Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Nelson Mandela, a true freedom fighter

Nelson Mandela won his war on apartheid because he never compromised on principles. He refused liberty and power and remained in prison. He did not practice real politics. He did not look at his cell and say, my chances of winning are low, and that is why I should take the offer of the apartheid authorities. On 31 January 1985, Botha, speaking in parliament, offered Mandela his freedom on condition that he ‘unconditionally rejected violence as a political weapon’. This was the sixth such offer, earlier ones stipulating that he accept exile in the Transkei. His daughter Zinzi read Mandela refusal to a mass meeting in Jabulani Stadium, Soweto, on 10 February, 1985:
I am a member of the African National Congress. I have always been a member of the African National Congress and I will remain a member of the African National Congress until the day I die....
I cherish my own freedom dearly, but I care even more for your freedom. Too many have died since I went to prison. Too many have suffered for the love of freedom. I owe it to their widows, to their orphans, to their mothers and to their fathers who have grieved and wept for them. Not only I have suffered during these long, lonely, wasted years. I am not less life-loving than you are. But I cannot sell my birthright, nor am I prepared to sell the birthright of the people to be free.

Mandela was a freedom fighter who never compromised on principles. Ronald Reagan the president of the US and Margaret Thatcher the Prime Minister of the U.K. called him "a terrorist" but he stood firm, his reply
I am not a violent man. My colleagues and I wrote in 1952 to [Daniel François] Malan asking for a round table conference to find a solution to the problems of our country, but that was ignored. When [Johannes Gerhardus] Strijdom was in power, we made the same offer. Again it was ignored. When Hendrik Verwoerd was in power we asked for a national convention for all the people in South Africa to decide on their future. This, too, was in vain.
It was only then, when all other forms of resistance were no longer open to us, that we turned to armed struggle.

Mandela was always ready to negotiate and reconcile, yet he could reconcile and negotiate because he did not compromise
What freedom am I being offered while the organisation of the people remains banned? (….) Only free men can negotiate. Prisoners cannot enter into contracts. Herman Toivo ja Toivo, when freed, never gave any undertaking, nor was he called upon to do so. I cannot and will not give any undertaking at a time when I and you, the people, are not free. Your freedom and mine cannot be separated. I will return.

At the end Mandela prevailed and when F. W. de Klerk signed off on Mandela’s release in 1990, he was careful to make certain that Mandela’s freedom would be unconditional. From there on Mandela moved from steadfastness and uncompromised to reconciliation
"Great anger and violence can never build a nation. We are striving to proceed in a manner and towards a result, which will ensure that all our people, both black and white, emerge as victors.” (Speech to European Parliament, 1990)
"If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner." (From Long Walk to Freedom, 1995)

Leaders and politicians in the Middle East could learn a lot from Mandela and the heads of powerful nations could benefit from the Mandela experience; never compromise on principles, do not act according to populism or polls, have the courage of your beliefs, reconcile with your opponents, and preserve the pride of you enemy. And mostly, do no cling to power.

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Thinking about Palestine

Thinking about Palestine
This is a re- blog from http://eyeontheeast.org/

Thinking about Palestine
Posted on November 10, 2013 by Eye on the East
There is never a good or right time to talk about Palestine. A cause, a dream, a responsibility, a defeat, a crime and a badge of shame on the world, which has affected, been used and abused, and shaped a considerable part of the Middle East’s contemporary history. As the situation in the occupied territories continues to evolve, or rather deteriorate, and with it the chances of a viable peace, keeping Palestine in the public discourse almost seems like a constant necessity to keep the cause alive.

The closest I’ve gotten to Palestine has been in my trips to Lebanon’s southern border, peeking into Israel beyond the fences, barbed wire and the obsessive military border patrols. I’ve visited through the eyes of those that can and have visited this land so far from my reach, an often romanticized land, filled with olive trees and shattered dreams. And I’ve tried to understand if only part of its people’s plight through some of its own and others, personal accounts and not so personal ones, historical novels and others, of an open injury that continues to bleed.

During my recent visit to Belfast, I wasn’t only shown the infamous “Peace Walls” separating Protestants and Catholics, but told that it was what inspired the other infamous Israeli West Bank wall. With that, and the random depictions of Palestinian solidarity I encountered in the Catholic neighborhoods of Belfast, I was thinking about Palestine again.

Thinking about Palestine, for many Lebanese, is as difficult as thinking about our own intricate history. But that’s because people tend to mix the Palestinian cause with Palestinians’ role in our own civil war, a war we still have not reconciled nor come to terms with. Palestinians took sides in our war, and when sides are taken, alliances are not only solidified, but adversaries are inherently made. At the time, Palestinian leadership wouldn’t hesitate at tearing Beirut apart to achieve its own goals. But how just a cause can you claim to stand for, when you are ready to destroy one country in order to reclaim your own? “I will destroy it,” Yasser Arafat was overheard as saying during a bombing campaign of Beirut in the early 1980s, “I will transform it into a second Stalingrad[1].” I have never been able to forget this.

Thinking about Palestine and Palestinians in a new light, however, isn’t made any easier with their continued presence in Lebanon, not as regular foreign residents but as refugees. Albeit living in the most challenging and unstable conditions, as they wait for the day to “return,” some have allowed themselves to be played by local Lebanese factions as scarecrows against others. Even as refugees, they have played  out their internal struggles in Lebanon, their camps becoming safe havens for outlaws of all kinds. The existing negative and violent elements have surely overshadowed the more peaceful, non-violent ones, but focusing on the former is certainly easier and more convenient for all. Thus is human nature.

Poisoned or not, Yasser Arafat is now long gone. Palestine’s struggle goes on, while Lebanon continues to wage its own wars (hot and cold) and auto-destruction without him. Palestinians in Lebanon remain and shall do so for the foreseeable future. No reasonable solution seems to be in the works on Palestine, as the world continues to turn a blind eye on Israel’s crimes against them and actions that put a viable Palestinian state further beyond reach.

Yet we must start thinking about Palestine and Palestinians in a new light, recognize that theirs is a just cause. Separate our common past from our outlook into the future and recognize that mistakes have been made…on both sides. Reconciling with this part of history between our two people may even be a start to reconciling with our own internal history and realize that we Lebanese at least still have a country, something that an entire people are dying to have and that we so systemically work to destroy.

Maybe it’s time to let bygones be bygones.

Rethinking Lebanon’s relationship with the Palestinian cause and its people will not bring back the lost land, but help in alleviating their plight in Lebanon, and make us truly stand as one on the right side of history.

Just a thought, as I think of Palestine…

Thursday, October 10, 2013

Refugee is not my identity, I am a woman facing joy and sorrow


One minute documentary trailer, worth seeing!
Syrian woman refugee testimonial in their own words


To my knowledge, refugees are not economic asylum seekers, they are people who seek refuge.
Refuge means
1. Protection or shelter, as from danger or hardship.
2. A place providing protection or shelter
3. A source of help, relief, or comfort in times of trouble

I am a woman who lived  in a conflict region and in peaceful countries. Today I can move across borders with ease. I have multiple forms of proof of identity.
I know ’seeking refuge is a human right’ as a legal concept, but cannot begin to fathom what it feels like to seek asylum. I have experienced persecution, witnessed the massacre of  friends and feared for my life. I am a Lebanese who lived the 1975 Civil War and lived a full and beautiful life.

I am one of a million Lebanese who share a common past in a country where conflict never stops.
I cannot understand how many of these one million cannot feel empathy with their fellow Syrian refugees.
I cannot understand how many of those who suffered the Lebanese civil war and now use the plight of refugees as weapon in their populist speech.






Sunday, September 22, 2013

A dialogue of the deaf over Egypt

There is a total lack of understanding in the Arab region about the US position as to Egypt. And here I am not talking about politicians and the intellectual scene, but it is a lack of understanding that crosses social and political borders. The people with or against the latest developments are puzzled and dismayed.
In Egypt, it is common knowledge by all parties that the Muslim Brotherhood high jacked the democratic process and was working on the political islamization of the country on all levels without any consideration for the rights of minorities. The understanding of the MB of democracy is that elections are a stepping stone to becoming the rulers of the country, they do not deny it. The US position emanates also from the legality of elections. It is a flat one dimensional view where there is no consideration at all for the rights of the minorities, the independence of the judiciary, not to mention democratic processes. The Egyptian people who believe in a civil state and refuse to be subject to an Islamic state cannot understand the position of the US and many consider that this position emanates from a deal the US made with the MB to guarantee Camp David and the security of Israel rather than a real concern about democracy and values. And from their side the MB believe that the US is a paper tiger that they can manipulate through a media that is more concerned by scoops than background research. The MB strategy is to stage their actions in a manner that addresses Western media rather than internal discourse. Their local internal message is different and it states “Islam is the solution”, versus democracy, free economy, and Human Rights as described in the UN Charter.
We daily hear and read experts on Egypt analyse the situation, and honestly they are rarely relevant and very often talk in cliché bundling all of the Middle East in an easy to box figment of their imagination. They deeply and honestly believe they understand “what Egyptians want”. The reality falls far away drawn from the realm of racism; a colonial offshoot of sorts that translates into a total lack of respect for the national media or the local intellectual class or the Egyptian civil society.

Voices and echoes from all sides of the divide need to be heard if people want to understand each other. This is possible, only if, the people working in the public sphere of powerful countries are ready to listen to the people of the Middle East and then proactively seek the truth.

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

Where is Arab secularism heading?

Five years after I wrote this post, I come back to it with sadness, disappointment and maybe anger.

The same Western ignorance and arrogance drove Turkey, the only Muslim majority country that is secular into existential crisis and into the hands of Putin. 
Turkey is the model of how Islam can coexist with democracy. 
Turkey is a NATO ally the US relied heavily on all through the Cold War. 
Turkey is the country where I saw a couple kissing in the street aside people coming out of a Mosque during Friday prayers, and nobody looked or has any reaction of refusal.

Today Syria is a tragedy of mythological proportions. Millions of refugees flooded into Europe, preparing the ground for Brexit and threatening the human rights values that held the EU together. The Russian Czar is promoting extreme right presidential candidates in Europe and all over the world after meddling in US elections that brought Trump to reside in the White House.

Today Amnesty international warns that 
''Toxic political rhetoric with echoes of 1930s hate speech is stirring up violence worldwide – including in the UK and US.
Have we forgotten that human rights protections were created after the mass atrocities of the second world war as a way of making sure that ‘never again’ actually meant ‘never again’?”
On the Arab scene, in Egypt Sisi is given free hand to quell dissent with an iron hand because he is supposedly fighting terrorism.
In Lebanon, Hezbollah is given a free hand in his trend of destruction of the only democratic country in the Arab world because according to Obama, they are important in the fight against terrorism.
In Tunisia where the revolution succeeded, the country is struggling under economic dire conditions. And we do not see any efforts from the ''West'' to give assistance. 

They just spend billions on airstrikes to fight terrorism while the roots of terrorism are as again the report of Amnesty International says
“Ultimately, the charge that human rights is a project of the elite rings hollow,” the report said. “People’s instincts for freedom and justice do not simply wither away.”
Will anyone hear when we say that fighting terrorism takes roots in justice and hope; not brute force.
Arab secularism is a movement totally neglected by the ''West''. 
Entrenched racism prevails as if we can hear a murmur saying '' these people are not fit to govern themselves dictators are more safe''

I cannot except say again
It is high time for those who believe in freedom and secularism in the Arab world to start neglecting what the “West” does or wants. It is time they stop looking for hand-outs. They need to assume their responsibilities, organize themselves in political frameworks with a clear strategy that unites them towards a clear goal, and work hard on reaching this goal.

I know that it is difficult because of the never ending sporadic brutal meddling. Didn't Putin say that Assad was about to collapse and this is why they interfered military. We all saw the brutal bombing of rebel-held east Aleppo and nobody raise a finger to halt it.

But there is no other solution, human rights and the value of humanity are failing.

I honestly cannot understand the actions and strategy of the so called “West”. It might be pure stupid arrogance or it might be the fulfillment of the conspiracy theories that abound around the Arab world. Whatever the roots of their actions, they actively contribute to the assassination of Arab secularism.
And yes, there is something called Arab secularism. Most Arab populations are eager for freedom, tolerance, the rule of law, and the pursuit of happiness. The so called “West” frowns on such statements. I often hear the argument “Arab and Islamic cultures cannot sustain democracy. The problem is inherent to their culture of violence”. It is sadly a deep belief of many.
A funny small but very relevant example is that a friend of mine living in the UK received a card on the occasion of Eid Fitr. He is a member of the atheist society. His name is Khalil and in the eyes of one of the UK parties that are trying to show their tolerance he is definitely a practicing Muslim. How can a Middle Easter be something else? Their ignorance makes them also assume that Khalil is a Muslim name as many Pakistanis are called Khalil. They do not know that Khalil is a name more widely used by Arab Christians than Arab Muslims. They assumed he is Muslim and being Muslim he cannot be a non-practitioner as the Arab race has religious fundamentalism etched in their genes.
It is the same cliché strategy and lack of understanding that guides them to support the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt neglecting the 30 million persons who took the streets against the soft coup of Mursi while supporting Assad military dictatorship in Syria that is actively backed by the Iranian Shia Muslim fundamentalist state. They forgot that the Syrian revolution started with thousands of people taking to the streets chanting for freedom and a secular modern state. These same people are today air bombed by the regime while suffering the horrific actions of a minority of Muslim extremists. They are oblivious of equally horrific actions perpetrated by Iranian backed extremists. They are oblivious of the fact that Sunni and Shia extremism are the two sides of the same coin. They do not understand that those who are suffering today are the majority of the people that do not believe in violence but are driven into the clutches of fundamentalists. The logic of it is not clear to me and to many others.
It is high time for those who believe in freedom and secularism in the Arab world to start neglecting what the “West” does or wants. It is time they stop looking for hand-outs. They need to assume their responsibilities, organize themselves in political frameworks with a clear strategy that unites them towards a clear goal, and work hard on reaching this goal.

Sporadic burst of actions and engaging in victimization complaints will lead nowhere.

Saturday, August 10, 2013

Lebanon is waiting for Godot

It’s been a while I am suffering from writer’s block due to the irrational madness engulfing Lebanon where populism prevails on the media and the political scene.
Today the idiocy reached a peak that made me angry.
A Turkish airlines pilot was kidnapped on the airport road which is under strict army control since last year the President of the republic committed the army to keep the airport road safe. Even a child knows that the de facto force that side by side with the army controls this road is Hezbollah and its array of local allies that are directly linked to Assad security apparatus.
What made me angry are the irresponsible Lebanese official statements and the apathy of the so called vibrant Lebanese civil society.
A number of Lebanese Shia supposedly pilgrims were kidnapped inside Syria by Sunni extremists who declared that the kidnaped were members of Hezbollah. The families of the kidnapped formed a group that constantly point fingers at the Turkish government as responsible for the kidnapping while denying that the actions of the extremist Sunni group is in anyway related to the Hezbollah involvement in fighting aside the Assad regime.
The Lebanese media has been following up the story relaying the point of view of the so called “families of the Aaazaz kidnapped” as is without any effort to make some background research or to state facts as they are. Even the 14th of March media who is supposed to be represent a faction that is on the other end of the political polarization is afraid to look as if they are supporting the kidnappers so they support the fallacy of holding Turkey accountable for a kidnapping that happened in Syria and that is part of a Sunni versus Shia extremists’ war.
The same applies to the Lebanese government who has been negotiating the release of the Lebanese kidnapped with the Turkish government without involving Hezbollah who is part of the government and who supposedly has close ties with the Assad regime. Let’s note here that the Iranians kidnapped in Syria were released after the Assad regime accepted the conditions of the Sunni extremist group holding them. A Kafkaesque scene!
The “families of the Aaazaz kidnapped” group closed last year the airport road and this winter occupied Turkish institutions in Lebanon holding hostages. The Lebanese official government did not arrest any person in connection with these illegal actions that are not part of peaceful protest and demonstrations. Everybody in the country is afraid to seem taking position against the Shia community.
Today I heard the Minister of Interior who is a decent person mentioning the “Aazaz kidnapped” each and every time he mentioned the Turkish kidnapped pilot! Please Mr. Charbel, pay attention to what you say. You are dealing with an international crisis and not a situation “a la Libanaise”, where one can say whatever he wants without checks and balances!
In addition, I noticed that radio talk shows today did not give any importance to the kidnapping event!
As to the civil society and the Lebanese who just like to have fun, there is a clear puzzling non concern and laissez faire attitude. No real buzz on social media and no salon discussions.
Aren’t they aware that:
¼    There are today around 500 Turkish tourists in Lebanon. Their departure is a loss to an already damaged tourist sector.
¼    The kidnapping of the Turkish pilot validates the decision of the Gulf Countries’ decision of warning their citizens from coming to Lebanon. An action that ruined the summer touristic season.
¼    Turkish airlines offered good prices with excellent service for all those travelling to destinations to which there is no direct flight from Beirut. If they stop their flight it will complicate more travelling from Beirut which is already complicate due to low traffic to the world.
¼    Turkey is the last country to allow entry for Lebanese without visa. If they opt to cancel this measure it will mean total lock on Lebanese passport holders. No place to go if you do not plan two months in advance.
And much more……I could go on for pages and pages.
Why aren’t the Lebanese reacting to the absurdity of the situation?

All of Lebanon seems to have morphed into Vladimir and Estragon waiting for Godot!

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

The Syrian opposition need to rise to the occasion

Today I read a post from a Syrian activist that goes 

“Interesting that G8 mentions Al-Qaeda by name but not Hezbollah”

My answer:      
Hezbollah and Iran are part of the “game of nations” which makes them predictable players.
A good example is what happened during the run for the presidential election in Iran. The Ayatollah establishment read well the national and international pulse and concluded that it is time to release popular steam and entice the West to some flexibility as to economic sanctions. They allowed the weakest and most conservative of reformers to run for the elections. In parallel they allowed the conservative voice to be split over many conservative candidates. That is a smart move.

On the other hand al-Qaeda is a loose entity. It is the scarecrow that allows Obama and Putin to work out a new cold war style agreement. Once again it will be at the expense of the Arab renaissance. It is a sort of flash back to the sixties/seventies cold war scenario of limited and contained struggles within delimited borders of influence between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Remember the Prague Spring, Pinochet, Apartheid, and Cuba. Remember in the Arab world the demise of Arab nationalist civil movements by military dictatorship or Islamic movements backed by the U.S. for some and the Soviet Union for others.

My answer to the Arab intelligentsia, stop blaming your enemies for being good strategists!
The Syrian oppositions need NOW to think out of the box and adopt an effective strategy.

Sunday, June 9, 2013

The doom of free speech in Lebanon

Today, 9 June 2013, members of INTIMAA, a group of Lebanese Shia opposed to Hezbollah policies arrived to the Iranian embassy to hold a sit to protest against Hezbollah armed intervention in Syria. The organizers of the event had applied for and got an official authorization from the Security Forces who were informed of the time and place of the demonstration. Before getting out of the car, a group of Hezbollah members dressed in black shirt Iranian Batheej style, forbade the media photographers from approaching the scene and attacked the group hitting them with sticks. Then they started shooting killing one person. The security forces did not interfere to protect the civilians, and by 8 PM the Security Forces had not sent investigators to the hospital where the wounded were treated. The army issued a statement declaring that there were clashed between two groups without any clarification.
Lebanon guarantees free speech to Shias to protest in front of the Turkish embassy and close the airport road, and gives the right to various civil society groups to protest in freedom square. But it is forbidden for any Shia person or group to take any position against Hezbollah or Iran and the governmental institution will not protect the freedom of Shias to speak against Iran.
It is permitted for religious fascism to control the Shia community, it is an internal story and no governmental or political institutions will support the dissidents.
The so called West takes clear position against Sunni fundamentalism and calls them terrorists while Shia fundamentalism is acceptable and tolerated as deals under the table are under way with Iran.
This morning, I heard a journalist and analyst I respect equating the responsibility between all Lebanese factions. This might be true as to political strategies, but if we do not point the finger at armed factions outside the control of the government as the primary source of destruction of the rule of law we are dooming the country.
The Lebanese Christian communities lived a situation close to the actual Shia experience during the early eighties when the status quo armed forces forbade dissent within the regions they controlled forcing those who did not agree to be banned from the country.

I am dreading the time when Sunni fundamentalism resort to institutional armed actions, wins over moderation, and takes control of the Sunni Lebanese community by force, shutting down voices of reason.

Sunday, May 12, 2013

The Syria tragedy through the eyes of a good man


Suleiman is a Syrian construction worker that has been working in Lebanon for more than twenty years. He is a good handyman and I contract him for odd jobs when need be. He is from the Houran area near Daraa, he is tall with clear eyes and a calm smile. Over the years we had nice discussions. I enjoy his straight forward look at life.
When Hafez Assad was president of Syria he seemed always satisfied with his life. He doesn’t ask for much; good food, building a home in his village, and providing for his family. Some years ago, after Bashar Assad became president, Suleiman started complaining that costs of sugar, tea, and fuel were increasing. He often looked worried about the future.
Then the Tunisia and Egypt revolutions started and he told me “this cannot happen in Syria because Bashar will do like his father did in Hama. He will bomb us with planes and kill us all”. I will never forget the stupid answer I gave him “no, today nothing can be hidden with the new technologies, and the world cannot accept that somebody bombs and kills his people”. I was more naïve that he and these words I said in all faith will haunt me forever. I mislead him; it is clear that the world does not care.
I saw Suleiman months later and he told me the story of kids in Daraa that were arrested and beaten because they were chanting around the school. He seemed upset. Then I got to know from the media about the Daraa children tortured and killed by the security forces. Then we started seeing people in the street clapping their hands and chanting against what has happening.
Again I saw Suleiman and he seemed upbeat very hopeful that change was coming to Syria. He told me that all in his region have rifles but that they wanted to keep the revolution peaceful. He explained that for this reason they were clapping their hands. They wanted to show that they were unarmed. And he was angry because the soldiers were shooting at the demonstrators and that the soldiers that did not shoot were killed by their superiors. He told me “we refuse to be slaves for much longer, finish, now we want our freedom and dignity”!
Two months later I asked for Suleiman to come to do a paint job for a friend of mine. His roommate told me that Suleiman went back home. Seeing pictures of civilians killed daily by the army got me to worry about him. Then he came to me and when I asked him how it was in his village. This big man broke down in tears. He described to me how his 17 years old nephew had his photo broadcasted on television while stamping a picture of Bashar Assad during a demonstration. The secret service took him and cut both his legs from the knee down in punishment. Then his voice broke and he told me that his other nephew who is a soldier was shot in the head by his superior when he refused to shoot at the villagers. The army brought his body to his mother and forced her to sign a declaration saying that her son was shot by terrorists that broke into their house.
I remembered my words and hated myself for them.
From then on, each time I came across Suleiman he had a horror story to share with me and slowly I saw this kind man become angry and bitter. Until one day he told me about the Free Syrian Army who was protecting the villagers. He was proud and full of hope. He idealized these brave soldiers that were protecting them and told me that the world will now help the revolution to get rid of Bashar.
He was wrong, the air bombing started and the massacres increased, and each time I saw him he was more and more angry. He used to ask me “do you think that now they will help us now?” What he meant by “they” was the West and the Arab countries. I did not know what to answer. I was losing faith and hope by the day with the so called “International Community” and the talk of upholding human rights.
Then one day he came to me and told me about the fundamentalists that were now fighting with the revolution and that they had lots of money and better weapons than the Free Army but that nobody really liked them.
Time passed and this nice, good hearted man started to carry hatred. He started talking about Alawites instead of Bashar forces; he started to curse against the United States who was doing nothing while the Iranians and Russians were helping Bashar.
Suleiman lost two brothers, tens of cousins, nephews, and friends. Today he carries hatred in his heart and despair. His sparkling eyes are now dull and when he smiles, it is a sad smile. But I never heard him say that he regretted what happened. He is always saying that living with dignity and freedom is what he is dreaming off and that there is no way that he could forgive Bashar or accept that he remains president of Syria.
Suleiman personifies the Syrian tragedy and for me remains the symbol of my failure, and the failure of all those who believe in freedom and dignity. We failed the people of Syria.
Albert Einstein once said “the world will not be destroyed by the people who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything”.

Sunday, May 5, 2013

The jolt of landing in Beirut


The plane touches down, in a split second passengers are standing, opening the head luggage cabins, an announcement is heard “passengers are asked to keep sitting in their seat with their seat belts buckled until the plane comes to a stop”. A number of passengers sit down, many keep on moving. Another announcement “Stay in you seats until the plane comes to a stop”. A number sit down, others remain standing. Another announcement “Stay seated!” Four remain standing while the plane is taxiing, and the announcement is not repeated, the head steward gave up! Five minutes later the plane comes to a standstill, and passengers rush to the door.
After a walk in the airport, we reach the pass control area. There is a long queue. I am tired but stand in line believing that a number of planes landed simultaneously. Half an hour standing in line I realize that our plane is the only one to have landed. Why the long queue? Each and every passenger takes three to four minutes of processing! Back hurting my turn comes and I reach a young man sitting behind a desk. “Good evening” I say. He looks at me with stern eyes, takes the passport and the landing card I had to fill. I stay standing for four minutes while he punches in one finger on a keyboard and fill some data on the landing card I handed him. All the while he is looking at me with the stern eyes of an investigator and suddenly I start feeling like a suspect in some unknown crime. And I realize my guilt. Landing in Beirut is a crime; everybody is guilty until proven innocent!
I pass the test and proceed to the baggage belt. No porters or wagons are available, so I pull my bag and proceed to the exit. Again a long line due to a bottle neck, where a civilian is standing asking each person from where he is coming, processes some to a customs checks while the rest is cleared to the exit door. I emerge from the exit door to a tide of people standing behind the arrival barriers while others are crowding just at the exit so I have to elbow my way to be able to reach the airport door. As soon as I pass the door I get hit by the smell of car pollution. I look around expecting to find the taxi I pre-ordered waiting. But where!? It is puzzling, there is no taxi waiting area, cars are double and sometimes quadruple parked. Police officers are standing there overlooking the Chaos.
Finally I manage to reach my destination to try and take a good night sleep in a city where noise pollution is like a cloud that engulfs the atmosphere in a hum that is constant.
The next morning, talking to family and friends, I realize suddenly that I am a nagger! I just complain about nothing. Everything in Beirut is perfect, it is true that there are some things that do not function perfectly well, but the Chaos has its charm.
I learned my lesson and was enlightened about my status of spoiled brat, expecting order, basic respect of my rights, and the pursuit of happiness!

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

President Obama, we are fed up!


The White House is worried about the use of chemical weapons in Syria is what I read today on the news reel. Honestly, enough is enough...
The US has the right to adopt any foreign policy it chooses; the duty of the President is to decide his policy based on what he deems is the proper course of action to protect the American interests around the world. That does not mean that I agree with his analysis, but who am I to give him advice he knows better. Maybe it is in the interest of the US to dither and stand idle looking at a cruel despot indiscriminately bombing his own people from the air, with ballistic missiles, cluster bombs… just because they took to the streets to chant for freedom. Maybe it is in the interest of the US to look at the torturing of children, the use of rape as a weapon, and unbelievable horror stories we heard from refugees while worrying about the rise of terrorism in Syria. Maybe it is the interest of the US to frown at “Extremisms” forgetting the despair in the eyes of children and women who put their trust in the international community who ended failing them by not being true to the what is supposed to be their own values.
Please, Mr President, take any position you want, but respectfully we ask you do not declare or mention concerns and values. It is more than angering, it is depressing.
Many of those who believe in your internal policy and in the values set forth by the Renaissance and the Founding Fathers of the United States of America do not understand.
It is expected that Europe will not lead. It is expected that the old Arab world fails the Syrian people. It is expected that the nascent Arab democracies fail the Syrian people. But our frail underdeveloped brains cannot understand why the Syrian freedom fighters and the innocent Syrian people suddenly became terrorists and why it is the interest of the US to turn a blind eye to the crimes committed by the Assad regime.
At the end of the day, whatever happens, the real losers will not be the Western world. The losers will be those who have been fighting religious extremism in this part of the world for very long and failed. The struggle started since Muslim extremist Afghans fighting against the Soviet Union were called “freedom fighters” and came back to haunt us in the Arab world.

Saturday, March 2, 2013

Lebanese news shows are infuriating!


Every day the Lebanese viewer is submitted to a flood of news shows. The most common format is a host interviewing a politician or opinion leader. You often get a feel of BBC’s Hardtalk program set up. Sadly, the so called reporter, anchor man, or whatever you want to call them, retained from Tim Sebastian only his aggressive tone and ironic remarks. What they missed is that the most difficult exercise is not to cross the fine line between irony and rudeness. Irony is based on intelligent and well researched comments.

What we get on Lebanese political shows is an absurd match where the host throws at the interviewed statements that do not pass the most basic level of fact check or background research. The nice well-dressed over make upped Lebanese hosts believe that challenging the person facing them is to just adopt totally the position of the opposing political faction even if the opinions stated are absurd. The whole show becomes a bickering match with no interest. Watching the show you rarely get information or clarification or news. All you end up with is annoying high pitched interruptions and often answers that do not make sense as the interviewed loses patience.

If the politician or opinion leader drilled in a crude rude manner preserves his calm and come up with an interesting answer, the host starts emitting a strange noise “hum –pause- hummm –pause- hum hum”. This strange acoustic irony is a Lebanese trade mark. It is rude, annoying, and confirms your feeling of watching a classical kids brawl. The first one says in a provoking tone “Did not!” the other quickly replies “Did too!” the first one strikes back “Did not!”, “Did too!” “Did not!” until the all mighty commercial break ends your misery.

If you have the patience to stay glued to your screen until the end of the show, you end up with a headache and trembling hands. Maybe these shows are the reason behind the local culture of honking and aggressive driving culture…

Thursday, February 21, 2013

Is Lebanon on the brink of civil war?



The fate of Lebanon is uncertain. I can feel a cold wind that reminds me of 1975, the official start of the Lebanese Civil War.

Tuesday 19th February 2013, lawmakers in the joint parliamentary committees discussing electoral drafts approved the controversial Orthodox Gathering proposal. The draft electoral law enables every religious sect (19 officially recognized in Lebanon) to exclusively elect their own MPs under a proportional representation system, with Lebanon as a single district. In short, it strips Lebanese citizens of their right to vote for a candidate of a different sect, reducing national identity to allegiance to the sect. It disregards geographical communities in favor or religious communities. Each sectorial tribe isolates itself in its own virtual ghetto.

The law is illegitimate; it is a source of discrimination among citizens. It also goes against the hopes and aspirations of those that are calling for a civil state where the rule of law is applied. However, these aspects are not the source of imminent danger. The real threat lies into the fact that the law resuscitates the Christian Muslim divide. The 14th of March 2005 was the beginning of a reconciliation process that seemed to have put the divisions of the civil war behind Lebanese society. Parties that fought during the war participated together under each other banners in all events calling for sovereignty. The sentiments sipped into the populations and the most fundamentalists started accepting the other openly.
Today sadly, the Lebanese Christians are again taking stands that are suicidal in nature. They are a minority as to numbers yet they have a quota of half the members of parliament, the President of the Republic should be Maronite, the Army Chief and the Governor of the Central bank too. They have also a set quota in the first grade positions in the bureaucracy and army. In short, they have much more power than their numbers would allow. Today, under the leadership of their church, they made a tribal sectarian alliance across the political divide of March 14th and March 8th to ask for more, a more that in reality is a less. They want to live alone, in a ghetto of their own and for protection would consider an alliance of minorities, Maronites, Shia, and maybe Alawites? This alliance appears to be in essence against the Arabs who happen to be in their majority Sunnis? For those who lived the Lebanese Civil War debuts, it brings back bad memories. It is clear that most did not learn their lesson.

The question that needs an answer is “why did Lebanon reach this dangerous boiling point?”

The regional direct and indirect conflicts have a definite influence on the Lebanese political stalemate. The Obama foreign policy of making deals with Iran and Russia at the expense of the Arab regional component whether in the Arab Spring countries or the Gulf area has compiled the polarisation in Lebanon, giving Hezbollah and his allied a sense of empowerment. It also drove Walid Jumblatt to shift alliances in an effort to protect his Druze community and his power base. By doing so he delivered the government into the hands of the Syrian-Iranian duo. It gave the two Maronite parties (Kataeb and Lebanese Forces) allied with the 14th of March a feeling of insecurity from being left alone that threw them again on the road to isolationism.

Many do not understand the new American policy and feel it does not have direction, others view it as a policy centred on a strange combination of the Nixon doctrine and the Carter doctrine. The Nixon/Ford foreign policy doctrine is best defined by Nixon’s own words "the United States would assist in the defence and developments of allies and friends," but would not "undertake all the defence of the free nations of the world". This doctrine explains the callous ignorance by Obama of a dictator massacring his own people just for their call for freedom in Syria. On the other hand the Carter Doctrine warned against “outside” control of the oil-rich Persian Gulf affirming that such “an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.” Iran represents such a threat however there is a growing belief in Obama’s Washington that a nuclear-capable Iran can be contained, just as the Soviet Union was during the Cold War. Accordingly Obama imposed the most stringently crippling sanctions while showing readiness to make a deal with Iran in Syria and by extension Lebanon. This could prove a costly policy. Iran is no the Soviet Union. It is ruled by Shia fundamentalism that ultimately believes that the end of the world will bring back the Mehdi. Iran is also ruled by Persian fanatics whose ethnic historical hatred of Arabs has no limitations. On the other hand, destroying hope and nascent democracy in the Arab world gives free hand to Sunni fundamentalism, a jinni that the US liberated from the bottle in Afghanistan during the cold war. It can burn around it and the flame can reach far away.

Lebanese Christians betting on an American support of the minority alliance might be a losing bet. Lebanon can at any time be sold again to foreign influence, this time Shia fundamentalism and Iran. The Iranian domination in Lebanon has already driven Arab Gulf countries to issue a travel warning. Lebanon cannot survive without the Gulf countries that since the fifties have been the fuel of economic growth. With the destruction of the economy more and more Christians will emigrate as well as a brain drain from all sects. Walid Jumblatt and the Druze will suffer most of this situation. Historically they cannot be part of the minorities’ alliance. Their role, most probably will be reduced to the size of their numbers. Playing the middle ground might not have been a sound choice in the face of Iranian imperialism. Druze are on the brink of breaking their Arab connection inside Lebanon and outside the borders. In such a scenario, civil war is taking place now. Today it is a cold civil war.

Answering the question “why is Lebanon on the brink of civil war” there is no escape from addressing the role played by the 14th of March locomotive, Hariri and the Future Movement. Lack of leadership and incompetence have sped the process. At each and every stage since 2005, lack of vision and strategic planning drove the movement to the wall. They were not able to capitalize on their strength in 2005 and 2006. Compromises were made with Hezbollah and Syria without a real understanding that compromise is not a strategy. It is a tactical move that needs to be well studied. If one follows the way the battle for a new electoral law was lead, it is clear that there was no direction and no preparation. Their strategy was refusal, never presenting a livable alternative, and at each level they were surprised by a master strategist, Berri supported by Hezbollah, until they lost their allies and the possibility of manoeuvre.

Today their only choice is to accept the Orthodox electoral law, but to insist on removing the proportional component. They and their allies might preserve majority in parliament, thus preventing a total takeover of the country by the 8th of March alliance.

This blog was published in Middle East Transparent http://www.middleeasttransparent.com/spip.php?article21523 

Monday, February 11, 2013

Patriarch Rai renounces the legacy of Pope John Paul II

He went to Syria, hosted by a regime that indiscriminately air bombs its own people, tortures children, has institutionalized rape, rips the throats of singers who chant freedom, and said 
“Every person who is killed, every time blood is spilled, tears flow from the eyes of Christ. Human life is invaluable, and there are no so-called reforms, human rights or democracies that are worth the blood of one innocent man,”

He forgot that Pope John Paul II valuing the so called human rights said "We are all called upon to do everything possible to banish from society not only the tragedy of war but also every violation of human rights 

He forgot that Pope John Paul II declared “The Church calls everyone to make faith a reality in their lives, as the best path . . . for attaining true freedom, which includes the recognition of human rights and social justice." 

He stepped over the legacy of John Paul II that has been credited with being the spiritual inspiration behind the downfall communism in Central and Eastern Europe. 
John Paul valued human life, but valued the dignity of life and the march towards freedom and human rights. In the late 70's, there were in Poland bloody clashes between workers and police. Five priests disappeared in a short period of time. The police killed a popular student leader. John Paul II, then known as Cardinal Wojtyla became more and more outspoken, calling openly and concretely for the "right to freedom...an atmosphere of genuine freedom untrammeled ..un-threatened; an atmosphere of inner freedom, of freedom from fearing what may befall me if I act this way or go to that place." 

This is what Syrians were calling for when they stayed for months in the streets chanting and clapping to show that they are not armed. Since the first day, the Assad regime faced them with bullets and arrests. The death rate was 20 to 30 per day. 

In 1979, Pope John Paul II addressing those who were struggling against communism in Warsaw simply said: 'Do not be afraid', and later prayed: 'Let your Spirit descend and change the image of the land... this land'. Cardinal Rai told the believers that so-called reforms, human rights or democracies that are not worth it. He did not pray for change in the land. He told worshipers outside the church: “[I pray] that the consciences of local, regional and international leaders are inspired to put an immediate end to the war in dear Syria ... and bring peace through dialogue.” 

Again he forgot the words of John Paul II "True holiness does not mean a flight from the world; rather, it lies in the effort to incarnate the Gospel in everyday life, in the family, at school and at work, and in social and political involvement." 

I AM LOST AT FINDING WORDS TO CONDEMN OR EXPLAIN OR UNDERSTAND. I AM JUST DISTRESSED.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Lebanon cannot be ruled by "fatwa"


I could not believe the words blasted on the radio. Mufti Kabbani was literary excommunicating any Lebanese Sunni politician who approves institutionalizing voluntary civil marriage in Lebanon!

With all respect, your “excellence” you do not have the authority to make such statements. The Grand Mufti is a governmental employee of the Lebanese Republic representing Sunni citizens at the official authorities in Lebanon and abroad. He heads Dar Alfatwa which is the Sunni Muslim authority Office. He does not have the religious authority of an Ayatollah. In the Sunni sect there is no “wilayat al fakeeh” position. The Sunni Taliban style of Islam allows for such a position. I doubt that many Sunnis in Lebanon approve the Taliban style of mixing state with religion. In Lebanon the Prime Minister represents the Sunnis in issues related to civil life and politics. The Grand Mufti deals with the administration of religion. Ruling by “fatwas” is not the norm.

It is not surprising that Mufti Kabbani springs to the occasion of being seen as the defender of Sunni Lebanese within the actual power struggle within the sect. It is a good occasion to confirm his authority. On another level, the “ambiance” in the country where the Maronite Patriarch meddles in secular issues and defends the rights of the Christians while the Shia community falls behind the Iranian Ayatollah is conductive to such posturing. Let’s not forget that in the face of offensive statements and actions by Christians and Shias, the Sunni community is starting to turn away from moderation and we saw during the last two years the rise of fundamentalist Sunni movements all around the country.
The other 18 Lebanese religious denominations whether Christian, Muslim, or Jew are ducking low. They surely do not approve the voluntary civil marriage that removes part of their authority over the lives of citizens. Family Law Courts are a source of income and dominion. They are just trying to stay out of the discourse. Why to start a controversial battle when Mufti Kabbani is on the forefront of the confrontation? It is definitely a smart and self-promoting position.

The problem is not situated within the realm of religions and sectarian powers. The real challenge resides in the populism and incompetence of parliamentarians and secular leaders. Many Lebanese MPs are for the introduction of the voluntary civil law, yet we are not hearing their voice. They are not going public with their opinion. Such issues are tricky during an election period. They are missing a chance to be truthful to their belief. They are missing a chance to give a country divided a first step towards unity around a nation state rather than sects and tribes; more so the MPs representing the moderate Sunnis within the Future Movement and the 14th of March coalition. It is their chance to take a clear direction and stop dithering. The minimum action is to clearly refuse Mufti Kabbani’s action. Sadly, it is clear that they are hoping to attract the moderates and the fundamentalists. Again and again they are adopting a wrong strategy and wrong electoral tactics. Many of the electorate of the 14th of March movement are now disabused, they will not vote for colorless politicians.

The President of the Republic took a courageous stand supporting the institution of a voluntary civil marriage law in Lebanon. It will remove the discrimination against those who do not believe in sectarian citizenship. It upholds the Constitution that states that all Lebanese citizens have the same rights and duties independent of their creed or race. This is an opportunity to fall behind his leadership on this issue. I am not calling for the creation of a new icon leader. We can disagree on many issues with the President while supporting his actual courageous stand.

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Hope for women in Arab Spring countries



The plane was starting to land. I gazed down at Tunis airport and pondered the wisdom of my decision to attend the “Arab Women’s Network Regional workshop for Social Democratic women in January 2013”. A decade ago I took the decision to refrain from attending regional Arab women seminars. These occasions were a source of frustration, they just depressed me. Many participants were women designated by authoritarian regimes that spoke along set party lines. Contributions and intervention were restricted by the exclusion of relevant subject matters that were tabooed by the organizers as hosting countries had restricted freedom of speech laws. The changes around the Arab region were an encouraging factor in my decision. I was hoping to meet women that were part of the revolutions or the change movements in Egypt and the Maghreb region.

The first item on the agenda of the first day, January 19th of January read “Welcome- Iyes Fakhfakh, Minister of Finance and Tourism”. I braced myself to be bored. My experience with old regimes' officials was monotonous speeches that praise the Leader. Mr. Fakhfakh, a charismatic professional looking young man surprised me. His speech was concise, up to the point and interesting. It did not deviate from the theme of the workshop. That represented for me a first indication that I was experiencing a new Tunisia and maybe some of the early positive signs of the Arab Spring era.
The second speaker was Lobna Jeribi, member of the Tunisian National Constituent Assembly. It was very encouraging to hear about the experience of a young woman activist taking part in a process so crucial to shaping the Tunisia of the future.
As soon as the first session was underway, I started to understand that this event was different in a positive way. The format of the workshop and the moderation strategy, a joint effort by the initiators and funders were innovative and conductive to focused dialogue. The “Labour Party/Westminster Foundation for Democracy” and the “CEE Network for Gender Issues” got it right about how to go about to facilitate the formation of a functional network. It is a good example of how European organizations can fund projects that emanate from the needs of the beneficiaries and in parallel shadow the project in order to fill in the gaps coming from lack of experience. Guidance and shadowing are two crucial factors in the formation of networks. So is funding during the start-up phase.

As time went by and from one session to another, the social democrat Arab woman network project started to take shape. The participants and organizers were equally committed to serious work. Even the after lunch sessions when all are usually sleepy were intense! My usual cynicism just melted like ice in spring.

I came back with hope for women in the Arab Spring countries.

The Tunisia Ettakatol team had such a variety of competent and committed young women that I am confident they will be able to further their agenda soon. They have the advantage of real support within the ranks of their party that is today part of the ruling coalition. The team from Morocco surprised me. I have to say that my knowledge of what is happening in this country is lacking. I met very determined progressive women with set strategies and goals. Their tactics are innovative and well-studied. What they achieved until today within the actual context is impressive. The Egypt team reflected the status quo in the country; very competent progressive women as individuals, yet a lack of unified strategy at the party level. The birth process in Egypt is difficult, but necessary. The future may still hold focused positive change. The Lebanon team’s contribution was lessons learned from decades of activism. It sadly came in the form of a negation “what not to do if we want to succeed”. Realistically the women’s movement in Lebanon has been facing failure after failure for the last fifteen years. When we talk about achievements, we need to go back to the last century!

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

The solution: a 20th Lebanese sect, the secularists!


In an effort to take the dialogue and current discussion about the Election Law to a higher level, Professor Georges Saad together with a number of professors at the Lebanese University announced:
The Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Lebanese University is organizing a conference Monday, January 14, 2013 in the conference hall of the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Lebanese University, Rachaya on the following topic:
"The legal approach-philosophical idea of “Federalism"
The purpose of the conference is to generate discussion around the idea of “Federalism” that is considered “taboo” in Lebanon, and thus is rarely addressed. Federalism has been misunderstood in the Arab World and Lebanon. In its original form Federalism is Unitarian and can be compared to the fraternal bonds within a family. The Taif Accords of 1990 stated that Lebanon should walk along the road of decentralization. Today, 2013, and nothing has been done to implement the Taif Accords. In this seminar select scholars will try to answer the question of “How to familiarize the Arab public with the real meaning of decentralization and/or federalism?” and more specifically “What are the implications of decentralization or federalism on a country such as Lebanon?
Such initiatives are much needed. The arguments we hear today from the Deputies and political parties are as deep as a tea cup, populist, xenophobic, racist, in short absurd.  They do not address the core of the problem which is how to promote the idea of a democratic nation state where the rights of small majorities (the Muslim denominations) and significant minorities (the Christian sects) are guaranteed.
The Taif Accord proposed the solution of decentralization and the formation of a senate where religious denominations are represented while the Parliament represents the national unity of the country. During the Syrian hegemony period on Lebanon, the Taif Accord’s implementation was delayed, and since 2005 the 14th of March movement did not give it enough attention; one of the many leadership shortcomings of this movement.
Today, Christian parties, instead of calling for the implementation of Taif are calling for a measure that goes beyond decentralization or federalism; they are calling for total separation, a vertical schism with baseline the 19 Lebanese denominations.
May I ask, what about citizens that do not identify themselves according to their religion or sect? We should maybe call for the formation of a 20th sect, the secularists!

Sunday, January 13, 2013

A reckless stance by Lebanon’s Christians


Kafkaesque is the only adjective I can think off when hearing what the major Christians parties -with the blessing of the Maronite Patriarch- are proposing to “reform” the Lebanese Parliamentary Election Law.
Facts: Christians in Lebanon represent numerically less than 30 percent of the population yet they are guaranteed a quota of 50 percent of the parliamentary seats in addition to the position of President of the Republic that is restricted to Maronite Christians. The country official holiday is Sunday and celebrates all Christian religious holidays. Family Law for Christians is ruled by the Church who has the authority on the civil side of the Law to censure books and movies. At this point in time, religious leaders and major political parties representing Muslims whether Shia or Sunni or Druze are not contesting Christian privileges.
Can any sane persons explain why Christians are today demanding that the Christian deputies be elected restrictively by Christians? How can this request be conductive to the building of the Nation State and the Lebanese identity? How can they envision that their Muslim co-citizens that represent more than 65 percent of the population agree graciously to elect only 50 percent of the members of parliament? How can they believe that such a prejudiced action will not lead to a reaction within the Muslim community requesting a fair sectarian proportional representation in parliament? Their action equals shooting oneself in the foot!
There is a real need for a wakeup call within the Christian intelligentsia. The ghetto mentality will materialize a nightmare where other denominations start viewing the Christians as a minority and demand that their role is reduced from a leadership one to the status of minorities whose rights are protected in democracies.
Christians in the early twentieth century played a leadership role in the Arab cultural awakening and the struggle for independence. The prize was a democratic secular Lebanon where they rule. Lebanon, dubbed then the “Switzerland of the Middle East” was a bubble of open economy and free expression in a sea of military dictatorships and religious Caliphates. Today, within the context of the Arab Spring, incompetent Christian leadership is retracting into their holes, confirming their minority status. They are irrationally hoping to realize some alliance of minorities within the region. This will lead to the death of Lebanon as we know it today.
Sadly their actions will lead to unabated sectarian divisions and will affect mostly the Lebanese that believe in a nation state as described by the preamble of the constitution
(…) c. Lebanon is a parliamentary democratic republic based on respect for public liberties, especially the freedom of opinion and belief, and respect for social justice and equality of rights and duties among all citizens without discrimination.
(…)
h. The abolition of political confessionalism is a basic national goal and shall be achieved according to a gradual plan.
i. Lebanese territory is one for all Lebanese.  Every Lebanese has the right to live in any part of it and to enjoy the sovereignty of law wherever he resides.  There is nosegregation of the people on the basis of any type of belonging, and no fragmentation, partition, or colonization.