Hezbollah's New Political Platform by Fawwaz Traboulsi

Translated By Zmag and Taken from here

[Translator's Introduction: The following article by Fawwaz Traboulsi appeared in the Beirut daily as-Safir of December 2, 2009.

Traboulsi's article is an assessment and left critique of the main themes in Hezbollah's new political platform. The platform was released on November 30 at the conclusion of a general congress that had met intermittently over several months. It was published partially or entirely in several Arabic-language media outlets, inside and outside Lebanon, in early December 2009. The platform now becomes Hezbollah's political manifesto in place of its founding document, its so-called 1985 Open Letter.Hezbollah has undergone many changes since the mid-1980's. The most significant perhaps, seen from a Western perspective that tends to stress Hezbollah's narrow Islamist focus, is its gradual shift away from the call to establish an Islamic state in Lebanon. This call, as well as the allegiance to the Rule of the Jurisprudent (Wilayat al-Faqih), were explicit in the 1985 Open Letter. The new platform renounces the call for an Islamic state in Lebanon, accepts the diversity of Lebanese society, and makes no mention of the Rule of the Jurisprudent. This is of course a welcome development. But there are other aspects in the new platform that are far less praiseworthy, which Traboulsi addresses in his article. -- Assaf Kfoury]

What stands out in the political platform issued by Hezbollah at the conclusion of its recent general congress is how it assesses its own history and development since its founding in the mid 1980's. This document reviews a quarter of a century of multi-faceted experiences and sacrifices. It reflects a multiplicity of alliances and inspirations, if not splintered identities. At one and the same time, Hezbollah aspires to be a "national liberation" movement among other such movements in the world; a "resistance" movement at the regional level, with all the connotations the latter designation evokes among Arabs in relation to the Palestinian struggle; and increasingly a "force of national defense" for Lebanon. In this third designation, Hezbollah dispenses with any lingering doubt regarding its resolve to become a full partner in Lebanon's confessional system, if not its acceptance of the socio-economic conditions underlying such a system.

In its quest to position itself among national liberation movements worldwide, and to contribute to the regional struggle against colonial domination, Hezbollah's new political platform borrows many formulas and ideas elaborated by leftist traditions. Among these is its realization that imperialism's global reach today calls for a global mobilization in response to it. This becomes evident in the platform's insistence on the links between the struggles of Arab peoples and leftist movements in several countries of Latin America.

The platform offers a global view of the imperialist system led by the United States of which Israel is an integral part. It does not ignore the economic basis of imperialist domination, which it identifies as "savage capitalism" -- assuming it does not harbor any illusion that the alternative of "soft capitalism" will be any less cruel. Although its reference to the "military-industrial complex", rather than financial capitalism, is somewhat outdated as the determining factor shaping US policies, the platform rightly designates the latest stage of imperialism as the globalization of monopolies and military alliances. On this understanding, one would expect Hezbollah to reconsider its positions on the struggle between wealth and poverty and between oppressor and oppressed.

Apart from the rush to announce the imminent demise of the unipolar world and the Zionist project's inevitable downfall, Hezbollah's new platform does not include much that can be attributed to Ali Shariati's revolutionary ideas or to "revolutionary Islam", as some may contend. Instead, the platform reproduces some of the Islamic Republic's slogans under Ali Khamene'i, Iran's current supreme leader. These slogans are less about earlier republican values and revolutionary fervor than they are about the Iranian rulers' current need for security and ideological control.

On regional Arab affairs, the new platform abandons most of this earlier agenda [inspired by Ali Shariati's ideas], of which it mentions only the plundering by imperialism of the region's oil resources. Nonetheless, this emphasis on oil is important and cannot be overstated at a time when there is very little public discussion of it and its role in maintaining the region's despotic subservient regimes. These are a few welcome tokens to pry open a widely-ignored topic and raise important issues that have yet to be examined critically.

Turning to issues of resistance and negotiations in relation to the Arab-Israeli conflict, Hezbollah's new platform completely evades the question of a Palestinian state and contents itself with a call for the total liberation of Palestine and the restoration of all Palestinian rights. Hezbollah reiterates its demand to Arab officialdom to desist from pursuing a negotiated settlement with Israel and offers its own experience of armed resistance as an example to follow and learn from.

On internal Lebanese matters, Hezbollah's new platform proclaims its unequivocal adherence to Lebanon's political system. It is reassuring to read this kind of proclamation from those who paid dearly in defense of the country. Equally satisfying is the platform's unambiguous respect of diversity, even though it extends the scope of this diversity to things other than political, cultural and ideological, to include Lebanon's entrenched confessional politics.

Although Hezbollah's new platform asserts that confessionalism is the bane of Lebanon's system of government and the chief obstacle to the realization of true democracy, it shies away from even issuing a call to supersede it. In the press conference on the day following the platform's publication, Hassan Nasrallah [Hezbollah's secretary general] limited himself to a call for the formation of a national council for the elimination of confessionalism, but quickly added that the formation of such a council does not necessarily mean adoption of its eventual directives. In the meantime, Hezbollah proclaims its respect of consociationalism* as reflecting best the spirit of the constitution. Of course, this ignores the fact that, whatever "spirit of the constitution" means, it cannot be a unilateral definition and must be reached by deliberation with other concerned citizens and groups.

Hezbollah's new platform does not stop at the enunciating of general principles of democracy and good governance, but goes on to spell out a specific blueprint for "building the state". On this issue, the platform contributes to a fraudulent consensus, common to all the branches of Lebanon's ruling establishment, by repeating a long inventory of desirable attributes for the future good state -- from the erection of modern institutions and the rule of law, down to the care of emigrants, and listing in between such things as fair parliamentary representation, end of corruption, independence of the judiciary, devolution of government administration, etc. -- as if the absence of such attributes is the root cause of a defective system rather than its effect.

What is said here about "building the state" is like what is said about "eliminating confessionalism". In both cases, they mix and conflate: the hoped for, the impossible, and the premature -- all in the same breath. It is incumbent on Hezbollah, as it is on all its partners in the ruling establishment, to break this riddle: How do they conceive "building the state" within the limits of a consociational/confessional system which they declare, at one and the same time, to be the fundamental obstacle to the realization of true democracy? How can this be done when the system is the chief stumbling block in the face of the aforementioned attributes of the good state [which Hezbollah and its partners in the government do not tire of mentioning]?

Hezbollah's new platform elicits a similar questioning in matters regarding the economy. It enumerates a long list of wishes -- a balanced development between regions, an economy based on productive sectors, improved means of production and distribution, adequate services in education, health care, and housing, the provision of work opportunities, etc. -- as if they are all within reach and without a need for fundamental structural changes. The platform declares Hezbollah's intention to reduce poverty, for example, but how will this be achieved by abiding by the World Bank's neo-liberal policies [readily accepted by successive Lebanese governments] rather than by reducing income disparities between classes? And what plan is there to reduce emigration and provide employment while Lebanon's educational system has been largely privatized, mostly divorced from the country's local needs, and increasingly directed at supplying university graduates to external economies? This long wish list is compiled without due consideration to the enormous national debt and the need to reconsider the decision-making process necessary to promote investments, protect the productive sectors, and undertake an equitable re-distribution of public resources and services.

It is remarkable how far Hezbollah has moved away from its earlier image as the party of the poor in rural areas and neglected urban suburbs, though it was always within the confines of the Shiite community. Does this reflect the sweeping transformations that this community has witnessed in the last quarter of a century? In recent years, Lebanese Shiites have fueled large waves of emigrants, developed a confident middle-class, produced large numbers of university graduates, and accumulated considerable wealth in distant places of immigration. Or does this changed image correspond to the shifting allegiances that other confessional communities in the Lebanese system have also experienced in the past, whereby the bourgeois section in each community tends to throw its weight behind the dominant power within its own community? Hezbollah is now the unchallenged political party among Lebanese Shiites, and more so since the July-August 2006 war.

It is worth noting that, in anticipation of having to resist future pressures to disarm, Hezbollah's new platform calls for maintaining a popular militia (exemplified by Hezbollah's current guerilla force) alongside a national army, with both involved in the country's defense. It is possible to read Hezbollah's refusal to ever recognize Israel as a prior warning that it will not relinquish its arms, in case of a resumption of negotiations between Israel and Syria possibly leading to a peace agreement that will encompass both Lebanon and Syria.

Lastly, concerning Lebanese-Palestinian relations, Hezbollah's new platform does not share the anti-Palestinian racism of its ally, the Free Patriotic Movement led by General Michel Aoun. The platform insists instead on the respect of the Palestinians' civil rights. It does repeat the worn-out "refusal of a permanent settling" (of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon) -- a catchphrase of all the branches of the Lebanese ruling establishment -- but it couples it with the Palestinian right of return.

In a recent campaign to organize car traffic in the Dahiya (Beirut's sprawling southern suburbs where Shiites are the majority), Hezbollah displayed banners that read "order is from faith". Is this kind of order -- serving and controlled by bankers, traders, and contractors -- derived from faith or is it downright impiety?

Note

* Consociationalism (al-tawafuqiyyah or al tawafuqiyyah al-tawa'iffiyyah) is a current Lebanese euphemism for the more traditional but increasingly disparaged "confessionalism."


Fawwaz Traboulsi has written on history, Arab politics, social movements and popular culture and translated works by Karl Marx, John Reed, Antonio Gramsci, Isaac Deutscher, John Berger, Etel Adnan, Sa`di Yusuf and Edward Said. His most recent book in English is A History of Modern Lebanon (Pluto Press, 2007). The translator, Assaf Kfoury, is Professor of Computer Science at Boston University.

And the Lebanese Never Learn... (surprised?)

Not having a government is not noticed in Lebanon... some joke about it, and they are correct to joke about it; sadly, I notice that having a government eases down the tension between the bougeoisie of Lebanon.

Commenting briefly on the elections before proceeding to the incidents: Was anyone surprised of the results? Everyone claimed they are won, the 14th of March gathered the highest number of seats, and the Opposition gathered the highest number of votes; last but not least, Junblatt opened a minimarket for himself and became the actual veto vote on the government. Meanwhile, it was impressive that not much riots broke up on election days, nevertheless, while waiting for the government to form, we open the TV over here, we see bulletins telling us a grenade was thrown by a "mysterious" evil hand, and everyone denounces it. Tripoli became the source of clashes again, whereby "mysterious rpj" missiles fly, and then "mysterious" gunners reply back. Now wait, isn't that everyday news, I mean why I got bored from blogging on Lebanon? It is the same news, and everyone expects the results. Finally, a person died, stabbed brutally three times, who was supposed to hold a riot between two young groups. Hence, he became the latest in the line of martyrs for the "Lebanese cause", whatever the cause these days it is.

Are we surprised? Hell no, are we sad? Hell yes, I mean doesn't it bother you to hear a riot then you have to call your direct relatives first to check on them, and then call your friends who live there to double check, and finally call friends who actually might be in the region? Will we ever be used to that? Definietly not!

The reason for all of this is simple. All parties still preserve their militia weaponry. Access to arms is still cheap, and none of the political leaders are doing anything to stop it. This of course excludes the arms of Hezbollah which lost some credibility after last year's events of shoot-outs, at least in my own perspective, and also the Palestinian Refugee camps were at least three major factions have large stock of arms: Fatah, Osbat el Ansar, and PFLP-General Command (Gibreel's faction). In all of this chaos, we also had two coalitions going head to head in a militarily sense last year, one group overwhelmed the other, and the winner in these street to street shootouts had disarmed the loser and gave the light and middle ranged weapons to the Lebanese Army. The Lebanese army in such situations, where political parties clearly go and shoot at each other (ie the downfall of the government into militias) can do nothing but sit and watch. Last time the Lebanese army was ordered to bomb an armed political party, it was Hezbollah back in 1989. The result was Nabih Berri (then fresh of clashes with Hezbollah) told the Shiites to leave the army; guess what, they did! The army lost 60% of its units, and the army was threatened then (but yet again) to crumble down. The army these days are called to detect Israeli hidden cells (and may others be captured for the security of the citizens) but to be a riot intercepter: shoot out takes place, army comes, and case closed. Some are captured, but then we lack the follow-up on what happened. Hence, the army is really crippled to disarm anyone, probably not even We'am Wahhab's militants as well.

The reason these ugly incidents take place, like the Cola "mysterious" grenade (and whose echo rang in my ear the other day), is simple! The top leaders are soothing things down, but we see their second in command escalating (well except for Aoun and Jaajaa both competing to prove who is the real Lebanese Christian while Sami Gemayel and Suleiman Franjieh are just trying put their own political space in the mainstream. Walid Junblatt returned to be the pendulum of agreeing one day with this faction or that one, or even both at the same time. Bottom line is, each political party is driving a hard bargain on the government level, mainly Mr. Aoun wants his beloved adorable nephew, Jubran Bathil, to be a minister of interior, then a minister of something else (el-mohem: a minister), and Harriri. Harriri and everyone else would tell us on TV, "we are all happy about the atmosphere", but then their MPs and figureheads lash out on each other. This double tongue doesn't work out at all. Already people are overcharged, and the party militants won't hesitate to blow off some steam. The reason they would blow steam is for the fact simply they are fully convinced the leaders are representing their own sectarian interests (I would exclude the SSNP and the Democratic Left for two reasons):

1) The SSNP had been gaining a lot of grounds politically in Syria, and after last year's militant performance in Beirut, they are being rewarded; also for the fact they are the only official group in the Opposition that is secular (after all Aoun gave up years ago on secularism and preached Christianity). This allows Hassan Nasrallah to argue that whenever Sunni and Shiite militants collide (Future and AMAL to be exact), it is strictly political and not sectarian (same as Harriri) Of course, on TV, we see the MPs joking around, and the sort, hugging each other, laughing, and go back home to their fancy houses. I might exclude Ali Ammar (the MP that was actually a football player who takes in charge of agressively "purifying the chins" of those who mention Hezbollah badly. This guy is a walking time bomb to explode in the parliament. The fact that the Lebanese Communist Party walked out from the Opposition, means the SSNP are the only secular party within the Opposition, within the Lebanese borders.

2) The Democratic Left: Yes, you read that right. They are, much of my hate to them, back to the Parliament, even though with one MP. Why we may ask that question? Well they are the only group that is secular within the 14th of March, but also they carry the maryrdom of Samir Qassir in their files. For such a reason, again to preserve the monopoly of the 2005 - 2007 martyrs of figureheads, a DLM had to be elected. The other reason is the fact that the DLM figureheads, specially Elias Atallah, was the cofounder of the Resistance Front, which fought Israel skin to the teeth; hence 14th of March can use the fascinating relic of Elias Atallah to preach that they have militants that fought Israel in the past. We both remember how Prime Minister Seniora and Hassan Nasrallah competed about whose block was the resistance.

Main issue is: citizens are dying. The man who got stabbled, he may be a part of the Free Patriotic Movement, but he was a citizen, and not an armed militant. It gets worse, by-standers are getting wounded or killed (remember when AMAL's Berri spoke and couple recieved raining bullets? That case was closed swiftly). If we don't have Israel bombing over our heads, we have the political parties shooting at each other, with the occassion of someone mysterious releasing a missile from South Lebanon on Israel's Northern Frontier, and Israel replies with a massive bombardment on nearby villages as if these civilians shot the rockets. Security wise? Fantastic, what more can we ask?

The double tongue of the politicians of escalations and "love affairs of each other" caused this. The economic situation makes it worse, for people's lives are horrible in the country with minimum wages, and frustration goes on the "enemy". The "enemy" is not Israel, it is not the Qa'eda based Fatah Islam (whom we are still debating if it was Syria sending them through the borders or the US sent them), but each other. These riots just escalate more problems, for riots and hate bring more riots and fear, and eventually one day we will have those sporadic violence spreading across sensitive regions in less than 20 minutes. Of course, everyone will yell to their supporters: "go home" or "these parties are armed". I got news for you, a very nice juicy secret news for you: EVERYONE IS ARMED! What happened with the arms that the SSNP or AMAL carried with them? Still there under the banner of Resistance Arms! What happened with the weapons of 14th of March, apparently new ones can be bought easily, and with the latest military blunder of last year, they can learn from their mistakes (super yay for 14th of March, boohoo for the citizens). Having said all these, what about the Labenese in general?

This is why I watch few channels in Lebanon that go on Middle Grounds: LBC and NTV. The problem with NTV though, like Junblatt, they got a moodswing of their own as well: they swing between 14th of March, middle grounds, and the Opposition. By Middle Grounds, I sure do not mean "All the President's men", these people, like Ziad Baroud, will never be elected in a sectarian based state.

Anyways, the reason why I watch the LBC roundabout (yes, sure they put Jaajaa couple of minutes more than the rest) is the fact they ask everyone what happened and what they think. Well, what do they think?! Anyone noticed how the citizens of both sides of a conflicting regions go down screaming and yelling: "we have no problems with our neighbors", "we are all Lebanese", "Don't involve us with party politics", "Leave us alone". Anyone noticed as we sit on our chair (with a nice juicy glass of white wine in my hand) and notice how our proletariat hate what is going on? Notice that there are always a mini-angry crowd blaming the other party while the majority just expressing regrets? (glass finished in one sip after watching the old lady, heartbroken, saying to the politicians: leave us alone). The reason is that these political riots, including the mysterious Inerga (whatever spelled) missiles, and the hand grenades are just the beginning. They suit the politicians to divide the Proletariat according to their sects, and furthermore, and worse, they impose the political divisions on the Lebanese people. Thus, if affiliates of Sect A, but not party affiliates (perhaps some sympathy) has no issues with Sect B, on the contrary relations are fantastic, and these riots take place. Sect A, if losing casualties in this or that region, or even experiencing fear, doubts Sect B. What if some hot head militant that belongs to sect A, pays retaliates and hurts Sect B, the domino effect rolls. All politicians (including Hezbollah, our "defenders" and the "secular" Lebanese Forces) get what they want: isolated sects that clutch to the secatarian parties. Why? Simple... if Sect A for example supports Harriri, but its people are in good relations with Sect B (say supporters of Hezbollah), how to get neighbors to shoot at each other? Simple: bring the hooligans to do some riots, then viola! Fear of the other!

Who benefits: the politicians; who mourns: the proletariat
Who gets richer: the politicians; who mourns: the proletariat
Who goes to their rich houses, the politicians, who is getting poorer: the Proletariat.

The media of the parties are still charging the situation, depends on whenever Minister Baroud yells at them to cool it down aggressively or not!

Lately, these incidents (after the riots of three years, and of course 17 years of civil wars) seem normal to a lot of us. It is as if a Pavlov effect whereby we got accustomed to it!

As my beloved friend Darko said in two posts earlier, we are losing hope, I lost it ages ago, I mean I am still a Marxist, and not any Marxist, the one who still dreams to unite the world into a single classless society where everyone are equal (reminds us of John Lennon's Imagine; good song) I say, we have no choice, as activists to carry on with our belief and quest we can change Lebanon and the whole world (no, I am not doing an Obama ad. of Yes We Can), more like Connelly's logo of: Our demands most humble, we want the world. Neverthelesss, if we do not have the vision, what do we have on the ground? Sad pictures of Iraqis dying by the 100s every day while enjoying what Bush Jr. said: "Giving Freedom and Democracy?" (Side note: Bush Jr. I am still waiting for those damn Weapons of Mass Destructions, you did promise us they will pop up eventually).

It is now 6:51 in Beirut, I bid thee all good night/morning (yes, I am a night crawler, and had a whole rakwi of caffeine for myself in the afternoon)

PS: Doesn't my post on Iran, Hezbollah, and Wilayat el Faqih click on what happened on the elections over there? I love it when my analysis hits the right bullseye

MFL

Democracy and its preachers

Socialism Needs Democracy Like the Human Body Needs Oxygen - Leon Trotsky

The latest blabs on democratizing Iran by ousting its insane president Ahmadinejad had been rotating lately. Of course, as I wrote last year, the president is worthless, while it is the Wali el Faqih, currently Ali Khamanei, pulls all the major strings. This leads to the question: What is the use of throwing Mr. Ahmadinejad in the first place?

Nevertheless, my main interest is not writing about Iran at all currently, but rather on those capitalists who preach democracy, and lead a very normal life in the West. This is of course not to doubt the intentions of some of those who preach democracy, some of them have really the intent, but promoting the "US logic" of democracy in the Arab world yields zero feedback.

Democracy as we know it, took centuries to evolve in Western Europe, and rapidly in the US, with the African Americans hitting the streets to demand for their civil and human rights. Nevertheless, even in the West, where citizens get respect from their police force, democracy rotated around, to quote Karl Marx, electing the oppressors every certain time period.

Those preachers of Democracy of course come through several institutions, mainly through US AID, World Bank sponsored projects/proposals, and other institutions. As far as I know, both political parties of the US, whether Republican or Democrats, have branch parties across the globe, composed of ex-pats, seeking to promote the Western culture of democracy. However, if we consider the West as central and Western Europe (along with the US), then even there democracy is not really accessable for a lot of people. The US proletariat are as confused about the realities of the world due to media monopolation, and of course, they are alienated even from their surroundings due to the hectic business rush lifestyle to survive. Homeless people live in the streets of several US states, and if I remember correctly, there was an accusation between the Republicans and Democrats during Bush Jr's first election, that party representatives were going to the streets bribing the homeless with cigarettes to go and vote. Of course, we expect the preachers of democracy over there to come here. Latin Americans have been facing abuses all the time (even from African Americans), while several Arabs walk in fear due to fact any 'wild cowboy bill' can point at them and yell "terrorists".

Now I need to mention one tiny detail of all those "democratic crusades" that come to the Middle East and elsewhere (North Africa, Eastern Europe, others...), the majority of them come here because they are paid to come here. Their work involves think tanks, associations, organizations, and lectures. The bulk of their work ends up on a nice dry paper that nobody would read except few academics, and probably an official or two. Yet, emancipation on the ground provides fruitless communication. The fact that Ziad Baroud made it as a Minister due to his hard efforts and good reputation proves a victory of the local NGOs against such efforts of "democratization". Although Baroud's supporters in my opinion require a different post. Even Baroud, with the support of all the networks behind him, that include reforms & proposals, vanish into thin air at the first political instability that hits the area (whether local or regional). The main reason is: Democracy cannot begin except by empowering the proletarit to unify across the ethnic and sectarian borders.

The corrupt elites of the third world make sure that the status quo among the proletariat remain divided. It can be seculars, berbers, moderate Muslims, and Islamists in Morroco, or it can be sectarian isolation in Lebanon. The proletariat lack the means to identify their own rights, and their own strength if they are united. Now of course, someone will jump and say: our projects reach out grass root people on the ground and in rural areas. That person who actually jumped in front of me was a diet reformist in Kosovo. Well, the same person would jump anywhere in any country that wants to democratize. The Western preachers of democracy would assume that the people are ignorant of their rights, this can be solved by couple of workshops, some nice donations, and a nice group picture in the end of the event. So far, almost all nations excluding very few (even though those few as mentioned earlier have defective democracy) are still where they are: corrupt leadership at the expense of the people. My question to those crusaders of democracy would stem, why not change from their side of the continent? For example, why the activists won't ask the US administration why it still supports dictators like Moubarak and the Sauds regime. The support to these people thwarts democracy backwards, and bring instead Islamist groups as an option (due to the fact someone smart in the past thought that strengthening the Islamists would weaken the socialist tide in Asia and the MENA region.

In Lebanon at least, all those workshops, and all those conferences ended up in less than 24 hours when 14th of March and the Opposition hit the streets and shot at each other (not to exclude the heavy artillary exchanged between Hezbollah and Junblatt's PSP).

Socialism is the true path to democracy. Those in the West who sit in Lalaland and scream: "let us give them democracy" reminds me of the 16th - 19th century of Europe's colonial powers of taking in charge of "civilizing" the American continents, Asia, and Africa. I do believe the term was called "White Man's Burden". I guess now it transformed to "Western burden". Marxism is the real tool which breaks the grip of the elites on the proletariat over here, for the elites want their people to be divided into tiny ethnic and sectarian groups, that assists the flow of profits into their pockets, or their parties (as the case of Hezbollah benefiting from the funds from Iran, and the donations to the resistance). This is not an easy task, and its path is long; however, all other paths have been tried and they hit the wall. The current democratization processes include to preach a "common" person that they should vote, but democratization doesn't tell the person how he/she should form a unified front with other proletariats to safeguard their rights, for a vote is no longer a right. A vote is a game competition between the elties of the society. Instead, we have fancy conferences within the academic sphere whereby 20 professors travel abroad (to Beirut) to speak in panels, everyone dozes off, and whoever organized the conferences can click "check" next to his budget time plan sent to his donors.

They forgot that we inherited those democratic institutions from the colonial eras that were intended to divide and conquer. The elites kept them to safeguard, acquire, or renew their powers. Those crusaders of democracy should also know that the economic burdens of the proletariat, and how more "extra efforts" they should put to secure democracy (namely to sign a paper that they participated in workshop X or Y) are too much a waste of time.

I am sure more and more examples can be written on this topic
Let me be clear, there is no war but class war, end of story

MFL

Who To Blame for this Israeli Ethnic Cleansing of the Palestinians?

Imagine This:

People are cornered in cities, towns, and villages; the army is bombing based on ethnicity and sect. The people have no space to run. Borders are closed for refugees, and the army has the orders to shoot to kill anyone who was not of their sect. Victims' bodies are carried by the hostile army in dozens, with bulldozers, and dumped in large holes; then the same bulldozers, carry the soil, hide the hundreds of bodies of normal citizens in the ground. No border was open for them, except probably for one, and starvation has spread around. The hostile army argued that they were defending themselves against the enemy, and always promoted that these Muslims cannot tolerate civilization. They live to rape their women. This was for them a battle, two races stuck in one border. That army refused to abide by international warnings against such ethnic cleansing.

The whole world, without exaggeration, was shocked. The UN called for immediate seize of fire. Bill Clinton was ready to send his airplanes to support the underdogs. London was prepared to send its forces. Eventually the army was bombed, and the man who gave the order for ethnic cleansing was sent to the Hague Tribunal. That man was Milosevic, and the people were the Muslim Albanians of Kosovo. Now, isn't that ironic if we compare the situation to Gaza and the Palestinians?
Lost their homes to a European form of racial colonialism, the Palestinians were stripped from their homes, their lands, and their basic rights. The Zionists came from Europe with the sole mission to expel the Palestinians out of their homes, committed the first recorded ethnic cleansing directly after World War II, and established a racist nation called Israel, where the Zionists argued they are restoring their homeland which they lost 2000 years ago, and they are still on a mission to re-unite a Diaspora that is even 2500 years old.

The Story of Gaza: A Twist of Events

For those who wonder how the Palestinians received self-autonomy, amidst Israeli brutality, in Gaza and The West Bank; the story rotates around Arab treason.
When the 'glorious' Arab armies entered Palestine to liberate the Palestinians from the genocidal policies of the Hagannah , the pre-infrastructure to the Israeli Defense Forces, they raised the banner of the Arab Cause. The Arabs at first overwhelmed the Israelis, and the Jordanians took over the West Bank. Surprisingly, the Jordanian Army, whose king was a puppet to the British Mandate, ordered his army to a halt, and started surprisingly negotiations. He took mandate over the West Bank. The head of the Egyptian Army, the soon to be president, Jamal Abdul Nasser, took a look at the Jordanian acquisitions, decided to do the same, and halted at Gaza. Unlike the Jordanian King though, with less fronts for the Israeli army to worry about, Abdul Nasser, had to pull an urgent defensive maneuvers, and sustained heavy casualties. Abdul Nasser blamed the Egyptian monarchs for supplying the army on purpose corrupt weapons. Nevertheless, Egypt got its control on Gaza till the 1967 wars. The rest is not important for the current research, but we will hop to the Oslo Agreement of 1993. Under the patronage of Bill Clinton, Israel's Isaac Rabin, and Yasser Arafat, the Palestinians were given Gaza and the West Bank, as a quasi state to run, in attempt to create two states within one borders of historic Palestine. I will not dwell also on my opinion of the Oslo agreement, but it is enough for me to accuse Arafat of treason for selling out most of the refugees' right of return to gain semi presidential powers, this includes also my mother's right to return to her home.

The Hamas and Fatah Dance

Back in the 1970s, the Israelis had a short run strategic management. Back in the 1970s, Israel's arch-enemy, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, were fought fiercely because the PLO brought international recognition for the Palestinians. The different factions then were Arafat's Fatah, George Habash's The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and Ahmad Gibreel's Popular Front For the Liberation of Palestine – General Command. Their funding came from some gulf and Arab nations, and the Soviet Union in terms of arms and weaponry. Fatah were dubbed as one of the most dangerous terrorist groups back then, and no US diplomat supposedly was allowed to meet with a terrorist group. As a matter of fact, during the 1982 Israeli invasion, the American Presidential Diplomat, Philip Habib, threatened Sharon to cut down on his bombing by meeting with Yasser Arafat face to face.

One of Israel's tactics to weaken Fatah's influence and their secular allies, the factions of the PLO, was to strengthen the Islamist groups. Hamas, at its moment of birth, was not an entity or a party of its own; it was and currently stills a military wing of the Muslim Brotherhood. As a matter fact, Hamas, during the first Intifada, was the alias name or a camouflage of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine, in 1987. The Muslim Brotherhood started officially around 1943, their roots dated back much earlier, and as an influence from the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Unlike the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood had a national character while in Egypt they promoted the universality of Islam across borders. They collected funds based on the Quran in order to expand their spheres of influence in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza. The Israelis, promoting then that their civilized citizens were under-threat from barbarians in order to hide their own atrocities. From this tactic, it is not surprising that a large population of the US citizens who are actually interested in Middle Eastern issues are pro-Israel and Zionism. Their media reports one side of the story, just as today. The International Media, at least the influential ones, do not show the 650 bodies of martyrs (at least the number last I checked), rather how one Israeli woman is crying. Only when Israel commits a big blunder live on an American or British TV, a reaction rises. Now, returning to the story of the Muslim Brotherhood, they were back then the quietest type. They never launched any activities against the Israeli, but they did fight the PLO with all they got, after all they were their rivals. The purpose of not doing any activities against Israel was the Islamic belief to win Israel in the long-run. Israel, turned a blind eye on the Muslim Brotherhood as they constructed their Islamist nodes, and expanded on the expense of the PLO, and primarily Fatah. In 1977, Fatah bluntly accused the Muslim Brotherhood as Israeli agents. What the Israelis didn't consider that the Muslim Brotherhood will be their archenemies, and definitely the Israelis last they expected was to be allied to Fatah in present times... something that I like to call an Irony of Situation.
In 1987, the Palestinian Intifada uprisal took place. The main trend was the circumstances the Palestinians were living in. While the PLO had little control over, an inner coup took place inside the Muslim Brotherhood. The younger generation decided to disengage away from the quietest approach of opposing Israel, and decided that the their time has come to be engaged. In order to safeguard the Israeli loose hand over their movements, they invented Hamas. Operations carried out by the name Hamas bluffed Israelis for a brief moment, but Hamas emerged as a powerful opponent to Fatah. Actually, Fatah turned a blind eye back in the early 1980s as Muslim Brotherhood extremists took out Habash's comrades, which allowed them greater strength on the ground. The end result of course for Fatah was victory in the end of the Intifada in 1993, whereby the Oslo Accords were signed. Fatah was successful in attracting international attention to Palestinian suffering, especially where children were captured live on TV being shot at while throwing stones. This allowed Fatah to emerge as the negotiators under the banner of Peace for Land, and got the current semi-autonomous state.

Yasser Arafat's relationship with the Israelis wasn't on the best of terms. At a one point, Ramallah was over-run by Israeli tanks, and he was under siege in his own office, and last two years in Ramallah. The Oslo Accords even got Arafat, along with Rabin and Peres the Noble Peace Prize, but other PLO factions, primarily the George Habash faction of the PFLP, accused him of being too softy with the Israelis. This trend started in 1988, when Arafat accepted UN Security Council Resolution 242, which was to recognize Israel's rights for existence. His main opponents were Hamas. By 2002, around 35% of the Palestinians were dependent on Hamas's welfare nodes, whom they attained through the Muslim Brotherhood.

Hamas and Fatah: The Collisions with Each Other instead with Israel

Third World Politics rotate around declining long-run strategic goals for short-run political gains. The same is applied on Hamas and Fatah, even though currently Hamas evolved to be the representative of the Palestinian will to survive, like Arafat's PLO in the 1970s, even though he always collided with George Habash and the pro-Syrian Ahmad Jebreel. The suicide bombings of Hamas always instigated Israel to go punish Arafat, but with his death, Hamas gathered the storm to balance out against Fatah inside the Palestinian grounds. It has to be noted that in Lebanon for example, the majority of the Palestinians, at least prior to their latest butcheries on the Palestinians in Gaza, are pro-Fatah and Yasser Arafat.

Hamas, instead of limiting their activities to warfare and welfare against the Israelis, they became involved in politics. They harvested more supporters that way because every time Fatah messed up in the Palestinian parliament (to be noted: almost half of the Palestinian Parliament currently are in Israeli prisons). Operations against Hamas leadership escalated where in broad daylight its leadership were bombed by Israeli planes in 2004, but, Hamas continued to gather opposition whether through their welfare networks, using the easiness of their location in the Opposition to criticize Fatah, and offer themselves as an alternative. This was facilitated to the Palestinians through the weakening of the PFLP party by Fatah, Hamas, and the Israelis. Furthermore, the latter contributed in imprisoning PFLP's Ahmad Saadat. Fatah lost a lot of figures as well after the Oslo Accords, the first to abandon the PLO was Edward Said, who denounced the Oslo Accords immediately. Other Palestinian intellects lost grounds as well. Finally, the large gap left by Arafat's death meant practically undisputed political figure in the scene died with a weakling like Mahmoud Abbass taking over. Even though Arafat declined a lot to the Israelis, Abbas was even worse. As a matter of fact, Israel paid for its non-strategic calculations of the 1960s and 1970s of giving free passage to the Muslim Brotherhood, and selected Abbas as its ally. As a matter of fact, they publicly supported Fatah, along with the White House in the next elections.

When Hamas won the majority of parliament, they didn't sweep in a landslide. The matter remains that Hamas remained Islamist in nature, despite the fact it distinguished itself from other Brotherhoods by stressing on Palestinian identity and nationalism. The primary factor, on the other hand, for Hamas's victory bottoms down to the fact that people were fed up from Mahmoud Abbas's acceptances of Israeli pressures and even adopted speeches promoted by the Pentagon, such as "Peace, and Democracy". Since the options are similar to the US electoral dual competitive coalitions, Hamas in its position as the Opposition, made it as a majority block to the Parliament. Hence, there was a Fatah President (Palestinian Authority) represented by Abbas, and a Prime Minister represented by Ismael Haniya.

Just like in Lebanon, both factions didn't agree with each other. Peace treaties pop up, which are automatically are accompanied with Israeli brutality in East Jerusalem, bulldozers to expand on settlements, and mostly, day to day atrocities. Just like Lebanon, both sides accused each other with treason. Fatah accused Hamas as being a pawn for Iran, and Hamas accused Fatah of being US agents. Fatah received reinforcements when Israel arrested the Palestinian Parliament, and also Israel on different occasions released Palestinian prisoners that are members of Fatah. On one day, Hamas succeeded in kidnapping an Israeli soldier, which caused the entire Palestinians to live under hell, ironically, after the bombing, they decided to seek negotiations, leaving several Palestinian citizens dead. The exact scenario replicated itself in Lebanon when Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers, and Israel bombed the hell out of Lebanon. Only difference though between the two incidents, that the ground forces of the Israeli Defense Forces appeared weak compared to Hezbollah's paramilitary operations; Hezbollah even inflicted severe damage on their naval power.

Same Butchery, Different End Results

The tactic of bombing citizens, and inflicting maximum damage on the Palestinians had been the same tactic of Israel for three decades. Israeli genocidal warfare is usually covered by media blackout on the 'other side'. The Europeans and Americans in general receive 5% of the overall story of what is going on. The bombing of the Palestinians in retaliations of the kidnapped IDF soldier was probably to support Fatah and encourage Palestinians to seek the peace option. Peace so far, with the Israelis, had been fake. No peace is followed by racism, and reaction would trigger another reaction, in here means the Qassam and Grad Rockets. When Hamas and Fatah finally had a military show-down, Hamas over-whelmed Fatah, which caused Mahmoud Abbas to expel Ismael Haniya as the Prime Minister. Shoot-outs were bloody, and the Palestinians were shocked on the notion how two mighty Palestinian factions were shooting on each other, instead the Israelis. When the Gulf nations succeeded in reconciling Hamas and Fatah, the streets of Gaza and the West Bank were flooded with Palestinians hugging each other, and raising their fingers in a V form. This reflects the will of the Palestinians, to seek unity. Fatah till this very day is still incapable to compete with Hamas's welfare networks, and actually do not complain about it since these nodes save a lot of money on the tiny budget of the autonomous regions.

This was followed by a breakdown of further collapse of negotiations between Fatah and Hamas, Israel again enforced a blockade on Gaza, whereby over 50 citizens died in hospitals due to lack of electricity. The blockade lasted months. Israel remained expanding in East Jerusalem to compensate the dismantlement of certain settlements in autonomous grounds, after Israel disregarded the International Community. Again, Israel always failed to generate a real peace treaty. The current Palestine genocide, where the final round of missiles were shot by Hamas in reaction to Israeli brutality triggered the bombing of Gaza where we see about 75 to 80 citizens killed per day, and over 200 wounded a day.

Unlike the last bombing, this one is different. The Israelis for sure do not seek to dismantle Hamas; rather they always need an enemy. That is the case of every extremist nationalist ideology, like Zionism. While the people think that Hamas's very existence in Gaza is threatened, Israel wants Hamas, just as Hamas needs Israel. This is the very important tactic of demolishing reformist alternatives. Israel is certain that Hamas will emerge stronger after these collisions, and actually that suits their 'defensive' policies. Israel is not that stupid to wage a war that is clearly against Hamas, bomb randomly citizens, of whom, according to today's statistics: 215 children were killed,89 women murdered, with a total estimate of 680 killed in less than two weeks, and 3075 severely wounded. Entire families had been eradicated by a single bomb. Now of course, freaks like Bush, Levni, and Rice would call it "fighting terrorism". Yet how can a country, that was established on the expense of others, based its existence on ethnic cleansing, and form blockades on the most crowded region in the world (and poorest I might add), is natural. Israel was formed out of the blues. Its very existence is not natural, and there is nothing called "Natural Rights". Again, this proves that Zionism is the biggest bad news to Jews of the world, whereby they are a minority. Israel requires wars in order to receive funding, justify its on-going atrocities, and probably will never seize till that racist nation succeeds in attaining complete control of Palestine Proper. Finally, the notion of towns in Israel is totally ironic if that country is genuine, there is no country in the world that calls its urban centers as "settlements".

Arab Nationalism is Opium of the Masses

Just as the Arab countries sold out Palestine in the great Palestinian rebellion of 1930s and 1948, they are doing it again, and probably will continue to do it again and again in the future. The reason for this again lies down for Arab regimes in selecting short-run goals, which is the society's elites maximizing power for their own welfare at the expense of their people. This was applied on Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia in the 1930s; also Iraq then was included. Their entire rulers were under allegiance to the British Empire then, and it was no coincidence the rebellion then lost its momentum. The idea of giving false promises and empty words to maximize their own strength with stronger nation states had been the name of the game. The elites of these nations led the Palestinians to disasters, and of course, that was followed by dictatorships and poverty on their own people.

Just like the July War on Lebanon in 2006, the 2008 Holocaust of the Palestinians also was followed by Arab rulers who do not want to risk their personal interests at the expense of the murdered children of Israeli artillery. This includes almost every nation state except probably for Yaman who hit the streets in less than 24 hours to demand the halt of Israeli butchery, and protect the Palestinians. The other country is definitely Lebanon. The second most bombed country by Israel after the Palestinians. Several Lebanese had flashbacks of horrific Israeli brutality in 2006, 1996, 1993, and the 1982 invasion. This also doesn't exclude the people of the South suffering on daily basis from the Southern Lebanese Army and their masters, the different Israeli Prime Ministers.

The term Arab nationalism lost its value for almost two decades ago. Chomsky himself in the American University of Beirut said: "Which Arab and Israeli War, currently there are the Lebanese and Syrians." Even Syria itself is seeking its own interests at the expense of the Palestinians, by trying to get the Golan heights, not to forget how Bashar el Assad used the defeat of the Israeli infantry in the July War to maximize his bargaining cards (note: The Israeli airplanes flew above his head one month prior to the war in 2006).

Arab Nationalism, like most cross-nation states nationalism, are a thing of the past. Solidarity between the Arabs had been simply restricted on the potential level. It had been used between between rival politicians to distinguish themselves from each other. For example, the two dictators of Syria and Egypt had been competing with each other to argue who is more Arab.

Arab Nationalism on its first roots rose as a unified concept to face the different European Colonialist powers in Northern Africa and the Middle East. To others, Arab Nationalism was a great factor to block the rise of extremist Islamist movements. The first people to embrace Arab Nationalism in Lebanon for example were the Lebanese Christian Maronites, to counter the Ottoman Empire and specially during its final stages of existence: Post-Young Turks revolution. As a matter of fact, one naively argued that the ideological idea of Antoun Saadi's Greater Syria by Christians is due to the fear of the rise of extremist Islamists. To what extent that is true, we cannot have a concrete materialistic measurable output. Nevertheless, Arab nationalism was the banner for dictatorship leaders to rule. Abdul Nasser's entire logo was to unite Arab nations into a single nation. Something that is impossible to happen.

One major error in pro-Zionist supporters' is to assume that Arabs are the same. The some Western pro-Zionists wonder: "You Arabs have so much land, you can give Palestine to the Jews." That sounds rather plain stupid. It is as if saying, Europeans have so much land, why don't we give Hungary or Belgium to the Jews." To this I can say two errors:

1) The first error is to segregate the Jews as a single entity that doesn't belong in Europe, or Arab lands, whereby we both no there are European Jews and Arab Jews. Just as prior to the Balfour promise, there were Palestinian Jews, Lebanese Jews, Polish Jews, the same applies to Palestinian Christians, Lebanese Christians, or Polish Christians.

2) Just as Europe is divided into unique countries with their own complex dynamics, the same is about the Arabs. To deny the Palestinians' right to claim justice is a fatal error, and even worse, to deny them the right for existence, and practice the process of genocide on them under the banner of "natural rights" without giving history any real meaning.

Having said this, the notion "We are Arabs" had been an over-rated country. If you go to the US, the first thing that hits you is to see "the Lebanese Communities living together, Syrians together, and others together." By this , several distinctions can be separated. Now , when the Arab nation states say "We are Arabs", it means that they are simply alienating their people from real activism, which is developing class awareness and overthrowing those same corrupt rulers. Moubarak still hails Egypt as the defender of the Arab cause. Moubarak practically is a living proof why Arab nationalism is dead. His justification for not opening his borders with Gaza is "not to divide Gaza from the West Bank." When Nasrallah accused Moubarak with treason, his reply was "Everyone can testify to the sacrifices of Egypt", which according to my knowledge dates back to 1973. Probably, if his son manages to continue his father's reign like the Assads and the Saouds, our grandchildren will hear the same logos. Although I doubt that will happen as everyone knows that the Moubarak regime is close to erupt into a revolution any day within the decade or so.

What challenged the Islamists back in the 1940s and 1950s were the Arab Nationalists. The Arab Nationalists forced the Islamists to be marginalized. Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Pre-1948 Palestine were such an example. As those leaders delivered force promises on the "Arab causes", several people became alienated in order to earn their daily bread or out of fear from retribution from the leaders' oppressive regime. When the Arabs failed to demolish Israel, whereby only Syria and Egypt were involved in the 1960s and 1970s, this gave rise to the Islamists. The Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt and Syria demanded that Arab nationalism is to be nullified in the consciousness of their supporters, only to have Islam as a perfect substitute, because the ones who die in such a cause, end up in heaven. As Palestinian suffering continued, Arab defeats increased. The Arab defeats were also accompanied with dictators who purged their own educated classes in order to remain undisputed in power (like Moubarak two years ago sending his goons to beat up and arrest a peaceful demonstration of Judges against corruption). In response to Moubarak, no one is asking him to go to war, but at least he can expel the Israeli ambassador, a heroic act done by the reactionary Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. But there are reasons why his regime will not. Nevertheless, the failure of Arab leaderships to have a single victory till the year 2000 were Lebanon successfully expelled Israel outside its borders, and the group to expel them took the hegemony of resistance is an Islamist group, like Hamas, with a nationalist twist: Hezbollah.
It is not a coincidence that King Abdullah the first was shot dead in the early 1950s, under the banner of punishing a traitor. It is also not a coincidence that the Jordanians and the Egyptians pay lip-service to the US under current circumstances. They just camouflage their betrayal of the interests of their normal citizens with "Arab Nationalism" and how four decades ago they sacrificed a lot. Just as the British Empire realized back in 1917 that by securing Palestine into their Commonwealth in order to secure both flanks of the Suez Canal, so did the US Administration. While Israel is by far the most funded country from tax payers' money, the second and the third trailing way behind Israel, are Egypt and Jordan. Egypt's brutal regime caused the Muslim Brotherhood to expand supporters while Nasser's regime and Sadat demolished secular movements such as Unions, Communists, and Socialists. The Jordanian King wouldn't hesitate to bomb anyone in Jordan that challenges his authority, the current king's father did so in collaboration with Israel. No way Egyptian and Jordanian dictators will lose their short run interests, at the expense of having Muslim Brotherhoods stretching their own strengths who would become a real replacement to them.

The other traitor to the cause of the Palestinian Proletariat is the Syrian regime. Assad Sr. did his best to gain monopoly over the Palestinians, marginalize Arafat, in order to promote himself as the sole representative of the Palestinians. Ahmad Jibreel's loyalty to Assad is one example, while the expulsion of Arafat from Tripoli is another. The Palestinian factions are just a pawn for a dictator to expand his own sphere of power, marginalize opponents as traitors to the regime, and alienate activists. Of course, I wouldn't like to exclude the gulf nations who live in a separate world of their own.

So who needs Arab nationalism? It got disintegrated between Islamists, dictatorship pawns, and local nationalism. This of course adds to the Zionist segregation of Jews and non-Jews of the Proletariat. A real socialist perspective in my opinion is the salvation for this region where all the people should unite as part of the global collision, away from nationalism. The diversion of bad economies of dividing people into sects, extremists, and ethnicities is that the solution although it appears to be the easiest at a first glimpse.

Repercussions for the Present and Future

Other than the divide between the Jews and Non-Jews will increase in Palestine proper, the Zionists enjoy this growing rift between the people there. After all, segregationist nationalism doesn't support interactive society. Zionism, like al-Qa'eda's obsession of fighting non-Muslims, is involved with fighting non-Jews in the region.

Israel got what they wanted, get Hamas alive and kicking undisputedly. If they targeted Hamas alone, they wouldn't have committed the greatest butchery so far in the 21st century. For this, they secured more funding from the US Administrations to come (yes, that includes Barack Obama), more reasons to carry out building hilarious settlements that have 30% of population, and deny the Palestinians their right to go back home.

This also meant that the Israelis will feel more pressured and boxed inside their own borders. As tensions are building up throughout the Arab countries, the Israelis will have no choice but to opt for war options as their regime's activities strengthens extremist Jews, ie Zionists.

Now of course, the saddest part of the whole story is the death of the citizens, mainly those 680 martyrs who died under the banner of fighting terrorism (personally, Israel has the highest record of butchering civilians, and they always claimed they are patient). These citizens are also blamed for the war, but as one conspiracy theory goes: Israel wants Gaza in the long run empty for themselves. For now, assuring that Hamas wins elections gives them momentum. Of course, Hamas will have more recruits since citizens, whether Hamas or not, will be bombed.

This also gives Hezbollah a refreshing momentum as well. Now Hezbollah's victories against the IDF made convincing arguments the legitimacy of Hezbollah to their supporters and allies, compared to Hamas's weak performance in facing the Israeli war machinery. Israel also sent a message that Hezbollah will receive the same brutality, although history always proved that the IDF, other than the 1948 victory in building Israel's existence, are always weak on the infantry level.
This also weakens Moubarak's regime, where the Opposition gathered new material to weaken the legitimacy of Moubarak, a person wonders how long that man can remain in power. The Leftists and the Islamists both are on a roll of reaching grassroots level. Moubarak enjoys faking different elections results. Poverty had been increasing more and more, and Moubarak simply says it is Hamas's fault. Not the blockades, and not the day to day atrocities.

The Israeli brutality also blew off a lot of efforts for the progressives like myself. All our activities in fighting racism against the Jews were pushed back, and personally I feel I lost 10 years of my life for nothing while being involved in such a cause. Several people through out the years that I reached out their stubborn minds that "no, not every Jew is a dirty Jew" went down the drain. While I was Marxist line of a Communist revolution where the Jews of Israel are part of it, now a lot of people that I got through want to do what the Zionists did to the Palestinians, practically: every Jew coming from Europe since 1920 to be dumped in the sea because they are as savage as Hitler. The road for this struggle continues. At least not all Jews in the world are dubbed traitors.

Finally, Israel has itself to blame for the Islamist groups, because it suits its policies to have such groups. Zionism is a war machinery ideology that constantly requires blood to continue running. With the international media swaying international opinion by providing only repetitive snapshots of Israeli victims, (yes I did say victims, victims to Zionism), instead of placing pictures of the other side, and the whole story as well, instead of angry bearded men burning the Israeli flag.

This is a class war par excellence where religion and ethnicity plays a role to preserve themselves in power. Hamas currently are the underdogs, and of course as always Israel places non-applicable goals so that a weaker Hamas pops up and the war option remains alive. It is not the first time Israel bombs UN havens and schools on purpose in order to "reconsider" seize fires. Reconsider means more time to bomb innocent victims, 685 victims is still not enough for them.

The Tribunal, during the Yugoslav crisis, sent soldiers to the Tribunal for simply firing artillery, what about Israel's 680 victims and 3075 wounded (so far)? Or These victims to be blamed for allowing Hamas to operate? Who demolished the alternatives in the first place? And who allowed Hamas's Muslim Brotherhood to grow stronger for decades? No Comment

No War but Class War

MFL

PS: Is there anyone else finding Mahmoud Abbass pethatic for threatening Hamas to cut out the launching of the Rockets or else the Peace Process will Collapse? What Peace?

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)

The Sad Story of Lebanon & Middle East

Three people died yesterday and their impacts are nothing on the grassroots level and political level. One of the deceased has been married for four months only, while the other had been married for 2 years, and had a baby child. The sad part of the story, the accusations remain flying between 14th of March and the Opposition on the grass root level.

A friend of mine Pro-Opposition & Resistance, on the eve of the explosion, tells me that the US blew the car with same material they supplied Fatah Islam. In fact they knew exactly how much to use explosives (Security Forces have declared 20 Kilograms of TNT were used in the detonated car) in order not to kill the Embassy’s two employees (who turned out to be Feltman’s scout cars. I argued left and right with him on the issue, and how he was certain of that fact (or the other fact that the government funded Fatah Islam which brings us back to Seymour Hersh’s original scenario), and he goes “they are desperate, they need to get more sympathy from the International Community.” This totally blew my mind off, what more solidarity the government needs? The government has so much international sympathy to the extent the Opposition failed drastically to oust them out. Hassan Nasrallah himself admitted that fact. He argues: “Because Bush is in the region”. Well, again, I told him without evidence, you can’t prove anything, and in fact, there are all possible scenarios. Sadly, I was talking to a wall.

The second person to join us on the table was a pro-Future & Government, and his argument was “Iran are teaching the Americans a lesson on Lebanese soil, henceforth, the Opposition are putting their foot in the face of the government.” I argue back, but how are you so sure that is the case? His reply: “Man, you are smart, Bush, Middle East, Escalations on Iran? Do the Math!” I reply back: what about Shaker el Absi? He answers: “Well, then it is Syria’s fault in that case, because they brought him to Lebanon! If only Bush visited the region!” I go : “Are you insane? Allowing the man who gave Israel to bomb the hell out of Lebanon? If Tony Blair when visited all chaos broke loose, the same with Kofi Annan, you want Bush?! Sure, if you want a full blooded confrontations to explode… the government is still being criticized for having lunch with Condi during the July War!” He goes: “Yes, it was the Prime Minister’s way of blocking the bloodshed!”

After a while debating with these two, then hearing debating, it was one of those fiascos that never end.

I have reached a conclusion that Lebanon is similar to theology, it is a never ending form of debate. The sad part of the story, three families are burying their beloved in coffins. One family had to come from Aleppo to confirm their son’s corpse. Two wives became widows. And the grassroots level, the party affiliated members still perceive this situation as scoring points. Then they all will say: “yes, it is sad what happened to the families!” But for sure, they will forget about these families and look again against each other to score points. Meanwhile, three bystanders were killed for nothing. They will be called by both sides as martyrs; however, do their families care? Just today one family was blaming the entire politicians of Lebanon. Which brings me to ask the question: why no schools/institutions closed today to mourn the deceased? Because they were common people?!

This is a classic case of what was mentioned in Marx’s 101 writings. The elite mobilize the masses against each other, while the masses themselves pay the price. Of course, you need an enemy, both camps have that: Syria/Iran versus USA/Israel/Gulf. What is most striking that so many have died, it is becoming common news!

I wonder how our fellow Palestinians survive in this bloodshed on daily basis! Just yesterday 17 people got killed, children die everyday, and the Palestinians live in a canned box. Worse, they have two parties butchering each other instead of defending their rights The civilians there suffer, whether from their leaders or from the Israeli artillery (which is often the case)! I didn’t even start with Iraq, where almost everyday 40 to 100 people die on daily basis.

Yes, this is the New Middle East.: he Middle East of Bloodshed, tyranny, and hypocrisy. When a bomb takes place in Beirut, they just say: thank heavens it wasn’t near us. People simply gave up hope to capture those invisible hands!” Palestinian Mothers burying their children or vice versa, children burying their mothers! Iraq under heavy bombardment from all forms of quasi-ethnic fuelling, vengeance, terrorism, and US Occupation! And we haven’t even talked about the poverty status supported by the US: the Al-Saud regime & the Mubarak regime.

I may have went a bit ashtray from the original topic, but I see it all combined. The Proletariat are suffering from their leaders’ affiliation. Zionism is increasing the gap between the Jews and the Arabs, and Egyptian statistics convey a terrible number of above 90% wearing the veil due to welfare nods because the US insist on supporting Mubarak (2nd most financed after Israel. I have no problem women wore the veil, as long as it is out of conviction, not out of financial needs!

As for Lebanon, it is a failed nation (to use Chomsky’s terminologies). The Arabs refuse to work with Israel (or at least used to refuse) and henceforth go pay lip-service to the US president who has been demanding that Israel is a pure ethnic Jewish nation that needs to be defended. If that is the case, what is the difference between Milosevic’s Serbia and Zionist Israel?

So many disgusting topics to mention, such a long road to emancipate the Proletariat into a single striking force against their oppressors, starting by dumping all 14th of March/Opposition cadres in the Sea! The government/Opposition followers fail to mention how everything (up to daily commodities such as Cheese) is on the rise. In fact, both factions blame each other and argue that once a Lebanese President is elected things will be better (if they ever do, and if that is the core problem of Lebanon, a tiny presidential chair whose president barely has any authority)! Enough of scapegoating "The Other"!

No War but Class War

MFL

Lebanon's new president needs a reform agenda

(MFL: might be interesting to ponder about these reform points)

Reform plans written by Fady Abboud , taken from here

President Elias Hrawi's term in office lasted nine years. Likewise, President Emile Lahoud's rule stretched over nine years. Electing a replacement for the latter president has so far required nine attempts (and one more since this article was written). In Britain, however, 999 is the number for Emergency services. It seems that Lebanon now needs to dial 999. An emergency situation has developed over the past months, but there is nowhere for our officials to turn for help.

Although many Lebanese demonstrated for freedom, sovereignty, independence and national unity, the political class is letting them down because of the lack of seriousness with which national issues, such as the presidential election, are treated. Consequently, this brings to question the political class' commitment to reform, economic growth and even democracy.

If the 11th or 12th election attempts are lucky, we need to start thinking and acting seriously about launching the long-awaited reform process. For this, the Lebanese deserve officials who possess practical and analytical skills and who are able to inspire confidence. Reform is not a theoretical exercise. It requires a set of skills based on real-life experiences.

The new president (fingers crossed) deserves a team that is able to promote and execute a reform agenda based, among others, on the following:

1. To pass Freedom of Information Act legislation, granting all citizens the right to obtain any public information relating to government institutions, including the publication of all such information on the Internet for easy access and as a step toward e-government.

2. To pass legislation concerning public tenders to assure fairness and transparency, especially concerning standards and the opening of bids, and disallowing any form of cronyism concerning the award of contracts.

3. Revoking bank secrecy on all public employees and all those who benefit from public funds, including their family members and associated companies.

4. To create a National Competitiveness Council (NCC), which is empowered to re-write all bureaucratic procedures and Executive Decrees. The NCC will act as a "Bureaucratic Inertia Buster," forcing change to streamline procedures and modernize the bureaucracy, and cooperating with relevant experts from business, academia and civil society.

5. Exposing electricity production and distribution to competitive market forces during three months, and allow the free import of natural gas and fuel products and forbid monopolistic behavior.

6. Provide universal health care to all Lebanese citizens through the private sector and consolidate all the budgets of the National Social Security Fund (NSSF), Health Ministry, cooperatives and others under one regulatory authority, to provide health-care services to citizens who need it through buying insurance coverage from the private sector.

7. Increase the minimum wage to LL500,000, discontinue family allowances from the NSSF, liberalize end-of-service indemnities under the Central Bank's supervision, and transform the NSSF into a regulatory body.

8. Privatize public schools through a transparent bidding process in which only reputable private educational institutions, which have a long track record of academic excellence could participate.

9. Transform the national economy into a truly competitive and open economy, encompassing all sectors, to prohibit monopolies, respect consumer rights, and maintain the competitiveness of productive sectors, through:

a. Creating an Anti-Monopolies Commission

b. Creating specialized courts to deal efficiently and speedily with consumer-rights issues and prohibit monopolies

10. Introduce legislation to offer incentives to those who create jobs in Lebanon, which would encourage investment as well as balanced regional and sectoral development, and create "intelligent" Industrial Parks with services all over Lebanon.

11. Giving back to Parliament the exclusive right to impose taxation, and not allowing the introduction of fees under the guise of taxes, thereby assuring that fees are paid against services not to generate revenue for the government.

12. Creating special police forces (Traffic Task Force), trained in the West, to control traffic and introduce electronic surveillance on all Lebanese roads; and create a similar police force (Environmental Task Force) to monitor and control environmental violations.

No economy could survive and be sustainable without certain underpinnings, such as values, ethics, quality education, productivity, quality-of-life issues, etc. Societies do not move forward without a vision, as well as functioning institutions (legislative, legal, bureaucratic, educational, economic, etc.) to implement that vision.

An "enlightened" president, in cooperation with Parliament and government, should play an activist role in the reform process. This is where the Lebanese have to put their hopes. The three vital constitutional institutions have to lead us forward as a society, away from sectarianism, racism, nepotism and corruption, and toward modernity, civic responsibility, tolerance and liberal democracy.


Fady Abboud is president of the Lebanese Industrialists Association.

Beirut – Overcrowded with Immigrants

No matter where you go to Beirut, you will see everywhere crowded since morning. Practically a gigantic portion of the immigrants returned to visit for two reasons. The first reason is the coincidence of Christmas and al-Adhha holidays (Christian the first, Muslim and Durzi the second) whereby a lot of Lebanese students/immigrants returned. The second reason, a lot of people’s vacations were canceled in the past, practically for a whole year. The assassination of Jubran Tuieni in 2005 scared people to visit Lebanon; the same impact occurred on the summer of 2006 (July War with Israel), the assassination of Minister Pierre Gemayel + the Opposition launching their open demonstration which started with over 1.5 million participant (people were terrified we were at the dawn of a new civil war on Christmas/Adhha of 2006), the war with Fatah Islam (Summer of 2007) which was accompanied with random terrorist bombings and assassination of Walid Eido and later Antoine Ghanem, and now people came to visit despite the assassination of General Francois Hajj and the political void.

The working/student class in exile needed to return and see their families and friends. In fact, a lot of collage friends agreed to meet up for the holidays whether from the US, Canada, Europe, or the Arabian Gulf. I, myself, saw people in 2 hours at a single night 51 people whom graduated with me and never saw for the past 5 years. Jemayzi, Hamra, and Monot are packed with cars whereby you can get stuck in traffic jam for one hour in the tiny street of Jemayzi. The Taxi Cabs have tripled (in most cases) their fees (1$ usually) for riders, and the immigrants came to spend their money in the richest nightlife through out the Middle East: Beirut.

A 14th of Marcher would stand up and yell: “this is what we are talking about, security and stability to bring money.” And again as always, the free market advocates are wrong, because partly why everyone left because the Lebanese Market doesn’t offer work jobs. The only thing that would benefit the Lebanese economy if non-Lebanese tourists came and invested in Lebanon, or at least purchased commodities from tiny stores. The only establishments that made good money were of course the Air Travel agencies, nightclubs and pubs, and super chain stores that would require families buying food to welcome their visitors.

I would like to pin-point that that those who traveled to outside Lebanon are not just immigrants, they are the working class in exile, away from their homes. It was the political situation imposed by the local Lebanese sect leaders (currently distributed between 14th of March and the Opposition), Syria, Iran, Israel, and other key players. I can also blame the free market system followed by the late Rafiq Harriri which made the poor poorer and the rich richer which drove people to seek economical exodus towards the gulf. Of course, the Israeli racial aggression on Lebanon last year also accelerated this exodus, and finally, the fear that a civil war may break out anytime soon motivated more people to travel. As people say: “This is a beautiful country, but it is a doomed nation.” As Iran is more threatened to be hit by the US and Israel, more people worry that this might bring war and devastation to Lebanon as well.

Instead of celebrating the minor inflow of the working class who traveled abroad, the pro-government supporters should ask why these immigrants traveled in the first place, and how many more are on their way to leave permanently Lebanon. The majority of the immigrants prefer to remain in Lebanon, but now they have no choice as this abandoned country has nothing to offer them.

If anything, the gigantic influx of immigrants has effected the ones at home. Night life is becoming more and more difficult to enjoy (specially for those who are still trapped here), commodities are a bit more expensive, and transportation expenses are on the rise. The money multiplier is not enough supported by the immigrants money to boast Lebanon’s economy, and in any case, it is short since the immigrants mostly are visiting for a week or two, rather a month or three. I would really consider any political faction to consider this gigantic turn-out of immigrants as a political victory for their coalition, because these same coalitions are responsible for the existence of immigrants, despite their will, to live away from their families.

MFL

Short Run Goals Vs. Long Run Goals

Bumping into ex-activists, personally I keep wondering how far our goals are in Lebanon. With everyone being involved in “fighting Iran” or “Fighting Israel”, no one has tackled the real core issue which haunted Lebanon (and Mt. Lebanon in the 19th Century) with blood baths, wars, and the sort.

A 14th of Marcher would tell me that “A Strong State is needed once Hezbollah is disarmed!” Fine, I can understand people are terrified from having out of the blues a war and seeing their children bombed to kingdom by a ruthless cold blooded army out of retaliation. Second, let us assume this tiny nation would assume such a strong state with a mighty army to sustain it despite all those tiny armed groups, the country will never stand economically. The Lebanese Diaspora remains to increase in number, and more than ever. Someone may say: “Services” is the solution, yet I cant imagine us competing with the Gulf, and their immense wealth. Rather, the gulf supports certain elites, and in case money would spread around, it will go to the elites. The assumption of the Liberals that wealth would be generated in large quantities can’t hold true, there is no such logic that the top elites will make so much money to the extent that money will spill downwards to the people. If that is the case, Latin America, Saudi Arabia, and Iran would have witnessed a gigantic economic boom, and the welfare of the people would have expanded. Rather, unemployment rate increases, and the rich simply get richer.

However, this article is not about Political Economy and world Economics.

Ok, what about an 8th of Marcher? He/She would tell me “We are fighting Israel and protecting our land and demolish starvation from thieves!” Again, that scenario can’t stand still. The governments in the past had figureheads of 8th of March (most famous two probably would be Michel el Murr and Asa’ad Herdain). The 8th of March were always part of the economical gain to gain advantages. Now the core alliance of the Opposition is made of two parties that never stepped foot in the government during the Syrian Mandate (unless we consider the Free Patriotic Movement dating back to Aoun’s days as a ‘Prime Minister’), but all their allies were part of it. In fact, Hezbollah for almost two years were participants of the government and took part in the privatization process of the Electricity Institution. Now the other half of the hypothesis: “Resisting Israel and US imperialism”. Again, the scenario cant take place at a Lebanese scale, because even the previous more gigantic international institutions and countries failed to block US penetration on political or economical (which instigates political) level. Hezbollah’s monopoly of the resistance can be given credit to Syria, who can keep a close eye on them due to their alliance with Tehran. Furthermore, the “Resistance Movement” itself is lost due to the fact of “where is the resistance active”. When a youth was killed in hooligan riots, he was proclaimed by Nasrallah a “Martyr of the Resistance” since the whole open demonstration is aimed in fact to oust out a US supported government. Yet, the US government supported in the first two years the Seniora government, which also included directly 2 ministers of Hezbollah. In fact, resistance today is such an over-rated word, because a lot believe they are fighting for Israel while the other half of Lebanon is tagged as “traitors”. Furthermore, the FPM’s economical platform is close to that of Seniora’s.

However, the purpose of this article is not to discuss what resistance is, and who the poor people…are

And here I begin the purpose of my post… short run versus long run goals. Now of course, we all agree that part of the problem is Sectarianism. Now if we look at the problem as a whole, Lebanon as a country is doomed for constant wars and instability. Plus, Lebanon will always be a gateway for foreign powers to intervene (actually since Prince Fakhridean II with his alliance with Tuscany in the face of the Ottomans). Now, the first impression of Lebanon is that Lebanon is divided into two sectarian hostile camps that will not stop till one dumps the other in the sea. Moreover, the people love each other as long as their “Sect-Leaders” love each other. The most beautiful example is seeing the supporters of Aoun and Nasrallah loving each other (to a certain extent) when they allied with each other. Another beautiful example is the Sunnis of Harriri and Christians of Jaajaa/Gemayel loving each other because their leaders love each other. All of this, and we didn’t tackle the institutional corruption of all the parties in hiring their “own people” into the public sector (most famous would be probably Nabih Berri and his Shiite supporters). So the country is doomed… plus of course, we got resistance to Israel through a religious party that is building networks similar to the Muslim Brotherhood, and of course Syria and Israel remain destabilizing factors for the safety of the whole nation. All of this of course is accompanied with bad economical situation, almost zero welfarism, and the class breach remains expanding as the rich get richer and the poor poorer. Did I forget anything? Oh yeah, and we can add tiny terrorist groups popping out of the blues and the whole country is on the verge of war in case one member of a political group slaps the other on the cheek.

The problem is throughout Lebanon’s history, the legislators and previous governments never thought about a long-run goal. Probably the only person who did was Kamal Junblatt when he decided to annihilate sectarianism and enforce a progressive reform plan; however, the sad part of the story that he had to depend on Yasser Arafat to balance militarily against the Christian dominated Lebanese Army, and one day we will discuss in details how the PLO messed up in Lebanon since that topic deserves an article on its own.

So let us look at the first independent government spearheaded by Prime Minister el-Solh (well before he got sniped out). The President and the government were freed from the French due to the National Pact. The aim of the unwritten National Pact of 1943 is to get rid from the French. The Christians and the Sunni Muslims (along with the Druze) agreed to unite against the French for short term goals. The Sunni Muslims gave the Christians too much institutional and constitutional power to sway them that they have to get rid of the French and they don’t need the French mandate. When both Bchara Khoury and el-Solh were shaking hands, they doomed the nation for chaos in the future because such power declined to the Christians would be one of the several wars to explode in the future, primarily the Left versus the Christians. Yet, President Khoury and Prime Minister el-Solh never thought about the disasters of their National Pact, and almost lost its legitimacy in 1958 (ie 15 years later), because they were thinking of short-run gains and personal power. The fact President Khoury tried to renew his mandate proves my point, specially President Khoury’s brother was so much involved in illegal activities, that people bestowed upon him the title “Sultan”.

Now, we jump in time to the reign of the Camille Shamoun, which witnessed the birth of several institutions; however, all “civilization privileges” were made mainly in Beirut, parts of Mount Lebanon and Northern Lebanon, the rest of the country was left-out. The parts left out were primarily Shiites in nature, and they were excluded from “Shamoun’s Building Lebanon Campaign” because they didn’t generate profit and gain to that stubborn leader. Rather, they were excluded, and later suffered from Israeli retaliation and butchery due to Palestinian offensives. Actually when the Israelis invaded Lebanon in 1982, several Shiites greeted the Israelis with rice, along with the Maronites. They remained excluded from the political formula (or actually undermined with Shiite feudal puppies in allegiance with stronger Sect leaders), till 1970, when it was seen important to grant the South some attention in order to win over the Shiites towards the Christian side by creating the “South Council” and spearheaded by Moussa el Sadr (and in the same year the Council suffered from a lot of accusations related to corruption). Again, if the governments of the past thought in the long-run all Lebanon should equally benefit from the governmental welfare, none of the current leaders would have worried about Hezbollah’s rise to power because poverty, lack of a welfare system, Israeli bombing, and other factors pushed the majority of the Shiites to embrace Nasrallah as their saint.

A third incident would be of course, the case of Pierre Gemayel versus Kamal Junblatt. Kamal Junblatt wanted to strip off all Sect leaders from their privileges, and made sure that his direct allies were secular parties, such as the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, Lebanese Communist Party, and Order for Direct Action, while he was leader of the Progressive Socialist Party (when Socialism meant something for that party). Pierre Gemayel didn’t want those benefits lost, because he thought the Christians would be over-run by non-Christian Lebanese. So a civil war broke out, and Kamal Junblatt depended on a swift victory since the army would weaken and lose plenty of its members to their sects, and Pierre Gemayel wasn’t simply willing to see his life’s work go down the drain and witness the Christians becoming Lebanese like all Sects (as well as fear from the Palestinian factor). So, the war broke out, and none of them expected it will last for almost a decade and a half. From the civil war itself, it has dozens of short-term goals thought over at the expense of the long-ones. Henry Kissinger discusses heavily how Israel-Syria-USA-and the Lebanese Christian Elites invited the Syrians over to disarm the PLO and save their skins (since the PLO and the Lebanese National Movement swept about 81% of Lebanon), but eventually such a short run goal cost Lebanon to be puppet for Syria till 2005 things took a different turn, and more “Sponsors arrived to the scene”.

I will not go with the details why people are Sectarian and support blindly their leaders, but the logic would flow on how to solve such a huge problem? The Taef Agreement/Constitution is barely holding on, no Camp (14th of March/Opposition) is willing to step down till the other is politically destroyed. Yet, that can never take place, with the primary leaders/actors got their own support, instead, the solution for these two camps is to dump the other in the open sea, and that means civil war, which we didn’t returned to that stage yet

So, what do we mean by long-run goals. When Lebanon was created in 1920 out of the blues, more than 80% objected to the French regarding that, and primarily the Greek Orthodox Sect and the Sunnis, and demanded a unity with Faysal’s Syria. Ever since then, chaos and sectarianism as increased, and now it means we have to listen to what Archbishop Mar Nasrallah Sfeir has to say, or Mufti Qabbani and Sheikh Fadlallah what they have to say. Moreover, short run goals and policies are being done without proposing the real issue of salvation for this messed up nation: Civil Marriage and the Separation of Religion from the State. People since childhood are brought up to think in a sectarian sense one way or another. A Durzi can only marry a Durzi is one example. Inter-Christian sects means a bit of turmoil for the families, but it is there. What equates to the Durzi in tragedy is the Tashnag ultra-nationalistic concept of “Armenians only marry Armenians”, and of course, in the cases between the Sunnis and Shiites finds the extended families rather hostile. And of course, no family in general inside Lebanon (and majority of outside) would support inter-sect marriages.

So, what is the short run goal? Saving Lebanon? Lebanon First?! What logo you want to call for? The situation remains the same, it is run by powerful Sect Leaders that need each other to form coalitions. Now, the only time Civil Marriage witnessed a proposal was in the late 1990s, it caused a drastic fiasco, while all religious figures (Muslims first, followed with Archbishop’s during a later stage aggression on Civil Marriage). The President to propose it, during the Syrian Mandate, was Elias Hrawi. Most of the Sect Leaders refuted it due to pressure from their tools of brainwashing: the religious figures. Walid Junblatt’s son got married in a civil marriage fashion, but his followers oppose civil marriage and prefer to see the a Durzi marrying a Durzi. I cant think of a more important long-run goal to save Lebanon from bloodshed other than civil marriage. At least the gates of marital marriages would be open, and the isolation of sects would not be almost complete…. It will weakens and the Sect-Leaders would be much weaker as well…

This is something to ponder upon, you want to save “Lebanon from Bloodshed”, start building a secular society. This is the long goal at least. May be then proposals can have a meaning for candidates rather blindly following their leaders because they fear ‘the other’ would kill them!!!

Short Run Goals are a waste of time and lead us to vicious circles, the long run ones are much fewer in number, but they are the cause of salvation for this devastated nation in restoring people from slitting each other’s throats under the logic of “self-security”.

MFL