014absolutely there was criticism of U.S. policy, criticism of Israel, but I think fundamentally the narrative that you heard in Tahrir Square was about what kind of Egypt are we going to construct, what kind of Egypt are we going to build, what is our vision for the future, especially vis-\u00e0-vis a government that basically kind of, you know\u2014I mean, let\u2019s be blunt, a government that pretty much hated its people. That was remarkable to me. And again, I keep using this phrase, but it was an indigenous vocabulary. It was a narrative that was being articulated on people\u2019s own terms in Cairo and elsewhere.<\/p>\n

You know, I think the United States, almost by default, feels like it has to get involved, but you get the sense, being in a place like Tahrir Square, that the less involved they are, the better it\u2019s going to be. I think there is\u2014I think, you know, critics out there would see a level of cynicism on how this is unfolding, in terms of U.S. and Western intervention. I think it\u2019s no coincidence that France and Italy, both with interests in the future of Libya\u2019s oil, were the first to recognize Libya\u2019s opposition government, along with Qatar. And I think there\u2019s\u2014you know, critics are right to point out that we haven\u2019t seen a uniform standard on how American and Western intervention plays across the region. We saw a much more forceful response in Libya compared to what we\u2019ve seen in Yemen or Bahrain, Yemen and Bahrain obviously both being strategic allies to the United States and the West. It is\u2014you know, American intervention has a pretty sad history in the Arab world, and you do wonder how well that lesson is understood as we go forward, because it is\u2014and I keep saying this, I hate to be repeating myself\u2014but it is going to be much more dangerous and much more violent as we go forward. And I think there\u2019s going to almost be a\u2014you know, almost a fallback in\u2014how do I put this? There\u2019s going to be a desire to intervene, I think, as this gets more dangerous and more complicated and more violent, but I think that intervention, that very intervention, could very well make things worse.<\/p>\n

AMY GOODMAN<\/strong>: In what way make it worse?<\/p>\n

ANTHONY SHADID<\/strong>: Well, in what way? This is probably beyond my pay grade. But it\u2019s\u2014you know, I\u2019m trying to think when it\u2019s gone well, anytime over the past, you know, couple generations. And I don\u2019t see it necessarily going well anytime soon. There is a\u2014there is a dynamic, I think, that violence, especially violence imposed from abroad, imposes on these societies. And that dynamic, you know, almost always promises unintended consequences. And it did in Iraq. It\u2019s doing that in Libya right now. I think this very prospect of what we\u2019re seeing, the violence in Libya, is going to have repercussions that are going to last for a long time. And I think that model of\u2014or, let\u2019s say, those unintended consequences are something that almost by default happened with any intervention anywhere.<\/p>\n

AMY GOODMAN<\/strong>: Rebel forces preparing to begin exporting oil in an attempt to raise money to fight the Gaddafi regime, a tanker expected to leave eastern Libya, bound for Qatar, containing one million barrels of high-quality crude worth about $100 million. Libya, Africa\u2019s third-largest producer of oil.<\/p>\n

ANTHONY SHADID<\/strong>: That\u2019s right. You know, I mean, everyone you talk\u2014when you\u2019re in Benghazi, you\u2019re placed in Bayda, you\u2019re placed in\u2014you\u2019re in Darnah, it is inspiration on what people are trying to create, the societies they want to create, the vision they have for the future, of a government that for the first time in their lives is going to reflect, at least at some degree, the aspirations of the people. At the same time, it\u2019s hard, at least for me\u2014and I may be 100 percent wrong on this\u2014but it\u2019s hard for me to see how this ends, in the near term, in a good way in Libya. I think it is going to become more violent, and I think it is going to become more divided as we go forward, not only within the government, but within the opposition as well. And I do worry about the way that violence is becoming endemic in some ways to this uprising, that I do worry about everybody with a gun, to be blunt about it.<\/p>\n

AMY GOODMAN<\/strong>: Anthony, are you planning to go back to the Middle East?<\/p>\n

ANTHONY SHADID<\/strong>: You know, I\u2019m the bureau chief in Beirut, so I\u2019m going back next week. But like I said, Lebanon is probably the quietest place in the Middle East right now. So I do want to get\u2014try to hopefully get to Egypt, you know, rather soon. I think\u2014you know, I think one of these key narratives to better understand when you look at the Arab world right now is this kind of deal that\u2019s going to be made between political Islam and power. And I think that\u2019s something that\u2019s unfolding right now. I think we\u2019re seeing it in Egypt unfold in a pretty forceful way. And it\u2019s\u2014you know, it\u2019s a lot less dangerous to cover something like that, and I think in some ways more interesting. So I\u2019m hoping to try to tackle that when I get back.<\/p>\n

AMY GOODMAN<\/strong>: What makes you keep going back? You were shot in the shoulder in the West Bank in 2002. Why do you keep going back to war zones?<\/p>\n

ANTHONY SHADID<\/strong>: You know, not to be flip, but it\u2019s kind of pretty much the only thing I know how to do\u2014not cover conflict. I actually don\u2019t like covering conflict. I think you have to cover conflict when it\u2019s part of what you do cover. And I do cover the Arab world. You know, I\u2019ve been covering it for 15 years. I think now, finally, is the moment that we see that is transformative in the Arab world, and it does make you even more, I think, eager, in some ways, to cover, to try to bring meaning to it, to witness it. And it matters, I guess. I think at each time you make these decisions\u2014say, in Baghdad in 2003, in Lebanon in 2006, you know, as you pointed out, in Ramallah in 2002\u2014you think that if you\u2019re not there, that the story won\u2019t be told. You know, that might be a little bit arrogant or conceited. It\u2019s absolutely\u2014you know, it\u2019s the only way to bring altruism to the story, that it\u2019s not just about ambition, that you\u2019re trying to do something that\u2019s meaningful. You know, I hope that\u2019s the case. It\u2019s probably a mix of all of them together. But you do want to\u2014I think especially people who have been covering this for a long time and who have a sense of the place, you know, I think those people want to have role, at least, in how these stories, how these conflicts, how these uprisings are covered.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Amanda Painter Since the still-unfolding disaster in Japan has been holding our attention here at Planet Waves, I was especially intrigued by an interview today on Democracy Now! with Anthony Shadid, one of the four New York Times correspondents who was recently held by pro-Gaddafi forces in Libya. Part of the interview focuses on … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":191,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"generate_page_header":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/planetwaves.net\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36674"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/planetwaves.net\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/planetwaves.net\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/planetwaves.net\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/191"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/planetwaves.net\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=36674"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/planetwaves.net\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36674\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/planetwaves.net\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36674"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/planetwaves.net\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=36674"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/planetwaves.net\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=36674"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}