Remembering Ali Shaath

[Ali Shaath. Image by Marwa Seoudi.] [Ali Shaath. Image by Marwa Seoudi.]

Remembering Ali Shaath

By : Maysara Abdulhaq, Lina Attalah, and Sherene Seikaly

In 1994, Ali Shaath and three of his colleagues, Sa’id al-Qidra, Mustafa Harara, and Majd al-Khalidi drove from Cairo to Palestine. It would be Ali’s first visit to the land that shaped him from a distance. It was a moment of hope and possibility. These were the moments Ali lived for. 

The four men were the first to enter Gaza after the initial stages of the Jericho-Oslo agreements. At that time those words signaled possibility and change. Their goal was to make technology available in a simple but refined form. 

He did not sleep that day, and for many days to come, overwhelmed by the sights and sounds he could previously only have imagined, he immediately plunged into the work.

The four men were charged with taking over the information infrastructure of the West Bank and Gaza. They confronted the realities of opposition and the real possibility of death. They faced, what seemed at the time the insurmountable challenge of information organization—everything from the payroll of government employees to the hardware and software development and training, to the details of transportation management. Ali and his team mapped the government sector and in the first year of round the clock labor established an expansive informational infrastructure.

Ali took part in gathering and leading Palestinian experts from universities and non-governmental organizations who would oversee this information production, and the administrative and engineering needs of a government in progress. Innovating databases and training on Oracle and UNEX, Ali and his team paved new methods that would influence the shape and content of secondary and higher education. Displaying what his colleagues remember as a unique analytical precision, Ali faced the difficulties of understanding rapidly shifting and harsh conditions and quickly transformed long discussions into concrete action plans. He shaped the possibility for a new kind of knowledge.

He was known at this time, like at so many others, for a profound intelligence, for embodying a new generation that promised a different future. Never raising his voice and never stopping at petty conflict, Ali built with pride. He bridged territory through hope, through critical work, through vision. 

The Arab Digital Expression Camps became one of Ali’s next building blocs. Here young people, from across the Arab world, gather in a residential camp and embark on an experiential educational journey where technology and art are fertile avenues for self-expression and identity exploration. In 2013, the seventh camp took place, and Ali played multiple roles. At times, he would be a trainer in audio production, giving new meaning to sound as a form of telling. At others, he would skillfully animate the morning circles with the campers, playing with language and body—a small index of how expression unfolds in an array of forms. At other times, he would be the camp manager, deploying his wit and wisdom in the craft of running boats. In the background, he would be plotting for the coming year, alongside some of the most passionate educationalists, techies, and open source enthusiasts and artists in the region, to shape the structure and the content of the camps. The plotting sessions were often fragments of life at the camps from fun, to artistry, to random landings in uncharted territories. And there would be overriding love.

The camps were one of several beginnings for a man who constantly looked for ways to practice change. Ali is the offspring of the Arab Computer Camps, which for ten years beginning in 1984, trained thousands of Arab children on basic computer languages in a setting that promoted Arab culture and Palestine consciousness. The camps were home to young people who came to be prominent activists in the Arab world on the forefront of using information communication technology (ICT) in their work.

The camps were not the end. After the revolution, the Arab Digital Expression Foundation, co-founded by Ali and his partner, Ranwa Yehia, became the home of the camps and much more. ADEF, which translates as “add” in Arabic, has been a platform for youth collectives working in fields such as arts and media. It uses technological tools that are open, empowering and sustainable. Like in the camps, Ali was constantly shifting gears, from computer engineer, to manager, to mediator, to trainer, to negotiator, to art producer and more. His ability to travel between multiple functions is perhaps a reflection of our profound and ambitious desires at precarious times of crisis, where only we can turn what we imagine into de facto realities on the ground. 

Ali’s excitement about life came from new discoveries. Like a man set to decorate his space, he spent time exploring and gathering. These daily expeditions were his moments of euphoria; the euphoria of poetry, of dj-ing, of putting up a karaoke set using floppy discs, of archiving, of exploring the Yellow Fleet that dropped off the face of history, and much more. He built small and large collections of interest that in aggregate were a trigger of knowledge for everyone around him. But these collections were also very personal in their motivation, and with their multifaceted breadth, remained deeply interconnected. For Ali, knowledge was an adventure; it was personal.    

In ADEF, this multiplicity of functions follows a unique logic. In one of his most recent attempts to put ADEF’s plethora of activities into writing, Ali spoke of the space as both a factory and a store—where promoting and advocating open source software happens only through its in-house development. Similarly, promoting alternative education and the self, could only happen by developing educational curricula at home and teaching them in the camps. And promoting Arabic online and open content would only happen through developing Arabization tools and actively contributing to Wikipedia in Arabic.

While tools can become fetishized for techies, Ali always had his eye on people, training, mentoring, and advising, either through the camps, or the training of trainers or the various projects he supported. There are people behind Internet radios aspiring to be on the airwaves one day, graffiti artists aspiring to expose the city to its gender biases, videographers seeking to turn their content into open archives that function as both repositories and active sites of production.

Those were days of hope. Ali held fast to this hope and continued building and innovating. He would return to Palestine many times since his first trip in 1994. On his last trip, during the hopeful throes of revolutionary possibility in Egypt and beyond, Ali met with a new generation of activists, sharing strategies, inspiring with ideas, and, as always, intently listening.

That trip, he and his son Nadim made their way to Haifa and Acre. It was the first time that Ali would visit the coastal cities that shaped memory and imagination. He did not linger on what had been but absorbed the beauty of what remained. We sang with Nadim in the car as we traveled the road to Acre. We ate fish on the Mediterranean. We reveled in the beauty of togetherness. He was then as he will always be, a source of insight, a model of fatherly love, an inspiration in his wisdom, and an embodiment of a unique hope.

Many of us gathered on the late hours of Wednesday, December 4, when Ali abruptly left us, suspended, interrupted and petrified by the brutality of separation. We gathered in an amalgam of disbelief and pain. In less than an hour, Ali had departed when a place that called itself a “hospital” did not have a defibrillator or even an ambulance to salvage him from a brutal heart attack. On his way out, it was the youth of Moqattam, for whom ADEF became a home of choice, who carried his coffin. A day later, we all went to Alexandria, from where Ali hailed, to bid him a final farewell. We set out on what we expected would be an ominous trip, but Ali’s spirit was soon bestowed upon us. We found ourselves together, around a table, with children, laughing, eating, intellectualizing, and remembering.  

On his deathbed, Ali lay serenely smiling, perhaps to remind us of a legacy of love and laughter we are to continue with, and through.

We suffer now under this unbearable loss. But we take comfort in the many gifts Ali left us. Hope for the future. An insurmountable energy based in a firm understanding of the historical. A commitment to the possibilities of change. His warmth, his readiness to move, his capacity for joy and laughter, his insight, his deep ability to appreciate critical thought. He surrounded us with excitement. He infused us with an inspiration to be in the open. He taught us to produce knowledge and to innovate its widespread use and access.  These were the things Ali Shaath gave us. For the time we had with him, we can only count ourselves lucky.

[This piece is co-published by Mada Masr and Jadaliyya]

  • ALSO BY THIS AUTHOR

    • سلام على علي شعث

      سلام على علي شعث
      في عام 1994، ساق علي شعث ومعه ثلاثة من أصدقائه، سعيد القدرة ومصطفى حرارة ومجد الخالدي من القاهرة إلى فلسطين. كانت تلك زيارة علي الأولى إلى الأرض التي شكلته من بعيد. كانت لحظة أمل وامكانية، وتلك هي ال

American Elections Watch 1: Rick Santorum and The Dangers of Theocracy

One day after returning to the United States after a trip to Lebanon, I watched the latest Republican Presidential Primary Debate. Unsurprisingly, Iran loomed large in questions related to foreign policy. One by one (with the exception of Ron Paul) the candidates repeated President Obama`s demand that Iran not block access to the Strait of Hormuz and allow the shipping of oil across this strategic waterway. Watching them, I was reminded of Israel`s demand that Lebanon not exploit its own water resources in 2001-2002. Israel`s position was basically that Lebanon`s sovereign decisions over the management of Lebanese water resources was a cause for war. In an area where water is increasingly the most valuable resource, Israel could not risk the possibility that its water rich neighbor might disrupt Israel`s ability to access Lebanese water resources through acts of occupation, underground piping, or unmitigated (because the Lebanese government has been negligent in exploiting its own water resources) river flow. In 2012, the United States has adopted a similar attitude towards Iran, even though the legal question of sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz is much more complicated and involves international maritime law in addition to Omani and Iranian claims of sovereignty. But still, US posturing towards Iran is reminiscent of Israeli posturing towards Lebanon. It goes something like this: while the US retains the right to impose sanctions on Iran and continuously threaten war over its alleged pursuit of a nuclear weapon, Iran should not dare to assume that it can demand the removal of US warships from its shores and, more importantly, should not dream of retaliating in any way to punitive sanctions imposed on it. One can almost hear Team America`s animated crew breaking into song . . . “America . . . Fuck Yeah!”

During the debate in New Hampshire, Rick Santorum offered a concise answer as to why a nuclear Iran would not be tolerated and why the United States-the only state in the world that has actually used nuclear weapons, as it did when it dropped them on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki- should go to war over this issue. Comparing Iran to other nuclear countries that the United States has learned to “tolerate” and “live with” such as Pakistan and North Korea, Santorum offered this succinct nugget of wisdom: Iran is a theocracy. Coming from a man who has stated that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools, that President Obama is a secular fanatic, that the United States is witnessing a war on religion, and that God designed men and women in order to reproduce and thus marriage should be only procreative (and thus heterosexual and “fertile”), Santorum`s conflation of “theocracy” with “irrationality” seemed odd. But of course, that is not what he was saying. When Santorum said that Iran was a theocracy what he meant is that Iran is an Islamic theocracy, and thus its leaders are irrational, violent, and apparently (In Santorum`s eyes) martyrdom junkies. Because Iran is an Islamic theocracy, it cannot be “trusted” by the United States to have nuclear weapons. Apparently, settler colonial states such as Israel (whose claim to “liberal “secularism” is tenuous at best), totalitarian states such as North Korea, or unstable states such as Pakistan (which the United States regularly bombs via drones and that is currently falling apart because, as Santorum stated, it does not know how to behave without a “strong” America) do not cause the same radioactive anxiety. In Santorum`s opinion, a nuclear Iran would not view the cold war logic of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) as a deterrent. Instead, the nation of Iran would rush to die under American or Israeli nuclear bombs because martyrdom is a religious (not national, Santorum was quick to state, perhaps realizing that martyrdom for nation is an ideal woven into the tapestry of American ideology) imperative. Santorum`s views on Iran can be seen one hour and two minutes into the debate.

When it comes to Islam, religion is scary, violent and irrational, says the American Presidential candidate who is largely running on his “faith based” convictions. This contradiction is not surprising, given that in the United States fundamentalist Christians regularly and without irony cite the danger that American muslims pose-fifth column style- to American secularism. After all, recently Christian fundamentalist groups succeeded in pressuring advertisers to abandon a reality show that (tediously) chronicled the lives of “American Muslims” living in Detroit. The great sin committed by these American Muslims was that they were too damn normal. Instead of plotting to inject sharia law into the United States Constitution, they were busy shopping at mid-western malls. Instead of marrying four women at a time and vacationing at Al-Qaeda training camps in (nuclear, but not troublingly so) Pakistan, these “American Muslims” were eating (halal) hotdogs and worrying about the mortgages on their homes and the rising costs of college tuition. Fundamentalist Christians watched this boring consumer driven normalcy with horror and deduced that it must be a plot to make Islam appear compatible with American secularism. The real aim of the show, these Christian fundamentalists (who Rick Santorum banks on for political and financial support) reasoned, was to make Islam appear “normal” and a viable religious option for American citizens. Thus the reality show “All American Muslim” was revealed to be a sinister attempt at Islamic proselytizing. This in a country where Christian proselytizing is almost unavoidable. From television to subways to doorbell rings to presidential debates to busses to street corners and dinner tables-there is always someone in America who wants to share the “good news” with a stranger. Faced with such a blatant, and common, double standard, we should continue to ask “If Muslim proselytizers threaten our secular paradise, why do Christian proselytizers not threaten our secular paradise?”

As the United States Presidential Elections kick into gear, we can expect the Middle East to take pride of place in questions pertaining to foreign policy. Already, Newt Gingrich who, if you forgot, has a PhD in history, has decided for all of us, once and for all, that the Palestinians alone in this world of nations are an invented people. Palestinians are not only a fraudulent people, Gingrich has taught us, they are terrorists as well. Candidates stumble over each other in a race to come up with more creative ways to pledge America`s undying support for Israel. Iran is the big baddie with much too much facial hair and weird hats. America is held hostage to Muslim and Arab oil, and must become “energy efficient” in order to free itself from the unsavory political relationships that come with such dependancy. Candidates will continue to argue over whether or not President Obama should have or should not have withdrawn US troops from Iraq, but no one will bring up the reality that the US occupation of Iraq is anything but over. But despite the interest that the Middle East will invite in the coming election cycle, there are a few questions that we can confidently assume will not be asked or addressed. Here are a few predictions. We welcome additional questions from readers.

Question: What is the difference between Christian Fundamentalism and Muslim Fundamentalism? Which is the greater “threat” to American secularism, and why?

Question: The United States` strongest Arab ally is Saudi Arabia, an Islamic theocracy and authoritarian monarchy which (falsely) cites Islamic law to prohibit women from driving cars, voting, but has recently (yay!) allowed women to sell underwear to other women. In addition, Saudi Arabia has been fanning the flames of sectarianism across the region, is the main center of financial and moral support for Al-Qaeda and is studying ways to “obtain” (the Saudi way, just buy it) a nuclear weapon-all as part and parcel of a not so cold war with Iran. Given these facts, how do you respond to critics that doubt the United States` stated goals of promoting democracy, human rights, women`s rights, and “moderate” (whatever that is) Islam?

Question: Israel has nuclear weapons and has threatened to use them in the past. True or false?

Question: How are Rick Santorum`s views on homosexuality (or the Christian right`s views more generally) different than President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad`s or King Abdullah`s? Can you help us tease out the differences when all three have said that as long as homosexuals do not engage in homosexual sex, it`s all good?

Question: Is the special relationship between the United States and Israel more special because they are both settler colonies, or is something else going on?