Monday, February 26, 2007

Another Drunk Poem

(Written in 5 minutes, so I know it will be a disastrous poem...)

Questions we seek
Answers we never hear
Singing to the shadow of the moon
And realized that it was blasted noon

We think we have a real in life
To fight with a never ending strife
A quest to know oneself first
Which unfolds daily with a thirst

He who shall find me insane
I shall never listen in vain
I am what I am for eternity
A revolutionary seeking serenity

Hoping for freedom of the collective
Away from politicians who are deceptive
If hell ever existed in reality
I shall see them roasting for eternity

The call of the revolution calls me
I shall fight and sail over the sea
The Revolution one day shall come
And it shall be, as written, sung

No more we shall hear their woes
Those damned politicians, our foes!
We shall dance upon their graves
As if it was our last days

Hate me if you want
You know I am blunt
This is your truth of the situation
Feel free to spit at its saturation

I have overcome all forms of slavery
I do not worship any figures of treachery
I look at you as a free comrade from above
And hoping to roast your leader in a dove

Those who shall dance to the tunes of their leader
Christians and Muslims, you are their feeder
The people will burn their leader as a swine
And I happily, shall drink my RED wine!

Saturday, February 24, 2007

Global Capitalism, Welfare State, and Lebanon

First: Shocking Numbers of Capitalism under US Imperialism and the World Trade Organization

- Top 100 economic entities are divided as follows: 51 Corporations & 49 Nation States (Susan George, From Corporate Globalization, Anti-Capitalism: A Guide to the Movement, Bookmarks Publications Ltd., London 2001, P. 11)

- The top 200 firms are responsible for about a quarter of all measured economic activity in the world – or the gross world product. Also, over 3.4 Trillion dollars rotate the globe per day in terms of Direct Foreign Investments leaving the market volatile. (Susan George, From Corporate Globalization, Anti-Capitalism: A Guide to the Movement, Bookmarks Publications Ltd., London 2001, P. 12)

- Some statistics reveal that only 10% of the world’s available force are working in the Trans National Corporation (Ibid, P. 12)

- Suzan George says: “a mere 1 percent shift in the holdings of these giants is equivalent to more than a quarter of the entire stock market capitalization of all the emerging markets of Asia taken together, and to two thirds of the value of all Latin America.” (Ibid, P. 13)

- Transportation, the number of employees who have their jobs outside their country increased 200% in 1970 – 1990 ( Teresa Brennan, Globalization and its Threats (Rout ledge, 2003), P. 23-25)

- This is demonstrated in the unequal distribution of wealth were 60 percent of global wealth is concentrated in 11 percent of the world’s population excluding the middle class. (Tony Cliff, Marxism at the Millennium, 2000) (MFL notes: the difference differed as Samir Amin revealed in his book Obsoletism Capitalism)

- The WTO officials always argue that their institution fights to help for the poor. By 2001, more than 85% of the world’s population lives in nations with increasing inequality. The debt of the Third World countries have been increasing rather than the opposite, and has become a devastating weight on the people living in those countries. The corporation has shut their governments’ voices through the World Bank and International Mutual Fund, but they were wrong if they keep their people silent for long. (Amory Starr, Global Revolt, Zed Books 2005, P.33-37)

- By 2000, this ratio was totally reversed and now: 90 per cent of international transactions are from financial flows that are not directly related to trade in goods and services. (Ann Petifor, Anti-Capitalism: A Guide to the Movement, Bookmarks Publications Ltd., London 2001, P. 43)

- Top 10 banks in the world (mostly American, German, and British) control 52% of the international market. (Robin Round, Globalize This! Common Courage Press, Maine 2000, P. 178)

- Despite the “economic growth,” global unemployment has also increased. This means that one third of the world’s labor, which is one billion workers, is either unemployed or underplayed, which means the workers need to work more. (Teresa Brennan, Globalization and its Threats (Rout ledge, 2003), P. 26-27)

- The number is 1.4 billion, and that number is specific to urban residents. With increased fossil fuel consumption and telecommunication networks. The WHO European Office concluded that 80,000 deaths are due to air pollution in Europe alone. (Ibid, P. 41)

- For how long the world can tolerate the starvation, in December 10 2004, UNICEF issued its annual report that shocked the social movements, and focused on how around 1 billion child are denied their childhood. “Almost one billion children all over the world are denied at least one of seven commodities deemed essential: shelter, water, sanitation, schooling, information, healthcare and food. At least 640 million children lack adequate shelter, while 140 million have never been to school. Safe water is something that 400 million children are denied while 500 million live without basic sanitation. No less than 90 million starved.” In 2001, the number of estimated children starving was much less. As capitalism advances with time, the number of people hurt increases. The demand for action also increases, and the more people are hurt, the more activists are joining the lines. (Defense of Marxism, December 14, 2004, Maarten Vanheuverswyn: One Billion Children In Extreme Poverty, A Holocaust At A Global Scale, link)

Also, over 3.4 Trillion dollars rotate the globe per day in terms of Direct Foreign Investments leaving the market volatile.

Second:Downfall of the Welfare State

While Social Democracy focused, prior the eighties, on the Welfare State (like Sweden), now the Third Way is abolishing the welfare services system. The governments of the OCED figured out that privatization are a good way to save money burdens on their institutions. The logic of the Welfares is to have everyone follow the policy of “pay-as-you-go”, along with progressive taxes in order to ensure money to the needy of the society. With privatization, things took a different curve. Cutting welfares on the poor overall does not cause a political fuss from the overall population, especially those who can make their voices heard. Ever since privatization has taken place, in the reign of globalization, securities have been gradually declining. The Third Way assumes that the citizens should have more responsibilities, and should take care of themselves more often.

One problem rises with that logic, the progressive taxation system, which focuses on each person paying their taxes in percentage of their income has been reversed. The elites do not pay taxes as they should, and the corporation officials have been offered taxation incentives. The logic behind the hosting country to a TNC is that TNCs open job vacancies in an economy. Yet, it is the middle class, who are gradually being eradicated, and the lower classes that pay the prices with increased taxations and shortage of welfare services. The burden goes even more deeply especially governmental revenues are switched from corporate taxes to the people. Eventually, welfare services and pension funds are gradually being abolished due privation and globalization.

Third: Lebanon

As mentioned in several posts, the late ex-prime minister, Rafiq Harriri, wanted to bury Lebanon in such a system to attain independence from Syrian Hegemony + to suit his own business interests. Aoun and Hezbollah do not oppose the entrance of Lebanon to the World Trade Organization (WTO) rather they worry about the increased Value Added Taxes instead to what system Lebanon is going to enter. A topic I will tackle more and more in details to shed light to what system we are entering rather watching Junblatt, Jaajaa, Aoun, or Moussawi making monkeys out of their followers.

That is why I do not believe in any form of nationalism, whoever will take power, they are going to starve their people. The rich will get richer and the poor poorer. I may sound a defeatest in this theory, but if the WTO organization and its horrors, to which we will become members in 2007, does not push activism to a new level with a better class awareness, then Lebanon is a sitting duck to economical imperialism as well as Lebanon lacking any social movements/political parties to oppose the hegemony of the market. The world is bigger that tiny Lebanese nationalism, and in the end, whoever wins in this clash, we will remain disgusted from the situation.

As you see, Lebanon is entering that system without any capability or social movement/political party to face such a system. Moreover, class inequality already on the increase and we shall be buried to ashes with debts. Till now, only Chile is successful to eliminate its debts. Lebanon already lacks welfare system, and worse, if we had a minimum structure, it will be demolished except for those who can afford it. The government and the opposition neglect that fact while the opposition are worried about the increase in TVA (VAT) rather what system we are entering. A topic I will tackle in-depth.

Down with the Opposition and Government, they are going to starve the people in all cases.


PS: There is no war but class war, the rest of the wars are irrelevant in the long run

Thursday, February 22, 2007

BBC: Egyptian Blogger imprisoned for 4 years!

Despite the fact most of the bloggers disagree with what he writes, and some go labeling his writings as unacceptable, we all agree at least the person has the write to express his thoughts in the name of Freedom of Expression.

"In Egyptian court sentenced a blogger to four years' prison for insulting Islam and the president.

Abdel Kareem Soliman's trial was the first time that a blogger had been prosecuted in Egypt.
He had used his web log to criticise the country's top Islamic institution, al-Azhar university and President Hosni Mubarak, whom he called a dictator. "

Here is the full article

Freedom to Abdel Kareem Soliman!!!!

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Everything in Reverse in Lebanon

Usually, the leaders usually need the people to support and not vice versa, as this is the case of Lebanon where a member of the Sect supports the sect-leader to be protected or have a better business or etc etc etc

Second, we study in economics that when prices go up, the demand for the commodity goes down. Is it true? Well in Lebanon it is different, the more expensive the product is, the more there is demand on the product.

Third, if you are a minority in a region, you lack protection, which means shut up or be beaten by the opposing camp.

Fourth, the media should reflect the truth of the situation, it is inventing a situation.

Fifth, every single civil war ends, (at least in Eastern Europe), the war criminals were put on trial (as much as they could) as a means of true reconciliation, in Lebanon they were all walking free, with few exiled for temprary reasons and one imprisoned, because they were temprary not part of the game.

Sixth, the rich get richer while the poor get poorer under the open 100% Capitalist system, but instead the Sect Leaders get more support while usually people (specially been witnessed lately in Latin America) the people trash the leaders. Funny no?

Seventh, in time of crisis, things reach a climax and then everything calms down as one capitalist layer of greedy pigs replaces another, while over here the show goes on without any settlement.

Eight, opposition should occur on platforms and not ideas.

Nineth, Rock Metal albums have been banned in Lebanon since 1995 (well officially at least) while Dubai is hosting Iron Maidon which is considered number 1 black listed in Lebanon and primary encourager of teens to commit suicide.

Tenth, everyone claims independence but in reality all, like cowards, refute to say the truth, and publicly say that the solution is coming from outside.

A nation full of contradictions
A nation full of errors
A nation that was invented by mistake

And people blindy say: Long Live Lebanon, forever and ever (yeah right)

Saturday, February 17, 2007

Lebanon and Democracy: Doomed to Repeat the Past

Overall Analysis

The current situation has always been present in the past. A lot of Lebanese back in the 1950s celebrated that Lebanon was in fact the only democratic nation, and indirectly it is currently. Democracy in Lebanon is present not because the Lebanese love democracy and equality, rather there have been no other solution to this “last minute patchwork nation” (Roy Boykin, Cursed is the Peace Maker).

(Pic to the Left: President Camille Sham'oun)

Theodor Hunf writes: “Admittedly, in a greater number of multi-communal states ‘law and order’ has been maintained through domination by one community, and by one minority in Lebanon’s Arab neighbors. Though, as Lehmbruch pointed out in 1967, there is no reason to believe that the political systems in these states are more efficient. The ascendancy of one community in Iraq, for instance, has not been able to prevent years of bloody civil war.”

He adds: “In Lebanon, in turn, years of war have proved that no single community could have ever dominated. The balance of power never did permit this, and, regarding only the domestic Lebanese balance of power, does not today either.

"Lebanese consociationalism had its achievements; the inequalities inherited from Ottoman rule were considerable reduced; pre-war standards of living were higher than in any neighbouring state; above all, there was in Lebanon a degree of individual and collective freedom that citizens of neighboring countries could only dream of. Freedom and democracy existed not in spite of, but because of, the country’s multi-communal society: its equilibrium rendered authoritarian solutions impossible. "

"Pre War Lebanon could have been soically andeconomically more equitable. The chance to experiment with a more democratic form of Chehabism was missed, for which both the old elite in their social blindness and the new in their radicalism and power-hunger must bear responsibility. These attitudes explain why Lebanese could start shooting at one another, but not why they actually did so.” (Theodore Hunf, Coexistance in Wartime Lebanon, A Revocable Covenant. P. 558)

“Lebanese are also to blame, Kamal Junblatt and his left-wing allies could hardly have seized power on their own, but saw a chance with Palestinian support. The Kata’ib (Phalange in Arabic) tried to provoke the Lebanese Army into moving against the Palestinians. The Muslim establishment hindered any army operations, preferring rather to take advantage of hostilities to effect limited changes in domestic distribution of power.”

“Notwithstanding the responsibility of various Lebanese groups, it is questionable whether Lebanon could have remained aloof from the Middle Eastern conflict. Jordan had no history of Christian – Muslim rivalries, a strong central authority, a functioning secret service and a homogeneous army, yet could not avoid a bloody war… if the Christians had not resisted the Palestinians, would the Shi’is- the community hardest hit by Palestinian activities- have done so later, as they have in recent years?” (Theodore Hunf, Coexistance in Wartime Lebanon, A Revocable Covenant, P. 559)

Moreover, all the syndromes of Lebanon’s history as always showed the presence of two camps amidst foreign interventions and meddling. Just for the fact the Lebanese Civil War started between two factions (with one in alliance with the PLO), but continued between the Lebanese themselves shows the problem of Lebanon and its duality.

Lebanon’s democracy as far as I agree with Theodore Hunf has been indeed shoved in as an alternative since no community can dominate the other. Democracy has been a relative word, always preached by the government and opposition. MP Hussein Hajj Hassan was wrong to assume that this is the last line-ups with one camp winning over the other. Lebanon has always been a singing duet when confrontations were about to take place (whether armed or non-armed). I tackled briefly the main pit-stops in Lebanon’s history to overview what is the logic of Lebanon’s sect leaders. Lebanon is always doomed to repeat its past.

As for the different pit-stops, and politicians, I will try to discuss them each separately and in details per post.

Lebanon 1840-1860

What we are witnessing today has been present through out Lebanon’s history. The bi-polarity of Lebanese politics and only the politicians with their “boys” to muscle has been a syndrome we experienced throughout our history, ever since the autonomous Mount Lebanon emerged in 1860 (متصرفية لبنان) under a governor with the Ottoman citizenship during the Ottoman Empire. Lebanon then had conflict of interests between two Sect leaders belonging to the Maronites and the Druze. Despite the fact those clashes emerged in 1840, just as these two sects attempted to dominate economically and politically the other, the real battle can be observed in 1860. Even though there were two communities, each had a rivalry taking on between the Sect Leaders. For example, there were two Bashirs competing for power: Prince Bashir Chehab in the face of another feudal lord Bashir Junblatt (Walid Junblatt’s ancestor). The clashes were huge, but eventually Bashir Chehab killed Bashir Junblatt (it is interesting to note that during the civil war when Walid Junblatt’s warriors took hold of the Deir Qamar region, which a century ago was the stronghold of the Chehabist clan, he publicly announced that his ancestor was avenged.)

As always, different European imperial nations meddled in Lebanon and adopted “minorities” to safeguard, for example: Tsarist Russia claimed they are protecting the Greek Orthodox, the French claimed they are protecting the Maronites, and the British argued they are protecting the Druze (till later be won by France), and others. The minorities in Lebanon were used as a gateway for the imperial forces to penetrate Lebanon and the Middle East, specially the Ottoman Empire appeared at its weakest in the 19th Century.

In 1860, Capitalism arrived to Mt. Lebanon through the silk factories. Urbanization occurred in the productive focal points in Lebanon, while rural village life was transformed to factories. The immigrants mostly were the Christians who traveled to the United States, Latin America, and elsewhere. The immigrants who will return would mostly become the new middle class of the newly born state Lebanon in 1920. The Christians as a political community emerged as a mobile sect while the Druze became a static sect without upgrading their political and economical organization. The Christians and the Sunnis entered to a clash for domination. The Sunnis felt that they were crushed by the Christians because the Maronites imposed Lebanon on them while they wanted to be part of/ return to Greater Syria.

1943 National Pact

The 1943 National Pact revealed an agreement between the Christians and the Sunnis in an attempt to get rid of the French Mandate. The Sunnis, fed up with the French, struck a deal with the Christians who feared that they will lose any political strength in Lebanon with the French’s withdrawal. The 1943 National Pact was a guarantee from the Sunnis that they will abandon their demands to return towards Syria in exchange the Maronite Leaders would kick out the French out and proclaim national independence. The Sunnis gave the Maronites a lot of privileges, such as a powerful constitutional president who can dissolve the parliament and cabinet at will as a guarantee of goodwill to attain independence from the French Mandate. Such privileges given to the Christian leaders would cause different balances between the Lebanese different communities to be reshuffled. It has to be noted that ever since Lebanon was carved out from Syria, the Maronite Sect started with an advantage over the rest of the Sects, whereby most of those political benefits would be eliminated by the end of the Civil War in 1990. These benefits would trigger two confrontations in the 1950s, and eventually would be one of the different primary causes for the Lebanese Civil War between the Leftists (under the leadership of Kamal Junblatt) in the face of the Christian leadership (spearheaded by Pierre Gemayel).

(Pic of President Bishara Khoury to the Right, Representing the Christian Sect)

The 1943 National Pact would trigger two Sects to react and shove their way to the scene. The first would be the revival of the Druze under the leadership of Kamal Junblatt, who integrated his community into a bigger community, under the banner of Socialism. The Socialist organization of Junblatt’s Progressive Socialist Party was too advanced for the traditional militias (which would be countered later by Pierre Gemayel’s Fascistic organization in the 1960s when the Phalange would represent the majority of the poorer Christians). Prince Irslan, represented the Druze in the National Pact, but Kamal Junblatt’s organization and logos took hold of the majority of the Druze.

(Pic to the Left: Prime Minister Riad el Solh, who represented the Sunni Sect in the National Pact)

The second Sect that was marginalized were the Shiites. As a result, the urban areas of Beirut, and Christian locations had all they needed of infrastructure, while the Shiites were organized in the peripheral in a clan-like manner. Auguston Norton displayed that in 1970 that only 0.7% of the total budget was dedicated to the South, while the South lacked several basic necessities, such as schools, hospitals, phones, and in a lot of areas, even roads. Moussa el-Sadre will blast his way as the representative of the Shiites, and will pave way for Hezbollah to rise in face of Nabih Berri.

The 1958 Clash

Again, Lebanon had its first serious clash after 18 years of independence. The independence was relative as the National Pact was losing its legitimacy among the key players. President Sham’oun’s era began with Lebanon becoming part of the Cold War, whereby the US – Soviets competed for clients. The United States gambled on the Christians, but kept its reservations of direct interventions due to its link with Israel.

Interventions appeared in Lebanon, while Sham’oun attempted to preserve the Christian dominion politically. He was the first Arab leader to adopt the Eisenhower doctrine, which states that the nations under the threat of Communism can demand help of the United States. Meanwhile, Sham’oun’s Ahhrar (Party of Liberation) also were arming themselves as a back-up plan (with light weaponry) in case the army fails to abide with its President’s decisions. The President was the direct Supreme Commander in Chief of the army.
From the Other side, Nasser’s meddling, under Soviet patronage, was mingling also with Lebanese affairs in order to establish the Super Arab Nation to face the Israelis and Western intervention. Actually, Nasser partially adopted (like later the Muslim Brotherhood would) the Palestinian issue to export his own version of “Arab Nationalism”, this of course would lead to a clash between the Saudis and Egyptians.

Nevertheless, two forms of a tiny Lebanon were present in the minds of the key actors. One, which is Sham’oun’s, dictated that Lebanon is for all its citizens as long as it abided by its Christian leaders’ interests and is considered sovereign when the Christians’ interests were not threatened. Shamoun’s line-up included the growing Phalange, and the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (since they also opposed Nasser’s interventions). Sham’oun got international support from the United States, and he even asked the UN to check if weaponry was being smuggled to Lebanon. Eventually, his warnings were taken seriously by the United States when the Iraqi revolution overthrew the Monarchs (who were in allegiance to the US’s foreign policy). Eventually, over 10,000 Marines entered Lebanon for a brief while, and withdrew. During the crisis, the Commander in Chief of the Army presented himself as a third way. Sham’oun’s attempt to renew his mandate failed, and his forgery of the Parliamentary elections ended his era with the Sunni leaders, the Salams, and Kamal Junblatt temporarily balancing power.


Lebanon’s civil war broke off in 1975. Unlike what Bashir Gemayel wrote in his Presidential Speech, Lebanon was par excellence a Civil War. The argument goes that the Palestinians broke and the Lebanese defended their rights. This is illogical because such an argument neglected the fact there was the gigantic Lebanese National Movement.

There were two armies in Lebanon, one is the Lebanese Army which was perceived biased to the Christian Militias, while the Palestinian Liberation Organization was the second. Kamal Junblatt perceived the war as “reform through arms”. Pierre Gemayel refuted at every occasion to step down in the face of the Lebanese National Movement, who are composed mainly of the left. Four major parties were present inside the Leftists, who were: Kamal Junblatt’s Progressive Socialist Party (PSP), George Hawwi’s Lebanese Communist Party (LCP), Mohsen Ibrahim’s Order for Communist Work (OCW), and Ina’am Ra’ad’s Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP). I mentioned here the SSNP as part of the leftist coalition because Ra’ad attempted to reshuffle the party’s ideology and bring it closer to the Socialist/Marxist camp. They attained support from the Eastern European Socialist Camp via Kamal Junblatt, George Hawwi, and the PLO. Syria supported at first but then switched sides to the Christian Militias.

(Pic of the Left: Picture of Kamal Jumblatt, head of the Lebanese National Movement and the Progressive Socialis Party)

From the other side, the Lebanese Front had primarily also four major parties as well. They were also called the Right-Wing. They were composed of President Frangieh’s Marada, Pierre Gemayel’s The Phalange, Camille Sham’oun’s The Liberation Party (along with the famous Tigers elite soldiers), and George Adwan’s Al-Tanzeem (an off-shoot of the Lebanese Army). They had support from the Americans indirectly. The Lebanese Front would fit perfectly in Kissinger’s plan to contain the Palestinians’ activities on the border while the Christians thought it was wonderful in order to restore their sovereignty which was marginalized due to the Palestinian activities.

(Picture of the Right: Pierre Gemayel, Spearhead of the Lebanese Front and Leader of The Phalange)

The Americans were busy with establishing the Peace Treaty between Israel and Egypt, specially by 1974, Anwar Sadat announced clearly the Step-By-Step peace process. To Kissinger, he needed peace in Lebanon between both Lebanese Factions so that no regional war would break in case the Civil War occurred in Lebanon. To be exact, the fear factor was the war would break in Lebanon, the PLO would unleash their missile barrage on Northern Israel, Israel would invade, and Syria would enter into confrontation with Israel. The overall chain reaction would force the Egyptians to cancel the peace process. Kissinger worked extensively through his two top men (Brown and Murphy), and managed to agree with Israel to send captured Soviet weaponry to the Christian Parties via Cyprus to Jounieh. That way, in case any shipment got caught, the PLO would be blamed. The important hinder to the USA was as “the Secretary of State confessed frankly in 1976, that there was nothing the United States could do “physically” in Lebanon, implying that it would have to rely on moral suasion.” (Robert Stookey, The United States).

AMAL’s grassroots were still a minority compared to the rest of the Parties. The Left tried to win them over, but they sided with the Christians politically against the PLO operations on the borders. Even though they were part of the Lebanese National Movement, Imam Moussa el Sadre switched sides towards the Lebanese Front when the Syrians entered Lebanon to rescue the Christian Parties from extinction.
(Pic to the Right: Imam Moussa el Sadre, leader of AMAL Movement)

The Sunnis were practically non-existent between the two camp’s duality. They supported morally and politically the Palestinian Cause under the banner of Arab Nationalism, but they didn’t want to as Kamal Junblatt wanted, to demolish the confessional sectarian system, rather push some of their interests forward.

The National Pact by 1970 reflected that is no longer viable. It was already shaky by 1958, but it was no longer legitimate in the eyes of the Lebanese.

The 1975 war was a civil war par excellence. It was not just the PLO going head to head against the “True Lebanese” or “Isolationist Lebanese”. A huge faction of the Lebanese were going head to head against the Lebanese Front, actually even the Army crumbled down because it was perceived by different Lebanese as biased, specially a general (under the name of Ahhdab) did a coup which lasted a day and called on Frangieh’s resignation.

The duality would last till 1984, despite different actors fluctuated. In 1984, AMAL movement switched alliances again, and joined forces with the Lebanese National Movement in order to shoot down Amin Gemayel’s US sponsored 17th of May accord. Afterwards, the remainder of the government would crumble down, and Lebanon would become a canton system government by the different Lebanese Militias. Different militias from the same sects would compete against each other, or different sects competing to grab hold of a region economically. The leftists after 1984 would seize to be as leftists; rather Walid Junblatt would push the PSP as a Durzi Sect party.

In 1990

With the war over, the opposing Christian figures would be marginalized. The two main figures, anti-Syrian, would be either exiled (Michel Aoun), imprisoned (Samir Jaajaa), or remain in exile (Reymond Edde).

Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the United States would strike an agreement with each other over Lebanon. Syria will rebuild Lebanon and block any civil war attempts, the United States will support Syria as long as their “men” make it to power, who are supported by Saudi Arabia directly Rafiq el Harriri.

Syria and the United States would reach serious disagreements later. A huge chunk of the left would oppose Syrian hegemony. The Lebanese Forces and the Free Patriotic Movement would oppose Syria as well. The rest would fluctuate. The duality would be Pro-Syrian versus Anti-Syrian hegemony. For example, Harriri would ally with Syria’s allied parties, or vice versa. So would Walid Junblatt and others. I wrote several posts on the issue (I recommend Lebanon, Israel, and Class Struggle, Chapters 3-5).


Again a new duality would take place. Syria has been under pressure from the United States, and Syria’s hegemony over Lebanon became more strict politically because the United States destabilized the whole Middle East when Bush suddenly decided to invade Iraq “in quest to destroy weapons of mass destruction that threaten the United States”.

Again, Chapter four and Five of Lebanon, Israel and Class Struggle reflect the details of the situation.

I would like to comment on Post July-War comment.

Lebanon is similar to 1958. Each faction got their patronage. Each divided against the other. I will not repeat what others wrote on the main points of disagreement (Hezbollah’s Arms, The International Tribunal, Syria-Iran Versus Saudi Arabia and United States, the Assassinations, and of course the Governmental 1/3 to veto governmental decisions).

Again, Lebanon, just like the past, it is divided again, like all other main historic pit-stops to two camps. Each faction got its own black history, and each camp is seeking its leader’s ability to maximize their own influence in a sectarian sense. Class difference, under Harriri’s Neo-Con policy increased; but again, just as in President Helou’s era, inequality increased, same occurred and the Sect leaders are able to mobilize their masses from Sectarian issues. It is amazing how each sect leader/defender in each camp has the capability to blame the other for the current status.

This leads again to the same question: Democracy is not favored in Lebanon, but it is the only method despite the fact that Democracy in Lebanon is sect-based.

Friday, February 16, 2007

Ernest Mandel's In Defence of Marxism

(link of Photo)

I want to tell my friends at the Marxist School that they are absolutely right to stand for Marxism and not to give in in the slightest way to the anti-Marxist pressures which are all around us. Some are open, some more diffuse, but they are all around us.

Marxism is the best thing that has happened to social thought and action in the last 150 years. Those who deny that, those who make Marxism responsible for Stalinist counter-revolution, for social democratic support for colonial wars, are either ignorant or deliberate liars. Marxism has given humankind two basic conquests which we have to defend, but with the assurance, the self-confidence that we are defending a good cause.

Marxism is the science of society. It is the understanding in a coherent way of what has been going on for the last 200 years, if not much more than that, on the basis of a tremendous wealth of empirical information and without any valuable, even partially valuable, alternative among the social sciences.

We make no predictions about the future. The only scientific form of Marxism is open Marxism. Marxism which, like Marx himself said, integrates constructive doubt. Everything remains open to reconsideration, but only on the basis of fact. Those who do this in an irresponsible way without taking facts into consideration, those who throw away this tremendous tool of understanding world reality in exchange for nothing but scepticism, irrationality, mystification, or mythology serve no positive purpose.

As important as Marxism is as a science, its second basic component is just as important, and that is its moral component. Marx himself formulated this in a very radical way. From his youth through to the end of his life he didn’t waver for one minute from the definition of what he called the categorical imperative.

That is to fight against any condition in which human beings are despised, alienated, exploited, oppressed or denied basic human dignity. Whatever the pretexts are for the justification of such denials, we have to oppose them unconditionally. Understand that you cannot be happier than if you have dedicated your life to this defence of human rights everywhere in the world: the defence of the exploited, the oppressed, the downtrodden, the despised.

There is no better way to be a good human being in this world than to dedicate your life to this great cause. That’s why the future is with Marxism.

(MFL notes: Full Article can be found under the title of Socialism or Neo-Liberalism

Birth of a Nation - Panama in 67 Hours

(MFL notes: Source: Bernard A Weisberger, "Panama, Made in U.S.A", AMerican Heritage November 1989, pp 24-25; and "Canal Control," Latin Trade, September 1997, p. 20)

The Stage is Set

June 1902: U.S. offers to buy Panama Canal Zone from Colombia for 10 million dollars.

August 1903: The Colombian Senate refuses the offer. Theodore Roosevelt, angry on hearing of the refusal, is alleged to have referred to the Colombian Senate as “those contemptible little creatures in Bogota.” Roosevelt agrees to a plot led by Dr. Manuel Amador, a secessionist, “to assist a group to secede from Colombia.

October 17: Panamanian dissidents travel to Washington and agree to stage a U.S. – backed revolution. Date of the revolution set for November 3 at 6 P.M.

October 18: Flag, constitution, and declaration of independence, created over the weekend. Panama’s first flag was designed and sewn by hand in Highland Falls, New York, using fabric bought at Macy’s.

Bunau-Varilla, a French engineer associated with the bankrupt French-Panama canal construction company and who had no permanent residence in Panama, was named Panama’s ambassador to the United States.

A Country is Born

Tuesday, November 3: Precisely at 6 P.M. bribes are paid to the Colombian garrison to lay down their arms. The revolution begins, the U.S.S. Nashville steams intoColon harbor, and the junta proclaims Panama’s independence.

Friday, November 6: By 1:00 PM, the United States recognizes the sovereign state of Panama.

Saturday, November 7: The new government sends official delegation from Panama to the United States to instruct the Panamanian ambassador to the United States on provisions of the Panama Canal Treaty.

Wednesday, November 18: 6:40 PM. The Panamanian ambassador signs the Panama Canal Treaty. At 11:30 PM, the official Panamanian delegation arrives at Washington, D.C., railroad station and is met by their ambassador, who informs them that the treaty was just signed just couple of hours earlier.

Full History is founded over here

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

The Duets: Now 14th of March Sings Back

Fed up from over 2 monthes of demonstrations from the First of December Coalition (8th of March + Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement), the 14th of March were saved by Rafiq el Harriri from his grave. Today, a massive gathering occurred as well which would send a message to the December 1st Coalition that they too are ready to fight back, and the politicians drove their people against those.

All yesterday and before yesterday I have been hearing 14th of March supporters telling me that they are going down to teach the gangsters a lesson. Personally, both are gangsters with a minor difference one got 20,000 missiles. The latest events in the last month clearly showed that all political parties need to disarm. The case of Hezbollah's arms is not resolved and probably will not be resolved till the decision "Peace With Israel" is resolved. It is ironic that the Palestinians sit and negotiate with the Israelis (reactionary leaderships) while the Lebanese are left dangling in the open air. Moreover, the Syrian Baathis have been involved in underground negotiations as well. Yet, the Lebanese are divided due to their foreign sponsors and all are waiting for the foreign sponsorship to mediate among each other and gain territorial grounds in the face of the other.

The United States has been the number 1 terrorist nation due to the on-going attrocities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and demolishing any opposition they face in order to install puppet government (similar what we witnessed in Latin America and previously with the Soviet Government satellites). Saudi Arabia wants to defend "Democratic" Lebanon and talk about a democratic elected government, but they have not experienced any democracy, when they last held elections for a President? France is interested in returning to the Middle East and proved how ineffective that nation is in the face of the Israeli aggression during the July War. Syria's Assad has been known to be a one party rule dictatorship regime, and Iran's Wali el Faqih & Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei talks about protecting "Democratic Lebanon From the Israelis" but ends up releasing his Ansar-e Hezbollah on his own people (not to be mistaken with Lebanon's Hezbollah).

Then we have the topic of Israel. A lot of foreign ministers in Paris III stated that in order for the Lebanese to have peace, the Palestinian issue should be resolved. The Palestinian leaders are obsessed with protecting their tiny powers rather protecting their civilians. Israel, the second nation that practices terror, never stopped its on-going slaughters of the Palestinians (and Lebanese when they have the chance to do so) and moreover never hesistates to take unilateral decisions in order to proceed with its "Zionist" interest. Worse, Olmert's open support to Seniora's government triggers more instability in Lebanon just as the December 1st Coalition accuses its leaders to be Zionist zombies. It is ironic that the Seniora Government will, once this entire fiasco is resolved in Lebanon through nice juicy business deals, Hezbollah and AMAL will return to be part of the Government. Bottom, the Proletariat in this entire region got only themselves to wipe out their leadership (and I do mean all, Jews included against their Zionist leaders).

For now, that juicy deal is far-fetched. Hezbollah's Moussawi never hesitates to accuse Junblatt and compare him to a dwarf, and Junblatt never hesitates to mock Nasrallah's missiles (once he asked him to lend him 10,000 missiles against Israel) as well comparing Aoun to Nasrallah's donkey.

Yesterday, two bombs took place and killed three citizens. 14th of March as always adopted the massacre. My sources informed me that the bus system got Michel el-Murr's investment in it, and some support him directly, those who got wounded.

Today, it is not clear how many arrived to the Martyr's Square. Numbers fluctuate between 800,000 - 1.2 million supporters. The most three to be targeted were Aoun, Nasrallah, and el-Assad. 14th of March are here to tell December 1st Coalition that they are ready and bring it on. The proletariat have never been divided, and most of the leaders attain their support from the Sect based system.

The deadlock is still on-going, and the bi-polarity is still dividing the Lebanese. The worst to suffer though are those who stand and despise from all their heart both reactionary camps. They sit and react to each other, as Riyadh and Tehran are negotiating with each other.

Amidst this chaos, Lebanon proved it is a democratic nation where freedom of expression (to a certain extent) has been achieved. I can't tell about the "activists" in their own areas where they are a minority about freedom of speech, but that is a problem that is existant almost everywhere in the world.

The memorial of al-Harriri was a success for their leaders who think they scared al-Assad away. What they do not know, nor their rival camp, that each's only soluton is to dump the other and their supporters into the sea. Now, we wait if at the evening their will be clashes like last time.

What makes me wonder though, why always bring Kamal Junblatt and Bashir Gemayel into this fiasco? Kamal Junblatt was the leader of the Lebanese National Movement who sought to take away the Christian Militia's hegemony on Lebanese politics, and got the chance with the presence of the PLO to counter the manipulated Lebanese Army. Practically, Kamal Junblatt sought to annhilate Pierre Gemayel till the later's throne was saved when they invited the Syrians to rescue them under the Patronage of the United States and support of Israel. Personally, I think Kamal Junbatt is much more dedicated to be put in this fiasco, as he and Pierre Gemayel skinned each other because the latter refused to demolish the Sectarian System.

Meanwhile, none has proposed to build bombshelters to the frontline villages at the border with Israel to protect our civilians from a new potential Israeli Aggression. Bottom line, we need to be united against the reactionary leaders. More turmoil is coming soon our way.... (hopefully not).

Sunday, February 11, 2007

The Left and the Middle East

Inspired to write such a topic over here, I will attempt to tackle most of the problems as Marxists we face.

The Middle East

Once at school, a teacher asked a friend of mine to go to the board and draw the map of Lebanon. My friend drew the map of Lebanon, but afterwards he wrote Welcome. When the teacher asked why the “Welcome” written beneath the map, my friend answered: “Because Lebanon has always been welcome matt for empires penetrating Lebanon to expand their territories in the past.”

In his book 1984, George Orwell divided the future world into three empires. The Middle East and North Africa are the nations that were temporarily fallen under one empire then “liberated” to fall under another.

The Middle East, usually referred to as “Syria Magna” or “Natural Syria” is composed of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Iraq, and most lately, even though not part of the Middle East historically and academically, Iran. Some added Egypt and Sudan, but they are traditionally referred to as the North African Arab Nations.

Ever since the Mongols invaded Greater Syria and Iraq in the Middle Ages, the nations were to experience a return to the age of empires. The Turkish Ottoman Empire invaded the area, and the Middle East was the last front to be taken away from the Ottoman Empire (during WWI) and was replaced for a short period as Greater Syria. In the 19th Century, European Imperialist powers took interest in the weakened Ottoman Empire, and tagged the Empire as the sick man. The Middle East in Specific was divided between the French and the British, under the Sykes – Pico Deal. The French and the British used the alibi of protecting the minorities in the Middle East, and that is why their presence was needed.

The French won Lebanon (carved out of Syria), Syria, and Palestine. The British won Egypt, (then part of Egypt), Jordan (after carving it out of Syria), Iraq (after binding three provinces into one). The British eventually won Palestine since they claimed that they protected the Jews. A lot of literature was written on the clash between the French and the British regarding that issue, specially the British wanted to form a minority that would assist them in reigning the location, specially the most important imperial factor for the British was dominating the Suez Canal from both flanks. The Ottomans already used Palestine to attempt and invade Egypt in order to cut of supplies from the Far East by controlling the Suez Canal, and the British argument that the need to protect both flanks is of high importance. Lord Balfour already pushed for such an argument. The British were accompanied with a colonial racist movement called the Zionists who transformed the Jews from a sect to a race and claimed birth rights on Palestine.

Eventually, Lebanon and Syria will gain independence during World War II as a pressure from the British to kick out the French from the Area. The British withdrew from Palestine to facilitate for the imported Jews, who were organized under the Yishuv in defensive manner, to grab hold of the nation. Jordan will gain its independence afterwards through different deals, and Iraq will witness a series of insurrections.

Ever since that era, the region witnessed instability, foreign interventions, and wars.

Brief Summary on the Marxists in the Region

Most of the Marxists during the 1930s adopted Arab Nationalism in solidarity with the Palestinians as they were being kicked out by the Zionists under the blessing of the British. Palestine would become the most controversial topic in the world, as the Zionists did the greatest promotions for their “cause”. Eventually, with more atrocities making its way to the media, and academics such as Edward Said, Sami Hadawi, and Walid Khalidi making their academic publications, the global left paid attention to the situation. This was facilitated at the immense exodus of the Palestinans (Christians and Muslims) exiled and also played a massive role in promoting what happened.

Post World War II and with the agreement on a new world system, the United States spearheaded the global economy in the face of Stalinist Soviet Union. The US’s primary client was Israel, since the Zionist lobby had its influence on the Executive level in the United States, while the US administration was confident that Israel would be loyal almost 100% to them since they needed the funding and weaponry.

Currently, almost all the nations in the Middle East are mentioned in the news, and all provide disturbing news to the United States’ foreign policy. Egypt is facing a radical wave of the Muslim Brotherhood to oust US puppet President Moubarak. Syria caused tensions with its relationship with Iran, as well as having influence in Lebanon after they withdrew in 2005. Iraq, probably is the most disastrous situation whereby the Proletariat are involved in a civil war bloodshed due to the brutal invasion of the United States and its allies.

The Revolutionary Marxist Parties have been present almost since the early 20th Century. They were extensively organized in activism via the Unions, except in Iraq, they got their chance to gain temporarily power. With Stalin dominating the Soviet Union, the Marxist Parties became pawns for Moscow’s Foreign Policy. Khaled Bikdash, General Secretary of the Syrian Communist Party, eliminated any revolutionary communist in the era, and even several comrades died “strangely” in Russia due to ill “strange” diseases.

Arab Nationalist leaders would crack down on the Communists of the region. Nasser would purge most of the Communists in the 1960s in Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. Israel’s Zionism would remain strong till the current day without allowing any Marxist movements to grow strong. Jordan, another US satellite, would also keep the Marxists weak since its Monarch received best support from the United States administration. The Communist parties Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) would split to PFLP and PFLP-General Command (a Stalinist Faction), and would end up weak due to Fatah’s hegemony in the Palestinian Liberation Organization coalition. All this crisis would make the Communist Parties corrupted from the inside, and too weak to lead the Proletariat wherever they are active. Worse, the Soviet Union looked the other way when the Arab Nationalist leaders were purging the Communists.

The Left and the Middle East (Present Day)

Currently, most of the left takes special interest with the Middle East. There are different reasons for such an event happening:

1) The gravity of the situation: Probably the daily onslaught of the Palestinians by the Israelis was on the top of the list. Palestinians on daily basis have been slaughtered since 1924 till present day. Some would express solidarity to Israel as Zionist media would convince its audience that they are a persecuted “civilized” minority surrounded by barbarians, and suicide bombers would justify their arguments. What Zionists do not argue, that these bombers are a reaction to their brutality when they are left with nothing to live for. Iraq, is currently the on the top of the list just as on daily basis over 40 people are being massacred. Lebanon usually hits the top ranks whenever there is an Israeli aggression on it, this was the case in 1982, 1996, and specially 2006 (due internet and media revolution). The brutality of the deaths of the Proletariat in these areas wins interest. It also should, specially most of the Arab and International capitalist regimes are silent about the on-going massacres.

2) The Transformation of the Middle East into Anti-Imperialism: Israel is often tagged as “Proxy US Imperialism” by a lot of leftists. Eventually, Israel does represent the interest of the United States in the region. The latest July War revealed global support to the militant Hezbollah as opposing Zionist Israel. With Hezbollah making it clear they are not facing a Jewish army, rather a Zionist Army (confirmed with Chomsky’s visit to Hassan Nasrallah), Nasrallah was viewed by several international movements as a national liberation movement. The Marxists in Lebanon have been fully supportive of Hezbollah as an alternate means to resist Israel. Sadly, they abandoned their class struggle perspective and adopted a nationalistic paradigm; they failed to lead the Proletariat. Iraq is viewed as the latest victim of the United States, since they invaded Iraq and dismantled all forms of security forms in Iraq while triggering chains of sectarian wars. Syria is seen as a defiant nation to US imperialism, specially with its alliance to Hugo Chavez and support to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine.

3) Lack of detailed research on the situation: I am not arguing that the Middle East should not be a priority. Currently, the United States, with the help of military Israel, and politically via Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, have been involved extensively with attempts to reshape the Middle East which would suit its foreign policy aspects. While Lebanon was under bombardment from Israel, I can still clrearly remember Rice laughing: "This is for a better Middle East" while my entire house was shaking. A lot of literature has been written on the Middle East, and our fellow comrades abroad have been exposed extensively via the media (even though most of the time the general media has been biased). The problem with the literature and academic publications, most of them tend to be distorted. For example, few people mention how Syria’s own regime is a one party rule system and how Syria sought two deals with the US to attain hegemony over Lebanon (1976 & 1990). Even fewer mention how Syria won Lebanon in 1990 in return they will support the United States in their Desert Rose operation on Iraq. Iraq’s background is not mentioned and how Iraq previously was a three separate provinces. Worse, the issue of Palestine has been taken to a new reactionary level. Some leftists totally support the Palestinians, since they are the underdogs who lost their homes in 1948, but disregard the clash struggle perspective in the region. Lebanon’s opposition, spearheaded by Hezbollah and a retired Christian General, gained international support in the latest demonstrations. What few people do not mention is their corrupted history (excluding Hezbollah since recently they participated in the government but got an interesting record during the War) and analyzing how the Status Quo arrived to this level. Having said this, most of the publications on the Middle East would become monotonous.

4) Having said all this (again), the easiest topic to talk about is the Middle East. Yet, no alternatives are being provided, and worse, we suffer problems of “Western Confidence” that their perspective is better than the ones living here. The full scenario has to be understood. For example, few people bother to know that Palestine in 1919 was made of 91% of non-Jews while all three monotheistic religions were living in Harmony prior to the full arrival of Zionism. Some compare the Pro-Middle Eastern perspective to Anti-Vietnam wars. This is not the case. There are more dynamic actors (state and non-state level) involved. It is not important to simply denounce the Zionist Aggression on the Lebanese or Palestinians, rather the importance is emancipating the Proletariat over there to denounce their own leaders and form a unified front. Others compare the demonstrations in Lebanon as the movement of the poor, without focusing on the rich corrupt leaders or how the Sectarian system in Lebanon functions.

5) The 9/11 syndrome: Ever since Bush opened his never ending “War on Terror”, the Middle East was more on the spot light than it used to be. Ariel Sharon compared the Palestinians ( without doing any difference to the civilians) to the Terrorists that Bush was fighting. The Marxists and the Leftists fell in the error of supporting in defecto any movement or rogue nation against the United States, unless if they were al-Qa’eda. The biased Media has deformed all forms of facts. Despite my opposition to Hezbollah’s reactionary movement, the Media didn’t mention how Hezbollah were celebrating in the streets when al-Zarqawi was killed. Leftists support al-Assad, but they are unaware that negotiations are taking place to bring Syria as a deterrent force in return they restore the Golan Heights. Worse, even the United States do not want to get rid of the Syrian Baathis, since the alternative are the Muslim Brotherhoods. There is a difference in performing solidarity campaigns with the Proletariat and reactionary movements/institutions. Since the United States is facing a lot of opposition and defeats in the Middle East, the leftists’ sympathies have been won in several occasions blindly.

6) All Movements/politicians in the area got their dark history. Investigations and proper research would lead to the objective analysis. The first problem is the leftists’ organized movements coming to Lebanon and imposing their perspectives on the activists with their own points of views without fully understanding the situation. A lot of others, such as the opportunists, abuse the Middle East crisis for their own political agenda. Furthermore, communication breakdown between the interactive comrades over here and outside are at their minimum in a lot of occasions. I had three encounters with three separate socialist/Marxist organizations that go arrogantly shoving how their methods are correct and we have no choice but to be part of such organizations. (I will exclude the since they have been the most understanding of the situation till now). Galloway for example probably expressed our frustrations on Sky News during the July War as we were living in a Media Blackout, but again Galloway never mentioned Saddam’s errors when he expressed respect to him in face of US aggression while a lot other comrades raised the banner: “No War! No Dictatorship!” Those who raise banners to “No To War on Iran” or “Hands off Iran” should also raise the banner “Freedom to its people” next to the others.

We have the capitalists’ tools to communicate, it is prime time for a unified front. It is not the United States who is the enemy, rather it is the system that shoved the US administration into such a status quo which should be dealt with. The transnational corporations are part of the situation, and other nations are still involved in imperial practices while our comrades out there should be active in raising awareness. Furthermore, every single area and topic through out the world should not be undermined or forgotten as everything is inter-connected.

Finally, I will say my favourite sentence which we rose in 2002: "There is No War But Class War!"


Friday, February 09, 2007

Regarding the Aqsa Mosque

Pic taken from here.

The latest incident took the world in suprise just as Israel was "renovating" a section of the Aqsa Mosque. The Question of the Aqsa mosque is not new. To be exact, Olmert's men were expecting trouble since the history of the wall (since 1929) triggered trouble. The Zionists were claiming they wanted to renovate the Haram Sharrif, a holy site for Muslims, Christians, and Jews, but they did not inform the Arabs. This is called Provocations while again the Zionists would appear as innocent and good will in face of "extremists". I will tackle the origin of the clash in this article; however, it makes me wonder: are the Zionists pleased to increase the rise of Islamic extremists to always appear as the victims? The Aqsa issue is not a religious with the Arab countries, not that I am a supporter of Arab Nationalism, but it has been an issue of National struggle. This would weaken the US satellite, despite they still got strong foot to remain for a while, and the alternative is imposed reactionary... simply a reaction to a reaction.

The History of the Aqsa Mosque

The Aqsa Mosque (means the Farthest Mosque in Arabic) is the Second oldest Muslim Mosque and the Third of importance in Islamic Religion. It is part of a greater religious entity called Al-Haram al-Qudsi al-Sharif, as the holy honorable sanctuary if translated in English. Part of these complex intigrated buildings contains the Wailing Wall, which is assumed by the Zionists that it is part of the Prophet Solomon's temple, which is located in Eastern Part of Jereusalem, conquered by Israel after the Six Days War in 1967. The Eastern Part is being claimed by the Palestinian state. The oldest part of the Mosque is located at the Jewish section. Full History can be found on Wiki over here

The 1929 Clash

The problem with Zionism is they needed shrines to enforce their nationalistic preachings. This took place by focusing on the Wailing Wall. As I said a lot of times in this blog, there was no problems between the Jews and the non-Jews prior to the Zionist kick out of Palestinians from their homes and the importation of Jews per year.

Spreading fear between the Muslims and the Jews, the Zionists got what they wanted. According to the Memoirs of Vincent Sheean, a US journalist who lived in Palestine in 1929 and exposed the blunders of the Zionist (actually he was a Zionist sympathizer till he saw the lies of Zionism) in his article Holy Land - 1929. Taken from Walid Khalidi's compilation of articles From Conquest to Haven (Published by the Institute For Palestine Studies 1971). Sheean gave the following statements:

"The problem is not one of higher or lower standards. Any fool knows that higher standards of living are preferable to lower standards of living. Nobody could oppose Zionism if it meant simply the improvement of the conditions of like in Palestine. The opposition to Zionism, so far as I can tell - the only reasonable opposition, anyhow -- is based upon the fact that Zionism proposes to settle or colonize a country a country that is already inhabited by another people."(P.279)

"Bu I no longer tried to ignore the fact that Palestine was, by the overwelming majority of its population, an Arab country. " (P.281)

Regarding the Aqsa Mosque:

"But Zionists- most of whom, in my experience, were without religious feeling - used to visit it as I did, out of an ordinary aesthetic interest. The Moslems made no objection to such visits. In this and in other respects the Moslems of Palestine were less jealous of their holy places than Moslems elsewhere. I had never been allowed inside a great mosque in Morocco or Persia, but the Haram esh-Sherif, a far holier place to the Islamic world, was open to me or to anybody else all day long." (P. 283)

"The idea of the Wailing Wall was an ancient one, but I was never able to find out why the idea was attached to this particular segment of the wall and not to any other. The idea was, briefly, this: God has seen fit to exile His people from their Temple, and has condemned them t a long period of disaster, to be ended when the Messiah comes to restore them to their rightful place; particularly on the high holy days of the religion, the Day of Atonement and the Day of the Destruction of the Temple." (P. 284)

"Most religious Jews believed that the old stones of the wall were actually the stones of Solomon's Temple. This was not archaeologically correct; the oldest stones in the wall of the Haram were Graeco-Roman, of the period of Herod; but the original facts made no difference in religious belief. " (P.284)

"Before the nineteenth century there was no record of trouble at the Western Wall; the Moslems madeno attempt to prevent the visits of the Jews there, and a prescriptive right grew up, which was maintained under changing governments thereafter." (P. 285)

There have been two encounters afterwards between the Jews and the Arab rulers. There have been found two records, "In the first document, the Egyptian Governor of Jerusalem forbade the Jews to pave the area in front of the wall or to do anything else beyond 'make their visits in accordance with the ancient custom. In the second document the Jews were forbidden to bring into the Wailing Wall area any of the 'tools or instruments of possession,' such as chairs, screens, and the Ark (i.e., the furniture of a synagogue). The Moslem Refusal to permit innovations was learly based upon the fear that if they did so, the Jewswould soon have a synagogue at the wall of the Mosque. " (P. 285)

The entrance of Zionisn into the scene complicated issues. "The Truimph of Zionism at the end of the war (MFL notes: World War I), brought a new element into the question. The Zionist Organization was not itself religious, although it possessed a religious (minority and opposition) Right Wing. Its membership professed a wide range of belief in such matters, from agnosticism to orthodoxzy, and even included some Jews converted to Christianity; but considered as a whole it was a modern, Western, secular, political body. Still, the advantages to political Zionism of making a test case of the Wailing Wall were obvious. If the Zionists could get new rights at the Wall -- better, if they could get absolute possessiob of tge area - they could count on adherence of a large number of religious Jews who had always been cold to the movement." (P. 285)

"An attempt was made in 1919 to buy the Wailing Wall. The Zionists offered (through Sir Ronald Storrs; MFL notes: Military Governer of Jerusalem 1917-20; Civil Governer 1920-26) eighty thousand pounds; the the Arabs refused to sell" (P. 285)

"... so that the Zionist struggle was concentrated upon the Wailing Wall and the Arab resistance aligned before it. The question was no loger religious: it had become political and national as well." (P. 285)

"The struggle, fundamentally, was conceived as being for owndership. The specific question might be whether the Jews could bring chairs and a table to the place or not; whether they could blow the ram's horn (shofar) there; whether they could put up screens to seperate the women from the men; whether the Moslems had a right to walk through the place of hours of Jewish Worship;" (P.286), and since then incidents between the imported Jews via Zionists and the Moslem Arabs were triggered.

When the Moslim leaders argued that the Zionists were aiming to take over the entire Haram el-Sharrif location, the Zionists denied such a status and accused the Mufti of triggering passions. The problem is that the Mufti's speech wouldn't recieve any ears if the Palestinians didn't suddenly and gradually find themselves being kicked outside their homes.

The importance of the Wailing Wall was as follows: "But they [Zionists] ought to have possession of one hily place, the relic of the Temple (the only relic, as they somewhat loosely believed), and that the genuinely religious Jews, for the most part not Zionists, should have Zionism to thak for it." (P.287)

Zionist media through out the world broadcasted that the wall was under the possession of savages or barbarians in order to attain more sympathy and supporters.

Finally "The incidents of 1928-1929 were sure to make the Wailing Wall a crucial point in the struggle between Jew and Arab."

Post 1948

With the Arab Armies entering Palestine in 1948, the Jordanian Army made it to East Jerusalem. The suspicion goes that King Abdallah had negotiations with the Zionist leadership of the Yishuv. The areas controlled with the Jordanian Army became what would be currently the miniature of the Palestinian State with the majority of the Palestinians banished as homeless.


With the military blunders of Jamal Abdul Nasser, the Arabs lost within 6 days the War with Israel. The West Bank was annexed so was the Aqsa Mosque, which triggered again the issue of the Haram el Sharrif.

The Zionists remained searching for Solomon's temple. Escavations occurred, and in Ehud Barak even struck an underground tunnel.

Sharon, most hated Zionist figure, visited the Haram and all hell broke loose with the Second Intifada triggering mass death tolls with mainly the Arabs remaining there under minimum life conditions and the Jews.

Thursday, February 08, 2007

Bush's Bullshit

George Bush's bullshits in Iraq and lack of accurate decisions on the expense of the people. I love it, despite it is hilarious, at the same time sad as Bush forced the Proletariat from all nationalities to suffer from him.

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Rafi Madayan Wakes Up and Slaps 14th of March in the Face

MFL notes:

Rafi Madayan is the step son of George Hawwi, a biological son of a comrade who sacrificed everything, and the grandson of the Co-Founder of the Lebanese Communist Party who also engineered the 1925 May 1 demonstrationn & was head of the Armenian Spartacus League. He got his degree in International Relations, and already has some publications. He ran in 2000 for the Parliament and was classified then the youngest to run to Parliament. He was spearheading the Anti-Syrian alliance coalition then organized by the Phalange, Syrian Social National Party, and the extreme nationalist, the Armenian Tashnaq. The head of the coalition, Michel el Murr, did his best to crush down Rafi Madayan and had to even resort to cheating in order to make sure that Rafi Madayan didn't make it to the Parliament or else his holyness would be insulted. Rafi lost elections again in 2005, but this time as he participated with the 14th of March list but with a lot of difference as the Aremenian votes were united for Michel el Murr's list again. He became in the spot light directly after the Matn elections when George Hawwi, his step father, was assassinated, and he gave a speech in front of estimated 50,000 pro-Hawwi all raising the Hammer and Sickle. 14th of March placed a statue for George Hawwi as an attempt to control the martyrs assassinated next to Bashir Gemayel, whom George Hawwi wanted to see him dead and already did the arrangements to do so during the Civil War, when George Hawwi was the General Secretay of the LCP and co-founder of the Resistance Front when the Israelis entered West Beirut.

I wonder if now 14th of March will take down George Hawwi's Statue or will rely on Saad Harriri as he made George Hawwi a martyr for the right-winged reactionaries called the Democratic Leftist Movement. I placed the article in english here from the Daily Star. I will translate the article from Assafir when I have time today (should be more detailed)

Hawi's stepson says March 14 'betrayed' youth by the Daily Star Staff

BEIRUT: The stepson of George Hawi, the former head of Lebanon's Communist Party, accused the leaders of the March 14 Forces on Tuesday of betraying their constituents by seeking "personal gains." "The March 14 politicians betrayed the March 14 youth and spoiled their hopes of living in a free, sovereign and prosperous Lebanon," Rafi Madayan said during a news conference held at the Bristol Hotel in Beirut.

The ruling majority freed Lebanon from Syrian hegemony only to place it under American domination, Madayan said.

He said it was "high time" to question March 14 Forces leaders about their decisions of the last two years. He added that investigations into his father's murder should no longer be a tool of "political exploitation."

Hawi was killed by a car bomb in the Beirut neighborhood of Wata al-Mosseitbeh on June 21, 2005. No suspects have been tried in the crime.

A longtime ally of Syria, Hawi joined the anti-Syrian coalition after the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in February 2005.

Madayan said his attack on the ruling majority did not "in any way" imply that he had joined the opposition.

"I realize the gravity of the situation and, in order to avoid yet another civil war, I felt it was time to dot the I's and cross the T's," he said.

Madayan accused the March 14 Forces of hesitancy.

"They failed to topple the president and they totally refuse to allow the government to resign, disregarding all the masses protesting in the streets of Beirut," he said, offering what he said was "a tiny sample" of the ruling majority's "undemocratic" behavior.

Madayan called for a revolution "to topple the current ruling majority and to bring about radical change to the Lebanese political system."

Madayan said he would always respect prominent March 14 Forces member MP Walid Jumblatt, however, "because I personally have been raised to cherish and respect the principles and ideology set forth by Kamal Jumblatt," the Druze leader's late father.

The late Hawi founded the Popular Guard, an armed wing of the Communist Party, during the Civil War. The militia was aligned with the Lebanese National Movement formed by Kamal Jumblatt in opposition to various forces. - The Daily Star

Monday, February 05, 2007

Some Cartoons While Pondering on Different Themes

link: Let us not forget the blood of the Palestinian Proletariat that have died on the hands of the Zionists, and still are capable to give with their blood new life despite the odds of the reactionary political parties and Israeli's racial aggression. This masterpiece (like all his masterpieces) are done by the great martyr Naji el Ali

link It also means no accountability

Link: Still wondering how much Bush machinary is making money from the situation? Check Corpwatch

Link, it was tagged on the website as anti-sematic however Sharon is known in the Arab world exactly as this cartoon. There is no anti-semitism in it as the man was a brutal murderer (who can forget the Sabra-Shatila Massacres which the Kahan Commission found Sharon guilty). But who will ever forget the war crimes of Ariel Sharon in Lebanon (1982 - 1984) to the extent the United States Administration was discussed from him, and on the behalf of the Palestinians. Sharon is a war pig.

link: Pondering on why damned Zionists sent these intoxicate balloons to Lebanon, then goes publicly gathering support to the Seniora government, what? They want a new civil war over here after they failed in the last July war?

Link, freedom to Mumia Abu Jamal, and this is the land of democracy.

Sunday, February 04, 2007

Lebanon, Palestine, and the La La Dance

So we take a look at the reactionary camps, things are the same with the camp leaders of 14th and 8th of March. Only difference is that suddenly balloons from our neighbor that "loves" us are falling down and intoxicate our civilians. Peretz the other day announced that he didn't want to retaliate on any missiles launched on Israel because it might stop the shoot out taking place between Hamas and Fatah.

The parallel line between Palestine and Lebanon are almost the same. Lebanon got Bush's favourites in power (although partly though alliance with Hezbollah and AMAL), while in Palestine, Fatah, Bush's favourites, are attempting to send the decisive blows on Hamas. The situation is catastrophic. For starters, Fatah cannot rid itself from Hamas since Hamas (through the Muslim Brotherhood and its networks that have been expanding since 1943) have been providing services to more than 40% through out miniature Palestine. Fatah (ironically dubbed as terrorists back in the 1970s and 1980s through the PLO) didn't mind giving Hamas the government since they were anticipating the block-out on elections. Bush keeps praising the Seniora government as legitimate while disregards the fact that Hamas were elected democratically. Moreover, Bush keeps attacking Hezbollah as terrorists while ironically Saudi Arabia welcomed two weeks ago a delegation from Hezbollah on State Level and Seniora has kept the Shiite based seats empty till Hezbollah and AMAL return and represent their people (again, Bush seems to neglect that fact to the media).

The headlines in Lebanon and miniature Palestine are the same, dialogues in Lebanon and seize fire in Palestine. There is a massive stalemate between the reactionary camps in both nations. Actually, to be more exact, there is an international support to Seniora and Abbass. Abbass's situation is inverse, he was overwhelmed to see Hamas moving from the military to the bureaucratic muck of politics in order he would become the opposition and attack his rivals as doing a bad job on the executive level (nevertheless they were not given the chance to be tested on the executive part).

Feltman yesterday hoped that the Lebanese choose the dialogue rather the gun, while the Gulf nations intervened more than once to establish "negotiations" between Fatah and Hamas. The demand for national unity government is expressed in both nations while the US's favourites are in inverse situation. Seniora's government is battling to remain in power while inviting Hezbollah's faction to return to the "house of obediance" (as Dr. Traboulsi quotes it) while Abbass's faction is enjoying the thrill of being in the opppsition to burn Hamas. The problem is that neither nation state government till now and in the long run can replace Hezbollah's or the Muslim Brotherhood's (Social Dimension of Hamas) services.

In Paris III, a new direction was reflected. The International Community want to win Hezbollah's audience by spending extensive projects into Hezbollah's stronghold area, but they still got a long road to go. Funding to Lebanon is unstable if the government of Seniora collapses. We can see a cut-off in the fundings and financing to Lebanon as happened when Salim el Huss became a Prime Minister in 1998 (with the gulf massively tightening the grip) and as Hamas was isolated (for a stronger reason as in under the accusation of being a terrorist group). Bush administration seems to have failed to go publicly saying that the highest number of civilians killed are due to Israel's brutality (at this rate the United States in few couple of years will hit rank one due to the blood bath striking the Proletariat in Iraq, and Bush demanded extra funding of 100 million dollars to continue with the bloodshed).

Every day we read the same headlines in Palestine, Lebanon, and to a certain extent, the more sad news, Iraq. In Lebanon and Palestine, confrontations took place between both reactionary camps (with Palestine breaking to temprary civil wars to the pleasure of the Zionists) that left dead civilians wondering by. Bush administration has destablized the region to a bloodier zone, and of course Bush wouldn't think to topple down the Baathi regime in Syria for three major reasons. The first includes the reality of the great business deals and oil deals between the United Kingdom and Damascus. The second reason is keeping Syria on standby to enter Iraq as a blockage or peaceful force between the Sunnis and the Shiites (whereby Iran can influence the Shiites). The third reason, and primary reason, is the fact that if the Baathis are ousted away from the government, the Islamic Brotherhood are the next option since Syria weakened the other secular forces, such as the Syrian Social Nationalist Party and the Syrian Communist Party factions.

A new Middle East is being carved out, a bloody Middle East is being carved out, and no one knows where this Middle East is heading but definitely not towards Democracy as the United States administration's allies are not happy about such logos, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

To a unified Proletariat and to hell with all politicians.


Saturday, February 03, 2007

Five Fine things About Me, What Others Don't Know

I have been tagged by the ever charming Sham in Ashrafieh , and come to think of it, this is the first time I get tagged on the blogsphere

1) I have got some Palestinian roots in me, but the problem is I do not believe in any form of Nationalism, neither the Lebanese nor the Palestinian. Rather I believe people are people wherever you go, it doesnt matter if people are from any religion or nationality or even color as long as they are not racists.

2) I never lasted in relationships more than 6 months, the problem they fade away quickly. Stubborness is a trait that keeps the passion going. At least that is the situation in a previous ones, I mean how a relationship would last if everything is routinesh and mechanic, there should be passion.

3) I suck at Arab Poetry, despite the fact I highly appreciate Jubran Khalil Jubran, I never liked the prof. who taught us Poems. They sort of shoved Arabic Poetry down our throats to memorize rather appreciate the beauty of Arabic Poetry. For those who do not read arabic, I would like to explain that Arabic poetry has various dimensions as each poem can almost be sang and the Arabic adjectives can be really exressive and with different meanings.

4) Just as I started blogging, I was going to quit after the July War, but afterwards, Renegade Eye discovered my blog and asked me to contribute at his blog. From here after I started blogging to the extent when I am free, I do my own research and publish it on my blog, or Renegade Eye, or Further Left Forum. I keep my identity secret because I can write better on any topic I want on any politician or event plus the nice threats as emails, and special thanks to Renegade Eye, I remained blogging.

5) Despite the fact I appear calm and relaxed, but hardship and rough experiences made me three times aggressive and angry. I spill out part of that anger when I want to debate and it comes handy. Yet, sometimes I get spaced out and prefer to be alone rather in a crowd when overwhelmingly I feel not comfortable with the ones surrounding me or I feel I am not blending in since I prefer to be myself rather put an effort to blend into other atmospheres.

These are my five things that few people know about me, catch you later my friends.

PS: I know it sounds weird answering them since my identity is secret, but what can I say?

Thursday, February 01, 2007

Changing Lay Out Again and Solving Problems

My blog in the last 24 hours was bombarded with over 3000 messages. I changed the lay out for security reasons as well as I will be working on fixing the September Archive which was bombarded with all those messages.