A Film About Syria

The below post is belated, but I think quite relevant. It concerns an event I attended at UC Irvine on March 13.


At the University of California at Irvine, there is no formal Middle East Studies department. Rather, there is the Middle East Studies Student Initiative (MESSI), created in 2004 by students who were trying to bring a full-fledged department to UCI. MESSI is led by Lina Kreidie, who is frequently involved in anti-Israel events in academia.

On March 13, MESSI hosted an event at UCI called, “A Flood in the Ba’ath Country,” and featured a 2003 film of the same name made by the late Syrian film maker Omar Amiralay, who died in 2011 after having signed a declaration in support of the Egyptian protests. The film’s original title was, “15 Reasons why I hate the Ba’ath Party.“ Of the approximately thirty people who attended, most were students, some of whom showed up for extra class credit.

The event was moderated by two students of Middle East extraction who gave an introductory presentation on the situation in Syria as they introduced the film. In their breakdown of Syria’s demographics, they explained that the ruling Assad family was from the Alawite Muslims, a religious minority within the Shia.

Amiralay made an earlier film on the construction of the Tabqa Dam on the Euphrates River, which destroyed many homes as Lake Assad filled. Amiralay later expressed regret for having made the earlier film. The film that we watched was banned from the Carthage Film Festival in Tunisia due to its critical nature of the Syrian regime.

Opening with a scene from Lake Assad, an old man in a boat described how his former home lay beneath him on the lake bed. Next came the testimony of a retired Syrian parliamentarian of forty years who spoke reverently of Hafez al Assad, the late Syrian dictator, whose son, Bashar al Assad, is overseeing the mass murder of protestors throughout Syria. He told how, “when the Muslim Brothers rose up, we fought them.” Yet clear to viewers of this ironic film was the old MP’s poverty; he had few material possessions in spite of his decades-long support of the Assad family.

A classroom scene in which young children were indoctrinated in Arabist and Ba’ath propaganda demonstrated the authoritarian nature of contemporary Syria. One youth group, the Ba’athist Vanguards, were shown standing in class, sporting uniforms and parroting patriotic slogans chanted by the teacher. Such scenes mimic those of the Hitler Youth or the Young Pioneers of the U.S.S.R., Syria’s former ally.

The film closed by returning to the mournful scenes of the elderly man floating on Lake Assad over his former home, his face partially covered by his scarf. Unmistakable was the film maker’s point: Ordinary Syrians had suffered from the dam’s construction and, by extension, from Assad family rule.

What is interesting is that Islam is not mentioned in the scenes. Some of the schoolgirls wear hijabs, others do not. Only at the end of the movie is there a scene of a minaret with the call to prayer, which is translated by sub-titles calling the people to come and pray and show their love of God. Is there a subtle message here? Is the director implying that Syria had strayed from Islam and needed to return? It is not stated, but the scene leaves that impression.

In the question and answer period that followed the film, the two students from MESSI took questions from the audience. Though they clearly wanted to see Assad removed from power, they conducted things in a professional manner, especially in the rare references to the US and Israel. Unlike so many professors that speak on Middle East issues, there were no attacks against the US or Israel.  The students told anecdotes of atrocities committed by Assad against today’s protesters and analyzed the geopolitical elements of the crisis, including the refusal by Russia and China to support a U.N. resolution against the regime, as well as American and Israeli interests in the situation. Remarkably for a university setting—and especially so at UCI—no one got on a soapbox to criticize Israel. One of the students, a woman who spends considerable time inside Syria, explained that Assad’s anti-Israel propaganda, such as his recent claim to Barbara Walters that Israel encouraged the protests to spark a revolution—was part of an effort to win loyalty among the populace.

In answer to student questions, the moderators stated that the only thing the Syrian people want is freedom and democracy and the fall of the Assad regime. They expressed pessimism that the international community was ready to act due to all the geo-political factors involved (Iran, Russia, China, Lebanon, etc.) They asked that students educate themselves about the issue and support their protests. They cautioned the audience that not everyone on campus will support them and that some on campus still supported the Assad regime.

Finally, they mentioned the fact that the current Syrian honorary consul in Orange County, Hazem Chehabi, is also the chair of the UCI Foundation, that he had not condemned the regime or broken off his relationship with the regime, and that he should not occupy both positions.

All in all, I must say that the two students handled the evening well and in a fair and professional manner. They spared the audience the usual anti-Israel rants that so many Middle East studies professors engage in and set a positive example that an American audience could support. They kept the focus on Syria, where it belonged. God knows a lot of Middle East studies professors could learn a lesson from them.