Persia Once More

Arab-Israeli Conflict, Iran, Iran War, Orientalism, Travel

“The world is very troubled, and while peace is supposed to have been secured, active and murderous warfare is going on in at least a quarter of the recent areas of struggle. And, if this is the case in Europe, the situation in Asia is worse, and will not subside for a generation.”

This comment could be from a current political figure about the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, but it was actually written by the British diplomat Lord Curzon in September, 1919, only a few months after the signing of the Treaty of Versailles which officially ended World War I. His reference to Asia was really about the future of Persia, where he had traveled extensively in 1889-1890.

His two-volume Persia and the Persian Question (1892) reveals his fascination for Persia, ruled at that time by the Qajar Shah Nasir al-Din. Britain held imperial control over India, then Persia’s neighbor, but Curzon thought strategically about a future alliance with the Shah. As he wrote near the end of his first volume:

“Persia can never become a rich, or a producing, or a manufacturing country: but it will doubtless be turned to great account some day or another as a nursery for soldiers. The Persian, considered as a mere animal, is so very superior to any other Asiatic, to an Indian, or Turk, or even Russian, that it is impossible tom avoid foreseeing that, as any European war becomes developed in the East. the military resources of Persia must be called into action.”

I doubt that any of the war planners in Israel or the U.S. read anything by Lord Curzon, who died a century ago, before launching the war/non-war on Iran four weeks ago.  Some may not have been aware that Persia is in fact Iran. Curzon was Orientalist to the core, admiring the quaint cultural aspects he saw from his carriage ride, but disdainful of the people he actually met. He can be forgiven for not realizing a future in which oil overturned the fate of the entire region, but at least he warned about the ability of Persian soldiers. 

In 1919 Curzon was advocating for British involvement in Persia, although the Persian tribes would not have appreciated British soldiers on their soil even though the Shah welcomed British money to fill his empty coffers. Curzon’s desire to woo Persia was not kosher to a number of the British diplomats who advised on the Eastern issue; some argued to “leave Persia to go to the devil in her own way.” Curzon persevered and reached a treaty with Persia, which had been rebuffed at a peace conference in Paris. The treaty would send British expert advisors for the government, British officers, munitions and equipment to create a national army and a loan of 2 million pounds. Here is how Curzon described the treaty…


“What they mean in practice is this: not that we have received or are about to receive a Mandate for Persia; not that Persia has handed over to us any part of her liberties; not that we are assuming fresh and costly obligations which will place a great strain on us in the future; but that the Persian Government, realizing that we are the only neighboring great Power closely interested in the fate of Persia, able and willing to help her and likely to be distinterested in that object, have decided of their own free will to ask us to assist Persia in the rehabilitation of her fortunes.”

            At the dinner in London celebrating the treaty, Curzon added his praise:

“I have always been a sincere and outspoken friend of Persian nationality. I regard Persia as a country with a great history and a romantic past, one of the few surviving independent Muhammaden Stares of the world, which it is of vital interest not only to ourselves, but to Asia to keep alive. I know that country and the people to be possessed of marked individuality and national spirit, too ardent to be suppressed, too valuable to be submerged. Was it not natural that Persia, seeking to establish and stabilize her future, should turn to us?”

The treaty did not last long, in part because the Persian Cossacks that maintained the Shah had Russian officers. In 2021 the Shah, out of fear of Russia, made an agreement with the new Soviet Communist government. Curzon bemoaned the fact that Persia was now “marching of its own accord.”

There is a much used, and often abused, notion that history repeats itself. Given the incessant wars in the area now called the Middle East and previously hoped to be a Holy Land, war has followed war after war after war. Today it is indeed Persia once more. And Persia, with a resilient array of armed forces, is marching of its own accord.

[Quotations from Lawrence John Dundas Zetland, The Life of Lord Curzon. London: Ernest Benn Ltd, 1928.

Palestine in 2019

Bible and Holy Land, Coffee, Judaism, Orientalist Images, Palestine, Travel

Over the years many popular magazines have published articles by visitors to Palestine. In a 1919 issue of the periodical The Century there was an article by Joseph Koven, an American Jewish author who visited Palestine. His article is very Orientalist, describing the local Arabs as dressed in rags and primitive. I cannot recommend reading the actual article, but there are several photographs and I attach two of those here.

Queers for Palestine

Arab-Israeli Conflict, Gender and Sexuality, Israel, Palestine

Since Israel’s invasion of Gaza on October 27th, launched in response to an attack on Israel by Hamas on October 7th, there have been thousands of demonstrations held worldwide. Some of these demonstrations have included LGBTQ+ groups, voicing their support for a free Palestine, calling for a ceasefire and an end to the occupation. Pundits and laymen alike have reacted to this, often portraying queer solidarity with Palestine as a contradiction, calling it “bizarre” or jokingly comparing it to “chickens for KFC.”

These reactions prompted a group of more than 300 Swedish LGBTQ people to write a response, published in the Swedish newspaper Sydsvenskan, explaining that their support for Palestine may only appear bizarre to those who view human rights as conditional. The article is published in Swedish, but what follows here is a summary in English.

The group highlights the strategic rhetorical manoeuvre of equating support for Palestine with support for Hamas, similarly to how critique of Israel is equated with antisemitism. In fact, many LGBTQ groups have criticised Hamas and brought attention to the marginalisation of LGBTQ people in Gaza. Meanwhile, those pundits who ridicule Queers for Palestine have rarely showed any interest in LGBTQ rights in the past, and only do so now in order to defend Israel against its critics rather than to defend queer Palestinians.

Furthermore, the argument that queer Palestinians can find refuge in Israel is at best a half-truth. Israel has long banned any Palestinian – regardless of sexuality or gender identity – from working or settling permanently in Israel. Only in 2022 they decided to permit LGBTQ Palestinians from the West Bank temporary work permits. These, however, are short term and need to be renewed every other month, with the intention that Palestinian LGBTQ migrants eventually move to a third country. Israel does not recognise Palestinians’ right to asylum, although a court order in January 2024 ruled that LGBTQ Palestinians may request asylum. This decision is something that the current Interior Minister wants to see reversed.

The article also responds to the claim that Israel supports LGBTQ rights. This is part of what is called “pink washing,” meaning that Israels actions are justified with reference to their LGBTQ politics. This claim does not account for how the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) has been blackmailing queer Palestinians, forcing them to act as informants under threat of being “outed” (that the person’s sexuality or identity is revealed to others without their consent). In other words, Israel has been using LGBTQ people as pawns, constituting a direct threat against their lives but also contributing to a distrust against the queer community in Palestine, worsening their situation.

Notably, same-sex relations were decriminalised on the West Bank some 37 years before Israel (1951 compared to 1988), and it was due to Israeli occupation and application of Israeli law that same-sex relations were criminalised again on the West Bank. Of course, today it is easier to live openly as a gay person in Tel Aviv than it is in Gaza or the West Bank, but it is not on equal grounds. There are also several Palestinian organisations working to improve LGBTQ rights in Palestine whose works are impeded and made immensely more difficult by Israels continued and intensified occupation.

Lastly, the article affirms that queer support for Palestinians’ right to live in peace and free from occupation is not conditional on Palestinians’ views on LGBTQ rights. It is irrelevant whether or not those suffering under Israel’s invasion and blockade of Gaza and occupation of the West Bank believe homosexuality is immoral and should be banned. Neither Israel nor any outsider may dictate which party should rule in Palestine. However, the war, blockade and occupation constitutes the biggest obstacle to the liberation of LGBTQ Palestinians. The signatories of the article say that no liberation can be achieved under war and occupation.

The full text, in Swedish, can be read here.

The full list of signatories can be read here.

Lighting Up Egyptian Style

Archaeology and Antiquities, Egypt, Orientalist Art

Egypt has long been a land of wonder for advertising. In the March 1919 periodical ‘The Century’ the very first ad is for a brand of cigarettes so divine they could be offered to Egyptian deities. Of course this tobacco is for “People of culture and refinement” in an age before lung cancer was thought about. However, there was the saving grace of Palmolive soap, “The Oldest of Toilet Requisites.” Clearly, “that radiant cleanliness was the crowning art of all.” So whether you want to light up or wash up, you can do it like the ancient Egyptians. At least you could in 1919.

Bunk is not Bunn: A Silly Claim about the Origin of Coffee

Agriculture, Coffee, Plants, Yemen

In a non-academic website called Atlas Obscura, there is an article with the entertaining title: “Before Drinking Coffee, People Washed Their Hands With It.” The article was written by Nawal Nasrallah, an Iraqi scholar who has published excellent work on classical Arabic recipe books. However, this particular article is anything but sound scholarship. Her main argument is that a “mysterious ingredient” very similar to coffee was known five centuries before the documented appearance of coffee, known in Arabic as “bunn“, as a drink. “However, instead of bunn, it was called bunk, and rather than drinking this ingredient, it was mostly used for cleaning and freshening the hands,” she argues.

Her argument is flawed from the start. She is aware that the 9th century Ibn Masawayh defined bunk as an aromatic coming to Iraq from Yemen. He clearly identifies it as coming from the trunk wood of a plant called Umm Ghaylan. However, Nasrallah says Ibn Masawayh was confused, without indicating why. The link to the wood of Umm Ghaylan is also made by al-B’iruni, who adds that it is a Persian term, and by other scholars. Umm Ghaylan is a well-known name for a species of acacia grown on the Arabian Peninsula. Nasrallah was unaware that the renowned botanical scholar Abu Hanifa al-Dinawari, a contemporary of Ibn Masawayh, described Umm Ghaylan as a synonym for talh, the well known term for several acacia species, including the major gum arabic variety. Al-Dinawari also noted the terms for the parts of the tree, specifically defining bunk as the bark (laha) of the acacia tree. This term for bark is still in use in Saudi Arabia. So unless these early scholars were making it up, which I doubt, the meaning of bunk is clearly established. The claim that a 16th century traveler named Leonhard Rauwolf said that the coffee beans he saw being roasted (he never saw the tree) were the same as the term bunk used centuries earlier is hardly reliable proof, especially since Rauwolf assumed that the term bunn for coffee was no different than the earlier term bunk. It was not unusual for writers at this time to make such claims without any real evidence.

Nasrallah writes that early medical scholars like al-Razi and Ibn Sina describe the qualities of bunk “to check the unpleasant odors of sweat and the smell of the quick-lime used in baths to remove hair,” but no mention is made of it as a drink. It is a serious stretch of logic to suggest, as the author does, that when Ibn Sina said that “consuming bunk had mind-altering properties, ‘which could affect the intellect,’” this was proof that this was the first time anyone had pointed out the impact of caffeine. It is not unusual for herbals to comment on the impact of certain substances on the mind, so such a general statement does not imply caffeine from coffee.

In addition to ignoring the clear identification of the plant, which is not mysterious at all, Nasrallah can cite no evidence from Yemen for such an identification. If the coffee plant was indeed coming from Yemen in the 9th century, why is there no reference in any Yemeni text to it? The geographical text of the 9th century al-Hamdani mentions numerous plants, but not any known term for coffee, nor the term bunk. Nor do the agricultural and medicinal treatises of the Rasulid era (13th-15th centuries) refer to coffee. The known documented sources suggest that coffee came from Ethiopia as a drink useful for Sufis; this was probably sometime in the latter half of the 15th century. By 1500 it had spread widely from Yemen and even prompted a legal meeting in 1511 to determine if it was licit for Muslims, as discussed in an article by the historian Jon Mandaville.

The speculation continues with the following claim: “As for coffee as a hand-cleaning product, it seems that the spread of good-quality colored and perfumed soaps eclipsed its popularity. As bunk itself faded away, so did the knowledge of what it was used for.” To suggest that by the 16th century no one used traditional plant products for aromatics or for hand washing is ridiculous, as such practices have continued into the last century. To assume that perfumed soaps were widely available among a population that was still mainly rural and poor is silly. To think that the drinking of coffee took off after several centuries of hand-washing is wishful thinking. There is no evidence at all that the term bunk, which is not related to the coffee term bunn, ever referred to anything other than a product of the acacia tree. To argue otherwise is pure bunk.