The dawn of Yemen and the fall of the Arab intellectual

Listen to the article. The audio text is automated, generated by an automated system

The wars that the region went through showed the fragility of the cultural dimension that was supposed to unite the Arabs. Unity in language and religion is not enough if the idea of ​​a common destiny is absent, and if the security of each country becomes an issue of its own. From here arises the paradox: the region is exposed to successive crises, while its cultural discourse becomes more divided, and its vision narrows until it sees in the event only what serves factional affiliation.

The intellectual is neither a transmitter of news nor a commentator on events from the position of a spectator; He has a vision that helps his society understand what is happening, and he has principles that give him the ability to distinguish between positions when slogans are mixed with interests. Constants do not mean that the intellectual repeats a ready-made speech, but rather that he has a clear standard by which he weighs events, and that he is freed from his factional affiliations when the security and future of societies are at stake. The position that changes with the change of party, or stops at the borders of the group, does not create awareness, and does not fulfill the responsibility of culture.

From this standpoint, “Yemen Dawn” should be read as a battle that goes beyond the borders of Yemen, and is related to the stability of the Arab countries and the future of the entire region. The conflict does not revolve around a passing incident or a limited political dispute, but rather about the ability of states to protect their security, preserve their sovereignty, and prevent destabilizing forces from imposing their reality on societies and states. When a country is subjected to repeated attacks, the impact does not stop at its borders. It affects neighborhood security, threatens opportunities for stability, and makes the future of the entire region more vulnerable to turmoil.

It would have been better for the Arab intellectual to deal with this fact clearly, and to go beyond the narrow calculations of alignment. It is not fair to read the attacks on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia through preconceived positions or factional affiliations, and to ignore what the Kingdom endures as it faces absurd attacks that do not threaten its security alone. Protecting the security of the Kingdom in this context is not a local matter separate from the rest of the Arabs; Its stability is an essential foundation for the stability of its surroundings, and the security that is maintained today is reflected in the future of the entire Arab region.

However, part of the Arab cultural discourse seemed unable to name things clearly. Some intellectuals were busy classifying positions according to the identities of the parties, or chanting slogans that justified the attack as long as it came from a party they supported. The questions that the intellectual is supposed to ask were absent: What is the impact of this path on the security of countries? Who bears responsibility for targeting civilians and facilities? Is it possible to build a stable Arab future while attacks are left without clear condemnation and chaos is presented as a legitimate political position?

The independence of the intellectual does not mean standing at the same distance from truth and aggression, nor does it require equating the state that seeks to protect its security with the forces that target its stability. True independence is to adhere to a declared standard, and to condemn aggression because it threatens the lives of people and the sovereignty of states, and not to wait to verify the identity of the aggressor. Neutrality, which ignores the nature of the action and its consequences, is not balance. It is an abandonment of responsibility, and it may turn, from where its owner does not want it, into a cover that legitimizes chaos.

The wars that the region went through showed the fragility of the cultural dimension that is supposed to unite the Arabs. Unity in language and religion is not enough if the idea of ​​a common destiny is absent, and if the security of each country becomes an issue of its own. From here arises the paradox: the region is exposed to successive crises, while its cultural discourse becomes more divided, and its vision narrows until it sees in the event only what serves factional affiliation. In light of this division, it is difficult to build a common vision for the future, and the fog is growing heavier for generations searching for a stable Arab horizon.

“Dawn of Yemen” confronts the intellectual with a fundamental question: Does he see the security and stability of the Kingdom as a common Arab issue, or does he limit it to calculations of rivalry and affiliation? It is fair to say that the Kingdom endures senseless attacks in order to protect its stability, and that this stability is inseparable from the security and future of the Arab region. The intellectual who refuses to see this connection, or refrains from saying it for fear that it will contradict his alignment, loses the clarity of vision that gives culture its meaning.

The intellectual is not required to give up his right to disagree or criticize, but rather to practice this from a firm foundation, and to distinguish between legitimate criticism and justification for aggression. The Arab future will not be built with volatile slogans, but rather with an awareness that realizes that the security of the Arab countries is interconnected, and that the stability of the Kingdom is part of the stability of the region. When an intellectual is unable to defend this truth, his position does not fall alone; Rather, part of the role that culture is supposed to play in protecting society and directing it towards a more secure future falls with it. Perhaps the most dangerous thing this scene reveals is that the future of the region will not be protected by slogans, but rather by the ability to see the truth as it is, and by the courage that enables the intellectual to say what needs to be said when silence becomes another form of participation in chaos.