Friday, August 29, 2008

Hezbollah Slap Themselves in the Face!

While facing a powerful army like Israel, they are accurate with their operations.

While sweeping through Beirut, they were accurate! They never shot a single bullet on the army...

But in time of peace, how the hell a Hezbollah militant shot a Lebanese Army helicopter in the head?

Hezbollah could defeat anyone militarily, and obviously only a Hezbollah militant can mess Hezbollah's role on victory, and give 14th of March the stamina to return back politically.

Whereby 14th of March are having a field day on Hezbollah's blunder, the assassination of of the officer stunned the Lebanese society. Furthermore, the co-pilot was detained for two hours, handcuffed, and beaten.

The incident confirmed the fear of Hezbollah-land. Very few people argued that the army should have informed Hezbollah; however, these few people are not aware that the Lebanese army, by Nasrallah's own words, is the ultimate authority. Hence, chaos occurred. The Free Patriotic Movement, which has key-figures of ex-army officials, toned down the incident on their official site, and officially the supporters are lost. The 14th of March became more wrathful than ever, ever since Hezbollah's allies ended the deadlock of almost two years in less than 3 days.

Hezbollah's only statement was that the culprit should be handed out and condemned the operation; however, the Hezbollah militant couldn't have shot the helicopter without an order, and also what about the others who detained the copilot and beat him; specially the helicopter had been conducting training flights for two days.

The picture of Samer Hannah's fiance crying is all that left the Lebanese audience in tears. They were supposed to be wed this saturday.

Hezbollah to ease down tensions, surrendered the "supposed" shooter on the helicopter, but not the others who beat up the co-pilot. Now, we will see how the different party will tone down the publicities.

A final question goes to MP Ali Ammar: "Is it his turn to purify his own chin after Elias Atallah?" Or we are still not allowed to form critiques of his party because it is "God Given"?


Remembering Leon Trotsky: The Arrest of Trotsky

(Every year, I publish the same articles at this time to honor the living ideas of our fallen comrade, whose last words in his death bed was: "Long Live the Fourth International")


While the Menchivics were arguing how to transfer Russia from feudal to capitalistic in nature, and the Second International was entering its recessionary crisis (plenty of different political & ideological reasons), a 26 year old foresaw, through his expertise in Historical Materialism and under the studies of Parvus that the seeds to establish a Soviet is possible due to plenty of reasons. When the first Soviet (Workers Council) was built in 1905, Lenin and Julius Martove go "what is that". When the revolution ended, it ended with Trotsky's head up while the Tsarist army baffled that this young fellow was the transformer of a simple demonstration to the 2nd workers' revolutions and established the Second Workers' Council after the Paris Commune of 1871.

This piece is taken from Isaac Deutcher's Prophet Armed timeless masterpiece, that depicts the very end of the first Soviet (Second compared to Paris Commune), and how its organizer got arrested. The 1905 revolution was about to end with the Tsar's army entering the Soviet HQ, Trotsky at such a young age, 26, successfuly transformed a demonstration to a revolution and established the first Soviet in the history. The 21st Century Communists should learn from their history, and above all how the ideology is placed in the service of the Marxist Revolutionary. This is the second post about probably one of the most important figures/thinkers of Communism, and the saver of the Marxist doctrine from being misunderstood as Stalin's Mother Russia, I published the article last year, and thought it would be a good idea to republish it in the honor of a man who sacrificed everything for the sake of the Proletariat:

The Arrest

"From a balcony Trotsky shouted to the delegates: 'Comrades, offer no resistence. We declare beforehand that only an agent provocateur or a policeman will fire a shot here!" He instructed the delegates to break the locks of their revolvers befure surrendering them to the police. Then he resumed his chair at the Executive's conference.

A trade-union spokesman was just declaring his union's readiness ot join in the general strike, when a detachment of soldiers and police occupied the corridors. A police officer entered the room where the Executive was sitting and began to read a warrant of arrest. It was now only a question whether the Soviet would carry its own weakness and humilation with dignity. Resistence was ruled out. But should they surrender meekly, gloomy-faced, without a sign of defiance? Trotsky's pride and his sense of stage effect would not perit him to preside over so flat and disheartening a scene. But he could not afford any serious act of defiance, he could relieve the gloom of the situation only with humour. And so he turned the last scene of this spectacle into a witty burlesque of a bold performance. As the police officer, facing the Executive, began to read the warrant of arrest, Trostsky sharply interrupted him: "Please do not interfere with the speaker. If you wish to take the floor, you must give your name and I shall ask the meeting whether it wishes to list to you."

The perplexed officer, not knowing whether he was being mocke at or whether he should expect armed resistence, waited fo rthe trade-union delegate to end his speech. Then Trotsky gravely asked the Executive whether he should allow the officer to make a statement "for the sake of information". The officer read the warrant, and Trotsky proposed that the Executive should acknowledge it and take up the next item on it agenda. Another speaker rose.

"Excuse me", the police officer, disconcerted by this unheard of behavior, stammered and turned towards Trotsky, as if for help.

"Please do not interfere", Troskty sharply rebuked him. "You have had the floor; you have made your statement; we have acknowledged it. Does the meeting to have further dealings with the policeman?"


"Then, please, leave the hall."

The officer shuffled his feet, muttered a few words and left. Trotsky called upon the members of the Executive to destroy all documents and not to reveal their names to the police. From the hall below rose the clangour of broken revolver-locks-the delegates were carrying out Troskty's order.

The police officer re-entered, this time leading a platoon of soldiers. A member of the Executive rose to address the soldiers: The Tsar, he said, was at this very moment breaking the promise of the October Manifesto; and they, the soldiers, were allowing themselves to be used as his tools against the people. The officer, afraid of the effect of the words, hurriedly led the soldiers out into the corridor and shot the door behind them. "Even through closed doors", the speaker raised his vice, "the brotherly call of the workers will reach the soldiers."

At length, a strong detachment of police entered, and Trotsky declared the meeting of the Executive closed.

Thus after fifty days ended the epic of the first Soviet in history."

taken from Isaac Deutcher, Prophet Armed Trosky 1879 - 1921 ( Verso, 2003), p. 118 - 119

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Israel calling Lebanese!

Finally I had the chance to hang up the phone on a Zionist!

Well, it started four days ago, my Mother, who is originally Palestinian, received a call saying in Arabic, readable Arabic: "You can win 10,000,000$ by providing concrete information on missing Israeli soldiers..." My Mother simply said on the phone: "To hell with them."

Yesterday, my phone rang, and heard the same recorder, "You can win 10,000,000$..." and simply hung up laughing on the people who thought of such an idea. After all, Israel is wasting budget money on such silly issues. Yet, as an Anti-Zionist, I support Israel spending money, if the IDF is behind such "wonderful" ideas.
Whereby Israel is promoting that these missing soldiers are fighting terrorism, we regard that these soldiers are doing terrorism by butchering civilians and citizens, under US patronage.

Now why I said "silly":

1) No one knows where the hell is Ron Arad or the body parts of other IDF soldiers
2) Even someone knew, it will most probably be in the battlefronts with Hezbollah and after the last Israeli defeat by freeing Samir Quntar, Hezbollah proved to the whole world that only Hezbollah members know where are the Soldiers or their status...
3) Even if non-Hezbollah knew, no one in their sane mind will cooperate with the country that holds the largest number of Lebanese victims on their hand. It is true Syria oppressed our freedom for quite a long while, but it is Israel that bombarded us.

And hence that blood lust machinery called the Israeli Defense Forces are doing their best to find out about Ron Arad. Despite all searches, Israel always called the Lebanese. Sometimes Israel called the Southern Lebanese to threaten them that Judgement day is coming. During the July War, Israel called Lebanese, either mocking them or promising them blood, or called them to help Israel fighting "terrorism". I find it ironic that Israel is calling their victims to surrender Hezbollah fighters. Hezbollah successfully countered such a propaganda by sending messages to Northern Israel's residents that their government is the real terrorist, and so far they issued lies.

Such phone calls are primarily designed to intimidate the Lebanese whereby the victims have to hear their butcher's voice. Nevertheless, Lebanon so far won the race of intimidation. The liberation of Samir Quntar amidst fireworks and celebrations to be followed by a National Holiday, got the Intelligence officers of Israel to go threatening: We will assassinate Samir Quntar, or "level down the entire Lebanon" (to the last, they already did that several times. Leaving 30 or 40% of Beirut standing I guess doesn't qualify to the bloodlust of Israel as pure leveling down Beirut).

Whereas Israel is lost in mazes of chaos, the Israeli public has been losing faith in their officials. Political apathy in their polls has decreased drastically. The question to the Israelis: When are they willing to abandon the Zionist racist exclusivist doctrine and apologize officially for the demolishment of Palestine? In case they never noticed from the 2006 war and 2000 evacuation, the underdogs caught up with the tyrants.

One final note, Israel called the July war as "The Second Lebanese War"; however, that is the biggest lie in the world. Israel after the Civil War remained in Southern Lebanon till the year 2000, whereby they fled like little scared soldiers. Even when Lebanon was freed (till the issue of Sheb'a arms is settled), Israel intimidated the Southern Lebanese, fishermen, and others as well. This not to forget the Southern Lebanese Army, whereby they were Israel's "Lebanese" army collapsing!

What intimidates the Lebanese most is the on-going butchery of the Palestinians on day-to-day basis, whereas international media doesn't display the reality of the situation to their local audiences.

Now, what else Israel got to say? More empty threats? Or more tears to the cameras to hide the reality of the Palestinian people? Aren't the Zionists fed up from isolating the Jews from their neighbors?

No War but Class War


Friday, August 22, 2008

The Strategy of Land Acquisition

The current bulldozers entering the "Arab Side of Jerusalem" is nothing new to us. Whenever a peace treaty enters, the Zionists send their bulldozers to oust residents from their homes, and then encourage people to become extremists whereby they encourage vengeance from the Palestinians who lost their homes. Already, several Arab locations suffer a lot of harsh conditions in regards to water, and Israel usually takes either 12 years or even doesn't reply to resident demands for basic needs of life (such as water), bulldozers are sent to demolish a fictional peace which is simply a cover for the Zionist government to proceed with expanding their settlements at the expense of the Palestinian residents. To analyze their history, I shall use a summary of an article, which was written by A. Granott, under the title of "The Strategy of Land Acquisition".

Granott, who clearly supported the Zionist non-objective false history, discusses the history of Zionist acquisition of land in Palestine and how their tactics evolved with time. At first, the theme of purchase was simply purchasing without having any land policy. The first company to buy land and dominated within the Jewish sphere, was P.I.C.A. which was initiated by Baron De Rothschild, which aimed at establishing Jewish Settlements. Afterwards, the Jewish National Fund replaced the P.I.C.A settlements as it grew stronger along with time, dominated 9/10 of purchased land.

The purchasers never really focused on buying land to fit the settlement scenario they had in their minds; on the contrary, they bought land first, then planned how to establish the settlement based on the contingency situation of that newly purchased land. After all, according to British Officials, the Jewish community was only 9% with the 2% increasing from 1917 till 1919. The value of the land appeared if it can be agriculturally exploited, or used for Sub/Urban purposes. It shows that the Zionists lacked any real planning in their first stages. With the availability of funds, they were able to buy more land from Arab Land Owners. The author attributes the expansion of Jewish ownership as a good cause to economic prosperity of the region, which is totally biased.

The purchasers were lost for a while as they faced problem whether to proceed with stockpiling land reserves or simply suspend the processes of purchases. They decided to purchase when circumstances allowed to. Hence, the quest for purchasing land at any price is over, and the Zionists focused on purchasing land in cheapest manner.

When Palestine became under British Mandate, things became easier, and Jewish immigration to Palestine was facilitated by the system, but there were disturbances from Arabs as a reaction to extortion, forced evacuation, and assistance from the British soldiers in clearing Arab inhabited sites. This led the Zionists to focus on purchasing land for security reasons, and prevent the isolation of Galilee. Whenever the concentration of land purchases to strengthen and expand a settlement is feasible, they purchased, and that policy led them as far as Nagaf; however, the Zionists were afraid of the British to change their minds in terms of assisting the Zionists, after all the British got their own priorities. British logic to support the Zionists was to empower a tiny minority to control the majority, and hence have both flanks of the Suez Canal under control. This obsession of losing the Suez Canal was due to the attempt of the Ottoman Empire, during World War I, to take control over the Suez Canal and cut the British Empire between the Far East and Mediterranean in half.

The author then talks of the "dark ages" within the purchase processes, which according to him an alliance between the Arabs and the Brits occurred that totally hindered Zionist purchasing tactics and almost crippled immigration to the holy land (Post-Wailing Wall incident in 1929). The fact this unholy "alliance" is treated that way was simply to aggrandize Zionist myths. The real facts were the awareness of the British Empire that Palestine was neither "empty" according to Zionist claims, nor it can host two "nations". There was no alliance at all, as a matter of fact, the British forces remained easy on the Zionists, even turning the other eye whenever the Zionists forced Palestinian Jews to use Jewish labor under the threats of extortions, blackmail, and threats. The critique to this theory is that the British during "the dark moments" started to train the Haganah, initiated by a religious hardliner called Odre Wingate. Politics played a role in Land Purchases afterwards. As security of Jewish immigrants was being threatened, they decided to establish settlements towards the North (facing Lebanese borders) and focused on security settlements as a whole. Security settlements were important every time the political situation switched to the advantage of the Arabs. Hence, land was the main factor to establish a state. A big difference appeared in the separate partition of land between Jews and Arabs between 1937 & 1947. In 1947, the Jewish side was much bigger than 1937 as more land was purchased in a concentrated manner with settlements and everything; this is due to the fact the Zionists focused mostly on land purchase security.

The Zionists didn’t have everything planned since dawn of history as some Arab scholars say. On the contrary, they just knew how to adapt their policies of purchase to every change in the political situation.

The best reference for what happened afterwards in 1947 - 1949 is tackled by two scholars. The first scholar ironically is an Israeli Zionist, Benny Morris, in his book "Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem 1947 - 1949"; the author was almost accused of treason for reporting history as it happened. The second scholar is Palestinian, Walid Khalidy, who introduced the "Masterplan" theory applied by the Zionists whereby Plan D was planned before hand to oust the Palestinians out of their homes.

(Picture Above: Gradual Expansion of the Zionist Settlements)

Friday, August 15, 2008

Mahmoud Darwish - By Mahir Ali

Article taken from here

FROM the ridiculous to the sublime: last Saturday brought sorrowful tidings from Houston, where efforts by surgeons to mend Mahmoud Darwish's broken heart came to naught. "We have lost part of our essence, the essence of the Palestinian being," commented Hanan Ashrawi on the death of a poet who for nearly five decades inimitably articulated the suffering of his people, the agony of dispossession and exile, and - unfailingly - the hope of reunion with the beloved, a dream that remained unfulfilled. Darwish parted ways with the PLO in the wake of the Oslo travesty 15 years ago, yet Mahmoud Abbas didn't think twice before declaring three days of mourning in a nation that remains bereft of statehood.

In 1971, when his decision to live outside the occupied territories was roundly criticized throughout the Arab world, Darwish noted: "I am not the first patriot or poet to leave his country in order to draw nearer to it." He lived in Moscow, in Cairo, in Beirut, in Tunis; it was 26 years before he returned to a homeland from which he perforce remained estranged, settling in Ramallah. During a poetry reading last year, he described the violence between Fatah and Hamas as "a public attempt at suicide in the streets".

Many years earlier, he had lamented: "If only these verses/ Were a chisel in the grip of a worker,/ A grenade in the hand of a fighter/ ... a plough in the hands of a peasant". In due course he was elevated, inevitably, to the ranks of a 20th-century pantheon that includes the likes of Pablo Neruda, Nazim Hikmet and Faiz Ahmed Faiz. Darwish, who once described himself as "the envoy of a wound that does not bargain", shared with these three a Marxist-humanist perspective that ensured he was always more popular among Arab people than among their unrepresentative rulers.

Israeli reports of his demise mentioned that in 2000 the education minister, Yossi Sarid, had recommended including some of Darwish's poems in the high school curriculum, but the idea was vetoed by the prime minister, Ehud Barak. It is unlikely that the Israelis will change their minds now that the poet has been interred in the land he loved so passionately, perhaps amid an olive grove. And even if they did, it is all but inconceivable that they would authorize schoolchildren to become acquainted with particularly potent diatribes such as the early poem On Man, which goes:

They gagged his mouth,

Bound his hands to the rock of the dead

And said: Murderer!

They took his food, clothes and banners,

Cast him into the condemned cell

And said: Thief!

They drove him away from every port,

Took his young sweetheart,

Then said: Refugee!

O you with bloodshot eyes and bloody hands,

Night is short-lived,

The detention room lasts not for ever,

Nor yet the links of chains.

Nero died, Rome did not:

With her very eyes she fights.

And seeds from a withered ear

With wheat shall fill the valley.

And Hence, I bought a Book...

This article is nothing but a personal recount about one of the ironies (and for a change it is not a historical irony in terms of Lebanese power-struggle politics) that I encountered. I went to Virgin Megastore to buy some books. In 99% of the cases, I boycott those multi-national institutions, and to go one step further, I promote their dangers as an example of class struggle, with one perspective at least required for this post (there are several dimensions to that story, I recommend corpwatch to read), whereby the big corporations oust the smaller businesses with their gigantic budget, international links, and gain monopoly on the access of information. In a sense, to be seen in Virgin Megastore, I find that rather embarrassing, or rather subdue to the system. Most of my ideological readings have been on the Marxist Internet Archives; however, not everything is available to the public for free.

The story goes that I go with a fellow comrade to buy a book for Isaac Deutcher. As I enter the store, I bump to a fellow Comrade of mine, who probably in my own honest opinion, is the most powerful academic (and a Marxist with a little bit of Arab nationalist affiliations). That man was Fawwaz Traboulsi. The story took place four years ago. I meet up with him and as always, ask him a zillion questions on life, work, activism, academics, what to read, ...etc. I told him that my purpose to this place was to buy a book written by Isaac Deutcher. Other than the fact he knew his wife, the man never seized to surprise me. I always hear him on TV, and read his articles, and his book "A History of Modern Lebanon" has become almost a bible to be read on daily basis.

I told him: "I came here to buy a book by Deutcher"
Traboulsi: "It is interesting that they import a lot of books on the Soviet Union, and Soviet characters."
Me : "Indeed, that is true"
Traboulsi: "But I find it strange to see books on Lenin, Trotsky, Marx, and others but not a single book written by those authors."
Well, it is true. After a brief moment of debate, we went our separate ways.

Now, here we were, couple of Comrades, at Virgin Megastore, whereas some of them were going to buy books on Communism. Now of course, to answer Traboulsi's complaint, those who can access the Marxist Internet Archives, they can access them, or try to print them out for future photocopies. Almost 95% of what all of the previous mentioned Communist intellects have their writings present in those earlier Marxist archives (even minutes of meetings).

Moving around the story of Mr. Deutcher. The book cost me a bundle, and unlike several "Communists", cash flow is a problem for me. Amen for internationalism within the Marxist doctrines, whereby comrades are not bounded by borders. So I contacted two comrades in the US who were on their way to Beirut, and I got the final required original copy for Isaac Deutcher. When I wanted to pay for it, my comrade replies: "No need comrade, I got almost for free." In a stunned manner, I look at him and answer back: "But the book is an original and new", and my comrade replied: "I got it at a second shop."

Now you have to understand, when several comrades meet, and they originate from different borders, a zillion question pops up. Luckily for us, we entered the debate on "Access of Information" while having a quick 8 shots of Vodka (four of them were on the house). He asked:

Comrade: "Where did you get the book?"
Me : "Don't laugh, from Virgin Megastore"
Comrade: "For real, they actually sell our stuff at Virgin Megastore?"
Me : "Don't Laugh, I couldn't find the Isaac Deutcher series except in Virgin Megastore"
Comrade: "Interesting, over here they never sell anything Communist or Anarchist"

Well, from that perspective, it was interesting. Whereas I felt being a slave forced to buy a book that I needed for different reasons, but I couldn't attain it anywhere but Virgin Megastore. Damned Capitalists!


Wednesday, August 06, 2008

Zionists and the Bible

Luckily for me, I inherited a large collection of books on Palestine from my grandparents that are all in good shape. One article I enjoyed reading 14 years ago was by Professor Alfred Guillaume, under the title of Zionists and the Bible (published by Igram Press, and sold for 50 cents). The article was part of a bigger pamphlet that included several articles, under the title of Israel: According to the Holy Scriptures.

Just when I wanted to type it out, I found the article over here,now the source might be controversial; however, it saved me hours of typing.

The article discusses in details whether or not Israel was a Promised Land in the 20th Century, and furthermore reveals whether of not the Zionists actually followed the 'Bible' or not. Despite my athiesm, I enjoy following someone's claim all the way, as a Lebanese proverb says: "Keep Following the Liar to his/her house". It is interesting to read that perspective as well...

Professor Alfred Guillaume is a professor of Old Testament Studies at the University of London, has authored various works on the Old Testament and is co-editor of "The Legacy of Islam".

I know the article is not of class struggle in nature, but enjoy it


Wednesday, July 30, 2008

The Lebanese – Israeli Lullaby


Probably the most interesting and most complex relationship between the Zionists and the Lebanese was the contradictions of regarding Lebanon as part of the Israeli plans.

Lebanon Proper, under the Ottomans, was divided into several regions, which included some parts existing in Syria and Palestine. Lebanon by the 19th century was divided into an autonomous Mutasarifieh in Mt. Lebanon which covered the Druze and Christian lands, the Tripoli governorate which included Northern Lebanon and parts of Syria, the Damascus governorate, which included the Bekaa, and the A'ka governorate, which included parts of the South as well as occasionally Sour (aka Tyre). Now these borders fluctuated, but in general, for most of the centuries of Ottoman rule, that is how Lebanon administratively was divided.

For starters, Lebanon since Prince Fakhridean II had enjoyed autonomy, sometimes that autonomy expanded to include certain Syrian areas, and sometimes that autonomy got demolished. Eventually, there was an interruption of 9 years under Mohammad Ali Basha, and his son Ibrahim Basha, of Egypt, for nine years. In the 19th century, Prince Bashir II, an ex-Sunni converting to Christianity, created the concept of Mt. Lebanon based on Christian premises, the concept of sovereign Lebanon and the Lebanese Christians became intertwined since then, specially in a later phase of the 19th century, when it was an autonomous region, under an Ottoman governor, with the patronage of six European imperial forces. By then, Europe's super powers followed the logic of "protecting the minorities" to expand their territorial acquisitions.
By the time the French successfully dominated Syria and Lebanon Proper regions, the British successfully ousted the French from the Sykes-Pico agreement, and took over Palestine. Jordan was separated from Syria, under the British Mandate, while Iraq broke the norm of carving out nations, rather, that country was patched up from three large governorates into a gigantic country, Iraq. Under Archbishop Howayek, from Mt. Lebanon, the second Lebanese delegation travelled to Versailles negotiations, and demanded that the French rule Lebanon directly after WWI. Clemenceau appeared in the newspapers hugging Archbishop Howayek. Modern Lebanon was officially created in 1920. One purpose for its creation was the Christians seeking autonomy in a Muslim world. It has to be noted, the Christians were the first to advocate Arab nationalism in the face of the Ottomans, but when having the chance to break free, the Versailles treaty gave them that chance.

The Zionists, on the other hand, didn't have a land to demand. The Palestinians, made up of Muslims, Christians, and Jews were living in harmony and didn't accept the isolationist logic of the Zionists. Till current days, Arab Jews still argue that Zionism came from Europe. Israel was not supposed to take place, the British promised the Zionists a national home and not a nation in the infamous Balfour Declaration of 1917. The Zionists were actually desperate, they were cajoled by the Germans and the British, and the Zionists almost opted for the German option, however, due to Germany's alliance to Turkey, the Germans couldn’t deliver their promises. It has to be noted, that the Zionists were a huge minority in Europe. The Communist Jews, the Jewish Socialist Party (Bund), and the Jewish assimilation associations were much more popular. Probably the most famous Jews of that era were Clara Zatkin, Rosa Luxemburg, Leon Trotsky, Grigory Zinoviev, and Leon Kamenev. The fact that Jews were leading revolutions throughout Europe placed Weizmann in an awkward position to the extent in a 1919 meeting with Lord Balfour in Paris, his men had to convince Lord Balfour that Lenin's mother was not a Jew, rather Lenin's background was pure Christian.

Nevertheless, once landing in Palestine, the Zionists started their expulsions, purchases of land, and importation of Jews from Europe under the promise of a better world. The British officials were surprised that Palestine "was not empty".
The Zionists nevertheless, using history to justify their 19th century ethnic and segregationist movement, to argue that they are reunite a Diaspora of Jews that dated back 2000 years ago. The irony is that Israel as a nation state didn't last even a century when it was crushed by the Romans. Nevertheless, they regarded themselves as a minority surrounded by Arabs and Islam. The Lebanese Christians, unlike the Palestinian Christians, were regarded differently. While the Palestinian Christians were regarded as enemies, same as the Muslims, the Zionists used history to regard the Lebanese Christians as Phoenicians.

Certain Christians did promote the Phoenician nationality in the area of Lebanon then. Their argument is to give legitimacy for the ideals of independent Lebanon by providing roots that dated back to the pre-Islamic conquests, hence the Phoenician identity. It was first triggered in the 19th century by a certain French sociologist, however, it didn't gain momentum accept when the Christians needed autonomy. There was never a Phoenician state, the Phoenicians were divided into Phoenician city states and kingdoms. Each mini-kingdom had its own policy, such as the colonization of Libya as an escape route for what was happening in the homelands. Probably the only time the Phoenicians fought as a single identity is when they pooled their resources to halt the advancing Assyrians. They were successful the first time militarily.

Several Zionist documents in the early 20th century referred to the Christians as Phoenicians and wanted to revive the over 2200 year old relationship with them. They regarded the Phoenicians as the perfect allies. Since the Lebanese Jews and Zionist Jews were a minority. Probably the first contact between the Zionists and the Lebanese was through the Soursok family, which sold the Jewish Agency Palestinian Lands, even though they didn't own property of them. According to Amin Mustapha's book: History of Resistance in Lebanon, the Zionists even had the proposal to shift the Christians to South in an autonomous region in alliance to Israel, to safeguard their Northern borders.

1930s - 1940s

The most notorious Lebanese back then to have contacts with them was the Lebanese President Emile Edde (Lebanese President from 1936 – 1941), whose offspring Reymond Edde challenged his father's ideas. Emile Edde was known for his Christian hardliner perspective. He was quoted of saying that whoever doesn't like Lebanon, there is always Mecca. In the early half of the 1930s, he sent Weizmann a congratulating letter that it seems he will establish the nation-state he seeks.
Even worse, Emile Edde had plans to carve out Lebanon and give parts of Muslim majority to the Zionists' forthcoming nation. Itimar Rabinovich wrote: "Another School of thought, headed by Emile Edde, was convinced by the 1932 census that the Muslims were about to become the majority in the Lebanese state and that the possibility of France abandoning the Lebanese Christians had to be taken seriously. Edde concluded that it was essential that to 'expedite the territorial reduction of Lebanon in order to enable the latter state to have a more consistent Christian majority.' By 'amputating' Tripoli and Southern Lebanon from the Lebanese state, 'Lebanon will be rid of almost 140,000 Shi'I and Sunni Muslims and will be left with a Christian majority equaling about 80% of its population.' Edde tried to win the support of the French government, which was not unimpressed with his reasoning but which in the end chose to preserve the territorial status quo. Still, Edde did not abandon his idea, and in 1946 he sent an emissary to Chaim Weizmann, the Zionist leader, to attempt to persuade Weizmann to seek the incorporation of southern Lebanon and its predominantly Muslim population into the Jewish national home."

(Picture Above: President Emile Edde)

To confirm the validity of this historical disastrous point in Lebanese history, Itimar Rabinovich's footnote included the following: "In a meeting of the directorate of the Jewish Agency on February 11, 1945, Weizmann, the president of the agency, reported that, "The son of the former president came to me. A Christian under a strong French influence – he came with a proposal ... that he would like to hand over to us, to the national home Tyre and Sidon ... because there are there a hundred thousand Muslims. I responded by saying that my grandfather used to say that he would not receive a 'biting' gift; but he would not relent and said that he will come again" (minutes of the Jewish Agency Directorate General).

(Picture Above: Ben Gurion)

Of course, Israel was announced as an entity in 1948, and Lebanon participated in the mockery of the Arab world sending their soldiers to Israel. Lebanon won its front at Malikieh, and progressed to link up with the Syrian army. However, the Jordanian and Egyptian treason for territorial expansion led to the Israeli Defense Forces to have time to equip their armies and eventually ousting all Arab regions except Ghaza and the West Bank due to Egyptian and Jordanian treason.

It has to be noted, that Lebanon was under the French Mandate from Post WWI till 1943, and the Phoenician Christians didn't represent the entire Christian community. According to Wilson's commission, the majority of the Christians preferred the link-up with Faysal's Kingdom.

To understand the vision of the Israelis to Lebanon in the 1950s, we have to look at Yossi Schwartz's article, who highlighted important aspects on Ben Gurion's perspective and Israeli aims. I hope he will continue to highlight more: "

Two important sources on the Zionist plans for Lebanon are the diary of Moshe Sharett, who was the Prime Minster of Israel in 1954-1955 and who was considered a "soft Zionist", and Livia Rokach's Israel's Sacred Terrorism: A study based on Moshe Sharett's Personal Diary, and other documents. In the latter we find some very interesting information, and it is worth quoting from Sharett's diary at length:

"Then he [Ben Gurion] passed on to another issue. This is the time, he said, to push Lebanon, that is, the Maronites in that country, to proclaim a Christian State. I said that this was nonsense. The Maronites are divided. The partisans of Christian separatism are weak and will dare do nothing. A Christian Lebanon would mean their giving up Tyre, Tripoli, and the Beka'a. There is no force that could bring Lebanon back to its pre-World War I dimensions, and all the more so because in that case it would lose its economic raison-d'etre. Ben Gurion reacted furiously. He began to enumerate the historical justification for a restricted Christian Lebanon. If such a development were to take place, the Christian Powers would not dare oppose it. I claimed that there was no factor ready to create such a situation, and that if we were to push and encourage it on our own we would get ourselves into an adventure that will place shame on us. Here came a wave of insults regarding my lack of daring and my narrow-mindedness. We ought to send envoys and spend money. I said there was no money. The answer was that there is no such thing. The money must be found, if not in the Treasury then at the Jewish Agency! For such a project it is worthwhile throwing away one hundred thousand, half a million, a million dollars. When this happens a decisive change will take place in the Middle East, a new era will start. I got tired of struggling against a whirlwind. (27 February 1954,)"

The next day David Ben Gurion sent Sharett the following letter:
"To Moshe Sharett the Prime Minister,
Sdeh Boker, February 27, 1954

"Upon my withdrawal from the government I decided in my heart to desist from intervening and expressing my opinion on current political affairs so as not to make things difficult for the government in any way. And if you hadn't called on me, the three of you, yourself, Lavon and Dayan, I would not have, of my own accord, expressed an opinion on what is being done or what ought to be done. But as you called me, I deem it my duty to comply with your wishes, and especially with your own wish as Prime Minister. Therefore, I permit myself to go back to one issue which you did not approve of and discuss it again, and this is the issue of Lebanon.

(Picture Above: Moshe Sharrett)

"It is clear that Lebanon is the weakest link in the Arab League. The other minorities in the Arab States are all Muslim, except for the Copts. But Egypt is the most compact and solid of the Arab States and the majority there consists of one solid block, of one race, religion and language, and the Christian minority does not seriously affect their political and national unity. Not so the Christians in Lebanon. They are a majority in the historical Lebanon and this majority has a tradition and a culture different from those of the other components of the League. Also within the wider borders (this was the worst mistake made by France when it extended the borders of Lebanon), the Muslims are not free to do as they wish, even if they are a majority there (and I don't know if they are, indeed, a majority) for fear of the Christians. The creation of a Christian State is therefore a natural act; it has historical roots and it will find support in wide circles in the Christian world, both Catholic and Protestant...

D.B.G. (27 February 1954)"

Sharett responded a few weeks later with the following:
"Mr. David Ben Gurion, March 18, 1954, Sdeh Boker

"As far as I know, in Lebanon today exists no movement aiming at transforming the country into a Christian State governed by the Maronite community...
"This is not surprising. The transformation of Lebanon into a Christian State as a result of an outside initiative is unfeasible today... I don't exclude the possibility of accomplishing this goal in the wake of a wave of shocks that will sweep the Middle East... will destroy the present constellations and will form others. But in the present Lebanon, with its present territorial and demographic dimensions and its international relations, no serious initiative of the kind is imaginable.

"The Christians do not constitute the majority in Lebanon. Nor are they a unified block, politically speaking or community-wise. The Orthodox minority in Lebanon tends to identify with their brethren in Syria. They will not be ready to go to war for a Christian Lebanon, which is for a Lebanon smaller than it is today, and detached from the Arab League. On the contrary, they would probably not be opposed to a Lebanon united to Syria, as this would contribute to strengthening their own community and the Orthodox community throughout the region... In fact, there are more Orthodox Christians in Syria than in Lebanon, and the Orthodox in Syria and Lebanon together are more numerous than the Maronites...

"... There are also decisive economic arguments against it. We are not discussing the issue in 1920/21... but 30 years later. Mount Lebanon has meanwhile integrated into one organic unit with the coastal plane of Tyre and Sidon, the Valley of Baalbeck and the city of Tripoli. They are commercially and economically interdependent and inseparable. Mount Lebanon was not a self-sufficient unit even before World War 1... The annexation of the three regions plus the city of Beirut to the Lebanese State has rendered possible the creation of a balanced economy. A return to the past would not just mean a surgical operation but also a disintegration leading to the end of Lebanon...

"When all this has been said, [I should add that] I would not have objected, and on the contrary I would have certainly been favorable to the idea, of actively aiding any manifestation of agitation in the Maronite community tending to strengthen its isolationist tendencies, even if there were no real chances of achieving the goals; I would have considered positive the very existence of such an agitation and the destabilization it could bring about, the trouble it would have caused the League, the diversion of attention from the Arab-Israeli complications that it would have caused, and the very kindling of a fire made up of impulses toward Christian independence. But what can I do when such an agitation is nonexistent? ... In the present condition, I am afraid that any attempt on our part would be considered as lightheartedness and superficiality or worse-as an adventurous speculation upon the well being and existence of others and a readiness to sacrifice their basic good for the benefit of a temporary tactical advantage for Israel.

"Moreover, if this plan is not kept a secret but becomes known a danger which cannot be underestimated in the Middle Eastern circumstances-the damage which we shall suffer... would not be compensated even by an eventual success of the operation itself...
"M. S.
(18 March 1954)"

At that time Ben Gurion did not convince Sharett. The conditions were not ripe for such an attempt. But the idea never went away and remained in the minds of the leading Zionists as an option. The time to put into practice came in 1978 during the civil war when the "Litani Operation" was launched.

Israel was created at a terrible price. The Palestinians were expelled from their homeland, pushed into refugee camps all around the region. Israel thus came into being in an almost permanent state of war against its Arab neighbours. Israel was envisaged as an outpost of western imperialism, a "safe ally" that could police this oil-rich region. For decades it played that role quite successfully. Part of that task involved trying to get at least one "friendly" regime to its north in Lebanon. But this was easier said than done. Because of its delicate ethnic makeup, Lebanon dominated by the Christian elite could never be a stable country. Class conflict would emerge and re-emerge in the form of ethnic conflict due to the lack of a clear working class, socialist leadership that could cut across the ethnic divide.

1960s - 1970s

(Picture Above: Kamal Junblatt)

1960s and 1970s witnessed the Israelis focusing on the destruction of the PLO who started to gain international recognition. The Christians and Israelis had common interests. The Christians considered PLO activities as downsizing the sovereignty of Lebanon, and worse, their own, specially the PLO misconduct gave the Phalange mainly the ability to recruit over 90,000 Christian, whereby such a number is too large for a small country like Lebanon. They were already allocated densely in Lebanon and Jordan. Their warplanes saved the Monarchy and the PLO became cornered in Lebanon. As thousands of PLO warriors moved to Lebanon from Jordan after 1970, Israeli efforts were focused on how to contain the PLO in Lebanon.

(Picture Above: Palestinian Refugee Camp in Jabal Hussein in 1970)

(Picture Above: Refugee Camp in New Amman following Black September in 1970)

The first logic was bomb Lebanon and specially the entire South and blame it on the PLO operations, which actually paid off extensively because the Shiites became wrathful of the Palestinians and stood politically next to the Christian Government. Moussa al Sadre and later Nabih Berri built AMAL movement based on the anti-Palestinian resentments. Kamal Junblatt was critical against Moussa el Sadre's indirect alignment with the Christians despite the fact that Fatah played a role in building that militia. The second logic was how to help the Christians, who were the primary spearheads against the PLO activities. Hence, minor arms were sent to the Phalange/Tigers/Tanzeem via Jounieh port. Most of the weapons that were sent have been Soviet manufactured and captured from the PLO militants in occupied Palestine and Jordan. The smuggling occurred via Cyprus, and in case the weaponries were discovered, the Lebanese National Movement, PLO's allies, or the Palestinians themselves will take the blame and Israel will not be linked to the Christians. The Israelis clearly didn't want direct confrontation in Lebanon, rather, they preferred that the Christians were helped to stand on their own two feet. The first man to establish contacts with the Israelis was head of the most feared militia, the army offshoot leader of al-Tanzeem, Georges Adwan (current member of Parliament).

(Picture Above: Yasser Arafat reacts to applause at the U.N. General Assembly in New York in this Nov. 13, 1974)

Prior to the Lebanese Civil War, Yasser Arafat gave the peace initiative of "Olive Instead of Bullets", whereby he declared that he will be satisfied with rump Palestine, which included the West Bank and Ghazza, the Israelis refused such a peace offering, however, it gave the Palestinian people the status of observant in the UN, which meant half-way recognition of Palestinians internationally. Some question if the Israelis accepted the offer then instead almost 20 years later, would have been there war in Lebanon? Or at least a war to last 17 years?

(Picture Above: Syrians enter Lebanon)

When the Lebanese National Movement and the PLO dominated over 81% of Lebanon in 1975-1976 wars, Israeli interests switched whereby they gave Henry Kissinger the blessing to let the Syrians uproot the PLO from existence. Hence, the Syrians, under the hesitated blessings of Pierre Gemayel, Camille Shamoun, and Suleiman Franjieh, as well as Israel and USA, entered Lebanon. The Israelis still didn't want to be directly involved, because then the Christian militias would lose legitimacy in the Arab World. In 1977, Israel pulled the Litani operation to safeguard its Northern borders.


(Picture Above: War-Criminal Ariel Sharon)

Bashir Gemayel's Zahli Crisis successfully got the Israelis and Syrians involved. When Israeli planes should down Syrian aerial vehicles, the Palestinians rained in the South missiles on Northern Israel. Hence, Ariel Sharon, then Minister of Defense, wanted to permanently demolish the PLO. The settlement in post-Zahli crisis, stopped everyone from shooting, but kept the PLO growing stronger without any interventions. In 1981, Sharon visited Bashir Gemayel in East Beirut, and had dinner with Pierre Gemayel and Camille Shamoun, with the promise to invade Lebanon since now the Syrians – Lebanese National Movement – PLO forged an undefeatable alliance. The logic for such a move was to uproot the PLO once and for all and block any sovereignty. Sharon's second logic was install a satellite president and impose a peace treaty. Bashir Gemayel already became the most popular Christian since the 100 Days War where the Syrian forces bombed brutally East Beirut for a 100 days.
When the invasion began in 1982, the Israelis failed to demolish the PLO since they were severely allocated in West Beirut. Sharon's plan was to have the Lebanese Forces (then a unity of militias under one banner militarily) enter the street to street fights. Bashir Gemayel, knowing his men's disability to face the cornered PLO and Lebanese National Movement, preferred not to.

(Picture Above: Israel Bombing West Beirut residential areas)

(Picture Above: Times cover in 1982)

Israel's main man was Bashir Gemayel, he suited their plans to be president, whereby Israel will have military benefits, and even joint business markets, Bashir became stubborn under US support. For the Israelis, they always thought that peace with Lebanon will eventually come, but after a stronger country signs peace. Bashir was assassinated. Prior to the assassination; however, Bashir had his undelivered inauguration speech. In it again, Bashir stressed on how Lebanon is an Orientalist nation rather an Arab nation again giving its existance roots to a pre-Islamic era. Furthermore, he didn't regard Lebanon in a state of civil war, rather under Palestinian and Syrian invasion without refering to the Israelis, more like hinting to the Israelis to oust the PLO militant remainders and Syrian forces out. It is worthy to note, that Sharon had a Plan B, which was transferring the PLO and the whole Palestinians to Jordan after assassinating the Jordanian King, hence establish a "New Palestine" for the Palestinians. The US diplomats accused Sharon as an 'asshole'.

(Picture Above: Bashir Gemayel)

While trying to salvage a deal with Amin Gemayel, even the Americans hindered several of their efforts. However, it is known that Sharon tried to pull a deal with Amin Gemayel behind the Americans' backs, through a business merchant called Sami Marun. It was intercepted, and the Americans changed a lot of the items which went to Lebanon's benefits. However, the 17th of May Accord was shot down via Syria, and its allies Junblatt and Berri. Israel's primary concern became on how to pull out from Lebanon since they couldn't tolerate military operations conducted on them.
Their sudden pull-out from Mt. Lebanon, witnessed pro-Lebanese Forces residents demonstrating in front their headquarters over there not to withdraw, but the IDF couldn't tolerate any more casualties. The sudden pull-out from Mt. Lebanon witnessed the bloodiest collisions in Mt. Lebanon between Walid Junblatt and Samir Geagea, which ended up with bloodshed, mostly on Christian areas, and resulted in the biggest sectarian cleansing since Bashir Gemayel's cleansing of East Beirut from Non-Christians. Since then, the Christian leadership lost confidence with the Israelis and felt they were betrayed.

(Picture Above: Israel's occupation of Southern Lebanon)

1990s - 2000s

The case of the Northern borders became the priority of Israel, specially Hezbollah arming itself under the Syrian Mandate in Lebanon. They attempted to preserve the 40 Km area in South Lebanon with their puppy army, the South Lebanese Army, but failed. After confrontations in 1993, 1996, the year 2000 they were expelled in Lebanon.
Ehud Barak actually won elections in Israel with the promise of withdrawing from South Lebanon. At first, his government launched "Lebanon First", whereby they sought to seek a peace treaty, the negotiations were shot down because the Lebanese, under Syrian hegemony, demanded that Israel would negotiate with Lebanon and Syria at the same time. When the Israelis initiated "Syria First", the Syrian regime directly hopped the negotiating table. While Hezbollah operations aggravated, the Israelis preferred to preserve their tight grip on the Golan Heights in Syria, and withdrew suddenly from Southern Lebanon, leaving Syria shocked without any means to bargain in 2000.

Post 2005 events

(Picture Above: July War 2006 was more than the IDF soldiers can handle, another contributing factor on Israel's crackdown for Lebanese demands)

After Harriri's assassination in 2005, Israel held high hopes towards Lebanon after Syria was ousted out by internal activism and international pressure. Nevertheless, the participation of their sworn enemies, Hezbollah, in the government meant bad news. The US hoped that the anti-Syrian 14th of March can contain Hezbollah, but to no productive results. At first, some expressed hope when Hezbollah participated in the government that they will become gradually a political party, but they ended up as both: political and militant. Israel, in collaboration with the US, decided to end Hezbollah, with the support several Arab leaders, according to Bolton at Marcel Ghanem's talk show. Their primary lookout was certain Christian Groups, the Druze, and the Sunni Street. When Hezbollah, for different speculated reasons pulled their military operation on July 12, 2006, the war began, and the promise of Olmert was "extermination of Hezbollah". From this perspective, they will proceed bombarding Hezbollah, and hoped that a civil war will break between the 14th of Marchers and Hezbollah. Yet, the Lebanese despite political divisions, united on assisting the refugees throughout Lebanon. Hence their plans that were relatively successful in the late 1960s, and very successful in the 1970s ended up in failure. Yet, Hezbollah emerged even stronger, calling the war "Divine Victory". Their hopes of 14th of March to balance against Hezbollah evaporated when Hezbollah within 72 hours swept Lebanon politically and militantly under their grip. Even worse for the Israelis, the appearance of two powerfully militant parties preserving their trainings since the days of the civil war: AMAL Movement and the Syrian Social Nationalist Party. This doesn't mean that 14th of March have been collaborating with Israel, rather, they shared the hatred to Syria in Lebanon. 14th of March also didn't express any need to forge any peace treaty with Israel, specially their mass butchery of the Lebanese, and destructive operation against Lebanon as a whole. Hence, Israel's key component, the undefeatable army, changed their plans and followed an informal disengagement plan. Whereby they successfully were willing to give Hezbollah the remaining prisoners, and a large chunk of martyrs, willing to withdraw from Sheba'a farms, and initiated via Turkey, under US patronage, the withdrawal from the Golan Heights, in order to focus on their internal problems, and probably gain some time to rebuild their army and sort internal problems for future wars.

(Picture Above: Israeli Brutality on Beirut during the July War of 2006)


Sunday, July 27, 2008

Not the Final Chapter of the July War

I have not been blogging due to personal obligations but intended to return blogging in two months. Now, that a lot of events took place, I have no choice but to write...

Introduction and Cont'd of an Earlier Article

Last year, I wrote extensive analysis in "Lessons from the July War". Now, the main logo of Hezbollah for launching their July War "Operation Honest Promise" was achieved. Israel gave Hezbollah Samir Quntar in return for their two soldiers, who so far, we didn't know what happened to them till the last moment.
In Israel, the primary question was bombarded on Olmert and his allies as follows: "Why did we enter a war if there was going to be a swipe?" Hence, what started Israel's humiliation in 2000, aggravated in 2006, and climaxed in the liberation of Lebanon's national hero, Samir Quntar, a man who symbolized resistance to the Zionists, and resilience to the Zionists' attempts to crush the soul of resistance.

Samir Quntar argued in TV that his 1978 operation, the hostages were shot by Israeli soldiers. While the Israeli media hovered around how their government released him, the whole media of the world forgot how many Lebanese children the Israelis have cold-bloodedly butchered. Of course, whenever the pictures of our massacred children pop up the news, the Israelis rudely accuse the Lebanese as "faking" the picture.

The Israeli media also accused Nasrallah as shrewd, since he considered the liberation of Samir Quntar as a national victory. This was not the first time, when the Lebanese ousted the Israeli Defense Forces and their puppies, the Southern Lebanese Army, from Lebanese soil, Nasrallah argued it was a victory for the resistance, Lebanon, the Muslims, and the entire Arab World. The fact all the Lebanese politicians were there to welcome Quntar and the last Hezbollah soldiers, reflected the dimension of the long awaited victory of Samir Quntar, whom we were raised to hear his name: the man whose will never shook down.

Brief Bolshevik Point

Now for me, as a revolutionary Marxist, we oppose individual acts of operations from the view point that such operations aggravate the unity of the Proletariat across borders, hence our unity as Lebanese Proletariat, with the residents of Occupied Palestine and Israel minus the Arab reactionary leaders and the Zionists. We believe in longer run emancipation tactics which requires more patience while focusing on welfare policies and women empowerment in the short-run. What I would respect about Samir Quntar is what he did inside the Israeli prisons. The man was named "Dean of the Prisoners" not because he is the oldest of prisoners, rather, his activism inside the Israeli prisons. He was the one who organized informal networks inside Israeli prisons across nationalities whereby the prisoners self-educated themselves, resisted Israeli pressure to break the will of the prisoners, and always held their heads high in the face of Zionist brutalities.

Impact of Samir Quntar's release

The release of Samir Quntar was greeted by over a million Lebanese (mainly) citizens, among a small minority of others. Quntar's freedom brought Lebanon to the 1970s nostalgia where dreamers hoped for the crush of Israel and liberation of Palestine whereby the Palestinians can finally and peacefully return to their homes. This nostalgia which witnessed the PLO and other radical factions waging operations against Israel also included the factions of the Lebanese National Front, and the Lebanese Resistance Front (whose three pillars were the SSNP – LCP – Order for Communist Action). Now my personal opinion is known, I oppose the ideological demands of the Lebanese National Movement, while I oppose their tactics, specially going blindly behind the PLO. The higher euphoria, in the words of Jubran Arayji, an SSNP top official to NBN," was the belief in your own platform to be actualized".
While Israel wept, Lebanon celebrated. The Israelis in a pathetic manner tried to show that the Lebanese are barbaric while they are a civilized nation surviving this barbaric world is the fact that the Lebanese danced, celebrated, while Hassan Nasrallah did a sudden appearance in the festivalities to greet his own soldiers and Samir Quntar. Quntar, for a man living 30 years in prisons, always kept his head up and till now he doesn't show his real age, 47. The insistence of Quntar to remain wearing his military suit showed to what extent his will remained unbroken.

Dancing Coffins

The Israelis also were baffled on how the Lebanese and Palestinians welcomed the martyrs' bodies with rice, dancing, and flowers. To this Perez called our traditions as "shameful". The Lebanese and the Palestinians, from years of agony, learnt to welcome their beloved in a "marriage" ceremonial manner. Several Muslim and Christian traditions of funerals included whistling, dancing, clapping, throwing rice, and "dancing the coffin" whereby the people carrying the coffin get the coffin to move up and down which appears dancing. The purpose of such a process is to pay tribute to the deceased. When Samir Qassir was buried, his coffin was dancing amidst flying flowers, wedding singing called "Zalghota" in Arabic, amongst others. When George Hawwi, the ex-stalinist Communist Party leader was assassinated, everyone clapped and danced as the men "danced the coffins". Such traditions are a tribute to the deceased and paying respect. The second significance is to show for the deceased and whoever wanted him/her dead that the people are not weeping, rather they do a wedding instead of a funeral to pay respect because one popular culture includes the belief that the deceased do not want their beloved to cry for them, rather they should celebrate and rejoice. The final reason for such festivities is to prove to the deceased and to recharge amongst them that they are celebrating instead of mourning because the person involved is not dead, rather still alive in their hearts. And that is how the Lebanese, Syrians, Palestinians welcomed the deceased martyrs' bodies.

Israel yet again Humiliated

Now for the celebrations of what that ugly Levni proclaimed as shameful welcome of a criminal, the Lebanese are over-joyous in welcoming a hero who made the enemy cry on their knees after killing over 60,000 Lebanese, across the years, displacing over a quarter of citizens (in 2006), and eventually proving how stupid she and her country is. They waged a war on the Lebanese, called it "War on Hezbollah" which included the killing of everyone except Hezbollah in general, such as the red cross, the foreign journalists, the Lebanese Army, and the Police, and even three members of Hezbollah's archenemies: the Lebanese Forces. Hence, that war was everything but a war on Hezbollah. The other dimension is that almost the entire Lebanese citizens across political and sectarian lines in one way or another cooperated to contain the Southern exodus. Even Palestinian camps such as Ain el Hilwi welcomed Lebanese fleeing under bombardment their homes for safety. After all, Israel used the refugee buses as target practice. Shameful and uncivilized. Hence, how can Lebanon not welcome Samir Quntar as a hero, or even as a liberator, who proved to the Lebanese and Palestinians that the Israelis are ineffective to do anything right? He even inspired to others that Israel's days are countable, so many believed that thought, happily to see their Southern racist neighbor drowning in tears, same people whose media forgot to announce how many they killed of children in Palestine and Lebanon, forgot to compare Israel's operation to Palestine in 1948 to Milosevic's ethnic cleansing in 1999 to Kosovo. In one of those few occasions Lebanon celebrated in joy and happiness while Tel Aviv drowned in tears.
Israeli reactions to the Lebanese victory were different in several manners. For starters, the Israeli intelligence added Samir Quntar's name to be assassinated next to Nasrallah. After all, Lebanon shouldn't go against the flow of Arab regimes trying to convince that Israel is here to stay. Reactions from normal Israeli citizens within Israeli media demanded that the next war with Lebanon have Beirut leveled down. I have news to them, in the last war, half of it was already leveled down. Finally, to the families of the deceased soldiers, they should expect such operations when they are wearing the military suit.

Israel since the year 2000 has had their victories cut short. All of Israel is in a way trained soldiers because all its citizens should serve the Israeli Defense Forces. Hence such an operation impacted them in 2006 because each citizen thought to himself/herself "It could have been me or my relatives". Well, to them, start changing your racist policies if you want legitimacy within your neighborhoods.

Impacts of Hezbollah and Lebanese Victory

While the entire cabinet of different political parties gathered in the airport , Israel tried to downsize Lebanon's happiness as "Nasrallah has the entire Lebanese as hostages". If that is true, I love Israel's way of dealing with a hostage crisis, burn the entire country to kingdom come (2006).

Hezbollah have been in a winning since 2000. They ousted the Israelis outside Lebanon in 2000 and proclaimed themselves as the descendants of the Resistance front forged by the Lebanese Communist Party and Order for Communist Action, and followed by the Syrian Social Nationalist Party. However, the latter three's leaders were marginalized and persecuted by Syria. In the words of one Iranian Diplomat during the July war to Ahmad Fatat, "we the Iranians learnt how to resist from the Christians, such as George Habbash and George Hawwi." Hezbollah by 2004 proved their complete dominance over the Bekaa and South in municipalities elections whereby AMAL movement's influence was downsized. In the end, Syria had to intervene to face-save their allies AMAL. Hence, Hezbollah officially dominated the Shiite sect while AMAL became a relative minority. The defeat of 2006 of Israel on the infantry level reflected how the underdogs caught up with the giants. Israel's army is not indestructible. The assassination of Imad Moghnieh was again a defeat to Israel even if it is not 100% confirmed that they assassinated him. Hezbollah's alliance to the Christian bloc, the Free Patriotic Movement, moved them away from isolation as well as a Shiite sect. Their military power also remained undisputed in Lebanon when they swept Beirut against 14th of March in one evening, while Mt. Lebanon collapsed in two hours. Hence, they got the demands they have been requesting: Red lines on Hezbollah's arms, no Western power can oust Hezbollah out, got the national unity government they needed to veto any governmental decisions that might touch their arms. Finally, to complete Hezbollah's euphoria, they did the impossible and liberated Samir Quntar and left the Israelis feeling canned inside their borders. The timing of Samir Quntar was marked with the 2nd memory of the July war.
The liberation of Samir Quntar was highly valuable for Israel. Their 2006 across borders operation was called "The Honest Promise", which means the promise to liberate Samir Quntar. Olmert and his goons crumbled down at timing more perfect for Hezbollah. For starters, they pulled Lebanon in a euphoria outside the last civil war we had couple of months ago and diverted attention to this blunder operation they did whereby retribution will take a long run form between the Sunnis and Druze and the Shiites. Their and their allies' vulgar behavior "as peaceful" diverted to the liberation of Samir Quntar. Trying to erase the breach in their promise "no weapon shall be turned to the inside of Lebanon", they proved that they are the only force to inflict defeat on Israel and their arms are still needed.

As a matter of fact, the pro-14th of March are trying to pull a symbolic victory by getting Shebaa farms diplomatically. Second, Samir Quntar's allegiance to Hezbollah was also what they needed. After all, Quntar spent his time reading Israeli media, whereas the most hated to them were Hezbollah, hence, they became his favorites, specially they were the ones who liberated him. So, whereas March 14th accused Hezbollah to ignite the July war in 2006 to protect their allies Syria from the International Tribunal, now got their promise actualized and diverted attention that the war was not about Syria's attention. Although, Bashar Assad's hypocritical attitude celebrating the July war as the real victor on the ashes of Lebanon is quiet lame. Sadly, Quntar supported Syria blindly without investigating what has happened during their era. Hopefully he will have much more time to do so to fill the gap.

Now the term resistance became over-charged, Ali Kanso was bragging that the SSNP will not surrender their weapons because it is "Arms for Resistance" although we didn't see a single shot directed on Israel all this time except on other Lebanese. The election of Assad Herdan as SSNP president shows the partial return of the Syrians, and the military urgency that the SSNP are currently living in especially several Ras Beirut zones are still within the newly resurrected SSNP cantons. Hence, Hezbollah's allies are now justified to preserve their weapons while leaving the 14th of Marchers in another security dilemma to rebuild their forces, hence a new showdown coming soon within the next decade.

Now, Hezbollah can behave the Judge and Executioner if things don't go the way they don't like. Simply unleash the AMAL movement goons on those supporters.

More to the point, Hezbollah's victories have an impact on the Arab region and the World as a whole. Most of the Arab regime, dictators like Egypt's Moubarak, Jordan's King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia's al-Saud, Qatar's Hamad bin Khalifa al Thani, and most recently Iraq's Maliki, among others, are having aftermaths of Hezbollah and Lebanon's victories. While al-Assad, along with Libya and few other Arab nations support War with Israel, the majority don't The mentioned states are satellite regimes for the USA, who established peace with Israel on the account that "Israel is here to stay" and "let us do the best out of it". Hence, they oppressed their people under that logo plus receiving US funds as support. Egypt and Jordan are the second and third most funded governments by the US for signing peace treaties. Such victories, destabilize Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt whereby the oppressed majorities can dream of ousting their tyrants and boycott Israel.

The questions goes: how long Israel plans to distort history, for 1948 has its impact on all Arab worlds, specially Lebanon. How long they plan to remain racists and Zionists, after all Racism and Zionism go hand in hand with each other. The underdogs in a military sense are catching up, once the underdogs know how to shoot down Israeli planes, Israel's very existence is threatened with extermination and the Jewish Proletariat are threatened with another ethnic cleansing as a payback for what their Zionist leaders pushed to do throughout the British mandate. The on-going atrocities do not help on the Palestinians. Furthermore, how long can those US satellite regimes hold on, and haven't they realized the more the Israelis are brutal, the more secular and progressive forces are purged or shoved into Islamic movements, like Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Muslim Brotherhoods. Finally, Hezbollah's victories sustained the Assad regime to rule for the next decade or two with maximum peace inside his lands and oppress his own people; specially the British themselves declared that Assad is different than Saddam. The reason for this is the fact that the alternative to Assad's regime in Syria would be the three more oppressive, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Last, I hope Nasrallah would live as long as possible, because the scariest of all is the relations of Hezbollah to Ali Khamanei through the Iranian funds and Wilayat el Faqih. If Nasrallah passes away, the option is not a moderate tolerant leader like Hassan Nasrallah, rather the extremist Na'im Qassem who, all Hezbollah's allies on grassroots level from pro-Hezbollah Palestinians, Syrians, Aounis, and even the SSNP, expressed that "all hell would break loose if he takes control."

Unwanted Palestinians

What were most disgusting about 14th of March, the Opposition, Hezbollah, the Lebanese President, and others is their behavior: "Palestinians are not welcomed to stay here" hence the "Liberation".


With Nasrallah declaring that the war with Israel is an open war, following Moghnieh's assassination, and promising us future wars, paralleled with Israel's nutcases such as Olmert and Perez that new wars are coming up as retributions, a doomed nation like Lebanon has no choice but to wait for the next disaster.


Monday, June 09, 2008

Iran, Wilayat el Faqih, and Historical Facts


A lot of the Shiites never heard of this theory, the Wilayat el Faqih theory, championed by a man who have this famous quote: "There is no fun in Islam!", Mr. Ayatollah Khomeini. I have been studying this dimension for three years. Personally I hate it for different reasons. I remember one person from the LCP and two others from the SSNP telling me: "If Nasrallah supports it, then it is our pride". It saddens me how these two forgot the magic formula of the 1980s while the seculars resisted Israel: AMAL butchered Communists, Hezbollah butchered SSNP. Someone would tell me Hezbollah of the 1980s are different after Nasrallah. Well let us investigate it BRIEFLY, and I repeat this post is briefly written on the topic.

The summary of the Wilayat el Faqih is as follows:

With the early Islamic Expansions, the Sunnis dominated politically. The Shiites kept a low profile and they followed as what is called in th medieval times: "The Quietest Movements". The base of the theory rotates around the Theory of 12 Imams in the Shiites. The first Imam is of course, Imam Ali, what you would call as the Imam el Ma'soum, as the know it all. One man who was offensive on that theory was the man who paved way for the term "Who ever thought, committed Heresy", Ibn Ghazali under the hypothesis that the Prophet Mohammad came to the world, gave the complete theory and practice of Islam, and departed the world henceforth, there is no need for this Imam Ma'asoum.

Now the Wilayat el Faqih goes as follows: with the sudden disappearance of the 12th Imam, Imam el Mehdi el Montazar, Islamic theology of the Quietists argued that the Mehdi shall appear again, and most probably when Judgment Day appears. However, with the absence of the Imam, there is the need for a Wali el Faqih, or as the translation goes: Governor of the Jurisprudence. This theory was evolved and upgraded by Khomeini, and was of making Khomeini in post-revolutionary years as "the supreme leader". Guess who self-proclaimed himself as the Wali, Khomeini himself.
Now, I won't deny the Islamists didn’t play a role in the Iranian revolution, but I will not say to the extent as a lot of people try to depict it. I shall dedicate a nice post on that in the near (hopefully) future. For Starters, there were three players in Iran. The Shah mismanaged Iran drastically, and his ties with Israel/USA weren’t making him popular. Second, Mohammad Pahlavi didn't notice that when the Islamists failed to oust his father, Reza Shah, they were quiet. Reza Shah was more like the man who gave the command to the army "tear every veil you see", and forced women by this to hide at home. In any case, the big revolution exploded due to poverty, and the three parties were: the Communists – the Mujahidean (Islamists with a less extremism) – Wilayat el Faqih. Women who didn't wear the veil even wore it in solidarity of all revolutionaries against the Shah. The Communists took the lead and were successful to establish 9 Soviets throughout Iran. More to the point, Stalinist Moscow forced them to side with Khomeini since he too opposed the US (dubbing them as the white devil). Eventually, and not to dwell on details, Khomeini demolished all rivals as he installed himself as the "Supreme Leader of the Revolution", the position of the 20th Century Wali el Faqih, despite the fact there is an almost dead council.

Wali el Faqih in theory should be well-informed in the Koran, theology, and Islam as a whole. The second dimension of Wali el Faqih, that he should be the source of Emulation. The theory of Emulation itself is interesting. In medieval Islam (if you read Ibn Tufayl whose story explains it clearly), the person who got closest to God is the wisest. While European medieval theologians (like St. Augustine, St. Simonides, St. Acquinas, St. Damasenes...others) borrowed the logic from Aristotle: the more you get closer to God, the more you are wiser, hence this implies the following formula =

God = Ultimate Truth = Ultimate Wisdom = Ultimate Happiness

The theologians then added of course faith, and some tried to make Aristotle a Christian, and hence (as appearing in Dante's Purgatory), reason stops at a point, faith continues to guide the person to the ultimate truth. In Islam, the theory remained the same, but some theologians and thinkers added a touch of Emulation. A person has to emulate God to reach God. The Wali el Faqih is actually the source of emulation. This is where Khomeini became a tri-partite power source:

1) Source of Emulation
2) Ultimate Knowledge and Closest to the Truth
(hence the first two points make him the supreme leader of the revolution)
3) Leader beyond borders to lead the Revolution anywhere in the world

Now after Khomeini butchered in his last days over 21,000 Mujahid, he passed away. Khomeini, brutally oppressed all progressive powers, ruined all talents, and he stuck to his famous quote (and damaging Islam): "There is no fun in Islam". All Western features in Iran were taken out under his reign. You will never see a politician or citizen from Iran wearing "the tie", or a woman able to walk without having to worry about the threat of the Basij (Militant Youth of the Wali) or Ansar Hezbollah (not to be mistaken with the Lebanese Hezbollah) who are Ali Khamenei's hooligans, or as one author described them: "Angry Bearded Men on Motorcycles with Ak-47s". Dancing and Clapping are forbidden in Iran, even with the iron grip loosened up after Khatami's elections, it is forbidden. The Iranian theater suffered drastically (after all during the late 1970s, they were targeted most by Khomeini's followers) and massive censorships. You will notice by the late 1990s, the directors had to improvise new forms of Cinema directing and script writing. Finally, nothing takes place in Iran without the consent of the Wali's council, who elect the Wali himself for a lifetime, the Guardian Council.

So it is true that Iran has a quasi – democratic system. Yet let us take a deeper look on that quasi-democratic system. The Iranians vote for their municipalities, constituencies, and their president. Yet, everything has to pass by the Guardian Council. The Candidates have to be decided that they fit to be Muslim enough to pass. Even Parliamentary decisions have to pass by the Guardian Council, which pushed the reformist leader himself, President Khatami, to pass a bill by the Parliament that the Guardian Council doesn’t intervene in political life. Of course, Khatami was repaid with Ansar Hezbollah and Basij beating the hell out of his supporters.

To bring back to life something I wrote (but a paper I wrote 3 years back, and I wish the footnotes can appear as they did at Word)

The Iranian Revolution: Hegemony and Survival

The political framework has to be understood within Iran in order to understand the social framework whereby movements function within in the disappearance of solid Political Parties. Without understanding the hegemony of Ali Khamenei and his allies, from a religious, dogmatic, and political perspective, the framework of the social movements and social life in general cannot be tackled. Despite the fact that Iran has a parliament and presidential elections, the President of the republic is rather weak and cannot pass any legislative reform without the satisfaction of the Supreme Leader of the Revolution: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei since he can veto anything through the constitutional systems.

Supremacy of the Clerical Elites

When the 1979 revolution was over, the most powerful figure was Ayatollah Rouhallah Khomeini. He demolished anything that can be considered as Western whether from Legislative or Social perspective. The authority went directly to the Elite Clerics (el-Foqaha), and assigned them supremacy on the basis that the nation is ruled by those who understand God most. Hence, they interpret God’s law and rely on jurisprudence as an alternate means to Parliamentary votes. He also assigned the Guardian Council which is composed of 12 clerics who can over-rule any parliamentary decisions and are allowed to intervene in the President’s political affairs directly.

The Wali el-Faqih

The Guardianship Council is given the title of “Welayat-e Faqih” while its leader is considered the Wali, Guardian, and Supreme Leader of the revolution. Khomeini was the first Supreme Leader and he even reversed several decisions taken by Guardian Council and the Parliament. The Wali’s term is a life long period, the moment the candidate is elected by the Assembly of Experts as Wali, his mandate lasts as long as he is alive. The Experts have a sole performance which is to elect the Leader and do periodical reviews on the Leader. They are the sole authority to take away the Leader’s mandate.

The Wali el Faqih’s concept, which was advocated by Ayatollah Khomeini, is a hybrid mix of Islam and Modernity. In the Shiite ideology, there is a need for a source of emulation in the absence of the twelfth Imam in order to understand his will. Khomeini made the theory modern by integrating it within the Iranian Constitution.
The current Wali is Ali Khamenei, who was elected on the basis of having religious credentials and is supposed to be a “modern Leader” to act on the basis what the society required; however, he was no religious source of emulation. The clerics who attained such a status were the quietist clerics who focused on understanding the “Shari’a” and always attacked the Waliyat el Faqih concept. Ali Khamenei, like his predecessor Khomeini, attacked the quietest clerics for focusing on the details of the society rather the overall situation. Khamanei’s overall situation started rather unstable as the constitution was amended in 1989 which spared the Supreme Leader to be a source of emulation and after Khomeini’s close friend and designated successor as a Leader resigned (Ayatollah Montazari), henceforth Khamanei became the Leader. This information is important in order to understand the Islamic moderate clerics’ opposition in the mid-1990s, activists who will try to establish a better freedom and are willing to take the risk to contradict loudly anti-Supreme Leadership slogans.

What keeps Ali Khamenei’s on going mandate in the face of a political coup d’etat from within is his direct control of the Revolutionary Guards, his ability to intervene in any decisions within the government or parliament, and even decide the overall nation’s policy. He also got the non-governmental hooligans of the Ansar-e Hezbollah movement to support the Revolutionary Guards and the Basij, who are composed of youth military volunteers in allegiance to the Wali. Such abuse of power would determine the different strategies of the social movements, specially after the election of the advocates of democracy in the face of the Supreme Leader.

Khamenei’s Ground Forces

Khamenei’s role as the Supreme Leader was supposed to be the judge when disputes rise in the Parliament, called the Majles, but always ended up siding with the Conservative Hard-liners. His three primary ground forces are the official Revolutionary Guards, the Basij, and Ansar-e Hezbollah.

The Ansar-e Hezbollah are not to be mistaken with Lebanon’s Hezbollah, even though its leader believes in the Wali el Faqih. Ansar-e Hizbollah are usually present to attack any student or journalist activism and rid the accusation towards the government. They have been extensively involved in putting down the students’ reprisal in 1999, and several units were armed with automatic rifles. They are used to counter any demonstration or ruin it if it is directed away from the “Islamic Iran”. The Ansar-e Hezbollah do not dress any Western Clothes and they are made mainly of youth. They, on several occasions, have beaten up girls, couples, or western dressed like guys without being held accountable. The sponsor of Ansar-e Hezbollah is the Guardian Council spokesman himself, Ayatollah Jannati.

The Basij are youth volunteers in the service of the Islamic Republic of Iran and are also support to the revolutionary guards. Their allegiance is to Imam Khomeini and to the current Wali Faqih, Ali Khamenei. One Basiji member told an author of a book : “We will continue the path of our imam [Ayatollah Khomeini]. We will not let the West’s cultural onslaught take over and dilute our Islamic principles.” They are deployed extensively to scatter the youth with open gunshots to the air or engage in arrests when the crowds to do not move. The Ansar-e Hezbollah would come to their aid in case the gatherings or demonstrations are not controlled.
The Revolutionary Guard were established in 1979 with the sole purpose of protecting the Islamic revolution inland and exporting it outside Iran. They and the Law Enforcement Forces, have been involved in subduing possible de-stabilizing factors in Iran’s social or political life. They have the authority to interrogate anyone they want, arrest anyone under the “Moral Law Enforcement” and even beat up detainees. One academic observant was arrested for simply spending time with his female friend in a park, slapped couple of times and eventually detained for a night. It is also reported that bureaucratic corruption at the police station is intolerable to the extent some people prefer not to file a complaint of a robbery instead of being humiliated.

Against The Great West and Reform

When Khomeini took power in Iran and his faction overcame all rivalry parties, the 1980s can be identified with the gradual elimination of Western ideas. The Shah dynasty was symbolic against the West’s “Satanic” ideas and the elimination of all symbols of the west was necessary. Streets that carried names of the Shah or Western titles were transformed into Islamic names. For example, Shah Street and Shah Reza Street were renamed Islamic Republic Street and Revolution Street respectively. Any movements or parties that were secular were arrested, such as the arrest of the Communist Tudeh Party leader, Noureddin Kianouri, in 1983 as well as 1000 others of his comrades.

The media was in no better situation. Satellites were banned in 1994 since they contain Western poisoned ideas and Khamenei’s newspaper, Kayhan, waged an offensive on ex-President Rafsanjani’s brother, then director-general of Iranian broadcasting, while mobs of Ansar-e Hezbollah demonstrated in front of the TV stations. Films, such as Baywatch, Neighbors, and even Cartoons as far as Tin Tin, were all part of the “West’s scheme to invade culturally Iran”. The hardliners were optimistic that local media can replace the ill-intentioned Western Media. Even commercials, which are assumed to be symbols of Western Greed, were even banned after the revolution. Newspapers, magazines, TV programs about earthly love and materialism are always censored or banned. Any newspaper that would advocate social change or even attempt to discuss process of reforms were also closed through the accusation of “Westoxification”, even if they belonged to the close friends of Khatami when he was president. Poets or academics were also imprisoned or assassinated if they spoke of overall freedom/democracy or attacked by the clerics on Friday Sermons.

Now this is what you get from a Wali el Faqih :

Every time he nominated someone, that someone lost. Probably elections were the pacifist tool. When Ali Khamenei nominated Nateq Nouri in face of Khatami , Khatami swept with the majority of votes, special thanks to the votes of the women, student movements, and intellects. When Ali Khamenei nominated Rafsanjani, he lost to Ahmadinejad. Probably now the only way to express solid dislike to Khamanei is to outvote his candidate.

What Hezbollah do not tell you about Iran is as follows:

1) Iran witnessed its official mass demonstration when Iran defeated USA in Football, while Hezbollah supporters in 1998 were celebrating by shooting in the air, Tehran witnessed women in a massive way taking out the veil, demonstrations, dancing in the streets and a lot of clapping. As a matter of fact, when the Basij came to intervene, the demonstrators clapped to them and sang: "Basij must dance!"

2) Ayatollah Yezdi called those who voted Khatami as "20,000,000 punks voted for Khatami" which ignited what also Hezbollah do not tell you in Lebanon, the students' revolution. Of course, Ansar Hezbollah over there are unleashed to beat the hell out of the Reformist supporters. Khamenei called them: "the mysterious hand of God.
3) Over a 100 Newspaper and Media was closed in the year 2000 alone

4) The Man who was supposed to be the next Wali el Faqih was Ayatollah el Muntazari, a man who called for the empowerment of women, get the Wali elected by the people for a periodic time, separate powers in Iran, and open Iran to the world. He was overruled when the Guardian Council amended the council to oust him out as the next heir under the accusation that he betrayed Khomeini when he objected to the execution of the over 20,000 mujahid.

5) Iran is democratic? Not... The Council bars out anyone they want (including Khatami's brother) which actually in the recent years so the decline of the reformists because they refused to confront the Supreme Leader directly and went on a very slow pace of reforming, hence between barring out several candidates, growing political apathy, and extortion (yes we haven’t forgot the purges of the intellects in post-1999 events).

6) Khamanei has total control of the Revolutionary Guards, the police, the courts, the barring of parliament/presidential candidates (as not Muslim enough), the Ministry of Interior, the Secret Service, and practically the capability to terrorize anyone who opposes him.

7) To the 14th of Marchers, Iran witnessed a gigantic revolution in Tehran triggered by the brutality of the Ansar-Hezbollah when they beaten students in their dormitory, and Tehran was closed down for three days. Khatami was given the choice of revolution/civil war or obedience, he chose the latter. The students till this very day remain the most powerful source of anti-Khamenei (whom he dubs as US puppets).

8) Khamenei's other rival to the Wilayat el Faqih was IRONICALLY Lebanon's Sheikh Fadlallah. He was the first to oppose Khomeini that Lebanon can never be an Islamic republic. Khomeini hated him; however, he is the source of emulation. This made him in defecto the second rival to the Wilayat el Faqih after el Muntazari (who remained under house arrest). Ironically, Sheikh Fadlallah's views affected Lebanon's Hezbollah, but Khamenei never forgave him for being that rival. It appeared clearly when Khatami visited Lebanon, and visited almost all Shiite figures except Sheikh Fadlallah. The biggest Irony is when Israel attempted to bomb Sheikh Fadlallah during the July War, the only real obstacle between Khamenei and Hezbollah.

9) Iran has barred out every woman nominating herself for presidency, and of course the Basij or the Ansar were sent to arrest her.

10) Despite satellite bans and internet bans, Iran was successful through its pirated satellites. Actually, if Iran was so "wonderful", why the green card lottery online was so popular that businesses opened up in 2005 to get as many people to sign up for that.

11) Women may have received a better form of rights than the 1980s, however, things are still reversible. A lot of court issues were given on women to be executed for doing what we in a liberal form of countries take for granted: enjoy life. Now behind the scenes and underground life, things may be a better way to loosen up, but still... it is a sexist law.

12) When the moderate Sheikh el Mussawi was assassinated, Sheikh Tufayli lusted power again as the General Secretary. Tehran intervened to block his return and favored his number 1 disciple, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. Actually, Khomeini himself read some writings for Hassan Nasrallah when he was in his youth years and predicted that he will play a glorious part in Hezbollah's history and recommended that this person should be well preserved. Now the purpose I am mentioning that part is because again, out of the blues, we have no gurantees when Tehran will intervene again, and who knows, probably Sheikh Na'em Qassem would return. As a matter of fact, AMAL supporters, another Shiite group, themselves dread the moment Sheikh Na'em Qassem takes over because he is famous for his hardlining policies.

Now Nasrallah was quoted several times saying that the strength of Hezbollah emerges from Wilayat el Faqih. It is true, the supreme "living" leader of Hezbollah is Wali el Faqih, who comes after the disappeared Imam, outranked by Imam Ali, Prophet Mohammad, and eventually God. To Hassan Nasrallah, I opposed your party, and everything else. By all means I oppose Wilayat el Faqih, specially in the memory of our fallen comrades who sacrificed their lives to make Iran a better life, and got executed for their progressive beliefs. I consider myself lucky to be in Lebanon because what I as a teenager in a post-war era I had a way of life, a lot in Iran would have to fight for it. One revolutionary guard arrested a woman in 1993 and beat her because she was dancing "naked" in a "WOMAN'S BEACH"; when the reporter asked how "naked", he said she was wearing a top and jeans, without the veil!! To all those women who suffered in the past. To all our comrades in Iran and abroad fighting the Wilayat el Faqih, to our fellow student movements who are beaten till this very day, and to the stupidity and blindness of the people in the last appearance of Nasrallah when they cheered for him when Nasrallah expressed his pride in Wilayat el Faqih. Let them know what to expect, even pro-AMAL movement Beydoun recently nicely said: "not all the Shiites endorse that theory". However it is not a theory, it is a practice, and oppressive! Hezbollah may have liberated the South, and may defeated (at least on the infantry level) the Israelis, but excuse me, as a Marxist, I say NO TO YOUR Wilayat el Faqih! No to the Opium of the Masses! And No to anyone who promotes Wilayat el Faqih.

I would like to say, I tracked the Wilayat el Faqih liasson with Hezbollah for four fours, long before Junblatt used it as a campaign. I didn't change my opinion for almost a decade, I oppose all political parties and still do. A lot accused me I am an Opposition supporter, well here was my answer. Let us see how interesting to be accused of 14th of March sympathy. Even more, the fact Hezbollah changed their policies and aimed their weaponry to the inside, that makes me fear even more the Liasson. Hezbollah should provide better proofs about their intentions, their renewed promise!

Having expressed a long post pending (and I wish I can upload fully what I wrote on the topic; however, it is 32 pages long, with the reference to over 41 books).

No War but Class War!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


PS: There are few trusted comrades that I trust, I urge them not to open this blog in a nearby place, and also won't recommend anyone to read this article because it might get them in trouble. I prefer to be 100% secure!