Lebanon and it's Collective Memory: A National Travesty?

Since the Lebanese Civil War ended in 1990, and particularly since the Syrian withdrawal in 2005, there has been much talk of a need to create some kind of popular consensus on the nation's turbulent history of civil wars, invasions, assassinations, and general political strife.

Since 2005, and particularly since July 2006, Lebanon has been undergoing further domestic troubles, partly due to sectarian dissent over the sharing of the spoils and partly due to its position as a pawn on the regional and international chessboard.

Given the periodic troubles that plagued the country even in the 1990s and early 2000s, Lebanon has been unstable for more than three decades in all.

Since the Syrian withdrawal in 2005 and the effective meltdown of the police state that was prepped up by the Syrian presence, speaking of certain formerly "taboo" matters has become permissible.

Many thinkers, activists, and even some politicians have posed the question of the why there is as yet no systematic attempt to bring together the nation's collective traumatic memory into some kind of memorial meeting place for all the Lebanese.

There are, in my view, two reasons:

- The fact that this was neglected in favour of economic reconstruction and the interests of business

- The fact that the Syrian imposed police state judged that a national reconciliation was not in its interest, since its policy was effectively one of "divide and rule".

With regard to the first, in terms of economic reconstruction, considerable though the achievements have been, they will remain incomplete if the Lebanese nation continues to suffer from the psychological malaise that it suffers from; and that will continue to be so until it deals with its turbulent past (and present).

Various half-hearted remedies have been attempted: The preservation of a war-damaged building near the Sodeco district of Beirut, the holding of a day-long event to commemorate the outbreak of the War (April 13) by different groups.

But none of this will suffice to heal the national psyche.

To this end, I propose the following list of measures:

- The creation of a Truth Commission to find the truth behind the myriad crimes of the War, though NOT to try any war criminals as that would be problematic and would destabilise the country.

- The creation of a memorial in Downtown Beirut for all who died or disappeared in the Lebanese War, regardless of their sect or the side on which they were.

- The purchase of the Ayn er Remmaneh Bus, now in private ownership, and putting it on public display, also in the downtown. Perhaps one could put it in the ball shaped "dome" near Martyrs' Square, as part of a War Museum to be created as part of the collective consciousness. That would also be a way to preserve the endangered dome.

- The revival of the prewar "Cenacle Libanais" as a meeting place for artists and intellectuals of all creeds and orientations in the Downtown.

The Legend of Fairuz: What Are They Up To?

I think it's clear what the Syrian regime is up to:

Besides waging a de facto war on Lebanon by terrorism and economic means, they are doing it by psychological means as well.

How?

Lebanon has very few symbols that unite its people to create an identity.
Fairuz is one of them.
By getting her to sing in Damascus, knowing the Lebanese people would disagree over it, they are desecrating this symbol.
What's next? The Cedars of Lebanon?

While there's no point in saying it now, maybe Fairuz should have come up with some kind of diplomatic solution to avoid such a controversy. That's because to give a clear answer would play into that regime's hands by angering either one side or the other.

Anyway, provided nothing else happens and this mess doesn't get out of
control, the Legend of Fairuz will endure.

A Blueprint for Putting Lebanon Under An International Umbrella

As a subscriber to the Avaaz mailing list, I received two days ago an email from that organization regarding the Lebanese Presidential election dilemma. It was addressed to the Lebanese members of Avaaz, and the line they took was the following:

That as the Lebanese members of Avaaz, they felt we should be the first to be consulted about the Lebanese situation. A promotion line, one might think, but one based in common sense nonetheless.


It contained a general survey, a choice of the candidates, and, at the end, some room for personal comments.
In that category I told them the following:

That while I personally favoured the creation of a new Lebanese foreign policy, one of positive neutrality along the Austrian model, which would get the country out of the Middle East quagmire, thus making its internal divisions more manageable, I knew this to be impossible at present.

Therefore, I advocated instead putting Lebanon under an international umbrella, (something which is already happening to some extent), along the following lines:

1- The setting up and fortification of the International Tribunal to investigate the Hariri assassination with the full powers accorded it by international law.

2- The liberation of the Shebaa Farms and what remains of occupied land and having it placed under a UN Trusteeship until further notice.

3- A return to the 1949 Armistice Agreement with Israel until such time as a peace treaty can be negotiated (that will not be politically viable until Syria has done so).

4- The delineation of the borders with BOTH Israel and Syria.

5- The extension of the UNIFIL mandate North of the Litani and along the Syrian border as well.

6- An exchange of embassies with Syria

Note that the above list is a very theoretical, idealistic one and that some of the above proposals may be difficult or well nigh impossible to accomplish, for various reasons.

Nevertheless, I considered it worth putting down such a blueprint in order that one may set a ceiling in order to try and accomplish as much as possible of it toward a stronger, stabler, more peaceful Lebanon.

All input is welcome.

Lebanon, Lebanon

"Ce Petit Pays Qui Est Si Important".

The philosophical words of Prince Metternich, the Austrian Chancellor, ring down to us through the ages.

Less well known are the words with which he concluded his philippic: "If there will be peace in Lebanon, there will be peace in all of the Levant."

Metternich's words, said in 1840, at the Height of the Eastern Question, showed a unique insight into and about Lebanon, a land he had never visited.

Even then, the country, a little Emirate, was a plaything in the hands of greater powers and a doorway into the Levant, a smaller part of that which we now call the Middle East. It was composed of numerous sects that were constantly at each other's throats.

Its civil wars then were brief and manageable, because at the time there was an Ottoman Empire that spread from Egypt to the Balkans. There were no tribes with flags. There was no Arab Israeli conflict. In a nutshell, there was no Middle East problem to complicate matters as happened with the War of 1975.

It is not the purpose of this work to delve into history, so suffice it to say that now, nearly two centuries on, Lebanon continues to suffer.

It is therefore increasingly clear that the only solution is for Lebanon to become a neutral country, thus allowing it to avoid getting further involved in the regional fracas, and allowing its divisions to become more manageable.

As long as this problem remains unsolved, Lebanon will continue to suffer. For the foreseeable future that is.

Indeed, it is our destiny as Lebanese to suffer and yet savour (I refuse to use the term "love") life as well, in this ancient land so laden with perils.

War of the Barid: A Victory Long Overdue

The Lebanese Army's victory Sunday at over Fatah Al Islam at the Nahr Al Barid camp was a source of happiness and relief to every true Lebanese and all of Lebanon's well wishers abroad. It has provided a morale boost to the war weary Lebanese people and might boost general confidence in the country and the government, provided that certain sides do not attempt to sabotage this achievement by disturbing the public peace.

It ought to have happened long ago however. The Army's weapons are obsolete, some of them actually dating back to World War II. Numerous promises have been to provide it with weapons but few have been fulfilled. As General Michel Suleiman put it, the message is basically "die and the aid might come later". As I have said before there are many ways to provide the money for arming our military, and one must be creative. One way is by making use of private initiative and the Lebanese diaspora.

Prime Minister Siniora was right when he said this was not a victory over Islam or the Palestinian people but over terrorism, and equated it with Hezbollah's victory over Israel last summer.

The camp must be brought under the control of the Lebanese state and only the Lebanese state; under no circumstances must the armed Palestinian factions be allowed to regain control of the camp. The camps when armed are a breeding ground for lawlessness.

The time has come for Lebanon to formally repudiate all remnants of the 1969 Cairo Agreement that has caused so much death and destruction in Lebanon.

On another note, Lebanon's political malaise is two parts:

internal- sectarian/clannish

external- regional/international.

Neutralizing the Palestinian camps (while bearing in mind the humane needs of the civilian inhabitants of the camp) is a major step toward stabilizing Lebanon as a prelude toward making its internal divisions more manageable.

The Mask has Fallen: Musings of an Angry Shiite

The Mask has Fallen. When I say this I am referring to my revered coreligionists.
They have shown their true colours, and with little camouflage.

At the scene of the murder of Future MP Waleed Ido, the correspondent for the NBN-(National Broadcasting Network)- often mistaken for Nabih Berri Network, after the initials of its esteemed owner, said: "Put me on air". Little realizing that she was already being aired live, she went on to say: "I'm surprised they took so long to take him out. Why didn't they take Ahmed Fatfat as well?"

She was, of course, fired by her employers and will be awaiting some kind of legal action.
But this is the culture of barbarism that has been fostered by the media machine of the Shia socalled leadership. Granted, it is a common enough human experience to take pleasure in other's woes. We have all known it.

But to promote a media culture that expresses itself in that vein is pure barbarism and depravity. And it is indeed true that they have taken grim pleasure in watching the politicians of the other camp drop like flies (pardon my diction), and even went so far as to distribute Ma'amoul, or sweets, on the day of Jebran Tweni's assassination.
This might be psychoanalyzed though by no means explained or justified by the fact that Tweni was known to have harbored a deep-seated anti-Shiite bigotry, referring to them as "sheep" on March 8, 2005.

All of this has obscured the fact, and which cannot be repeated too often, that the Shia of Jabal Amil, though mired in poverty and despite a history of persecution, were a proud and generous race, known for their gallantry, and not given over to outbursts of malice. People of the sword and pen, they valiantly preserved their liberty and folkways against a succesion of opressors, Ayyubid, Mamluk, Ottoman, and French, and their heritage that has only recently begun to be studied by international academics in recent years.

The damage and discredit that their reputation has suffered in recent times, due in large part to the imported Khomeini school of fundamentalism, whch runs contrary to freethinking pluralism, must be reversed.

The Question is How?

Al Jazeera: Reporting or Backbiting?

Watching the sensational documentary "Control Room", one could not but applaud Al Jazeera's courageous, uninhibited reporting on the US invasion of Iraq, hitherto unprecedented in the Arab World. Indeed, for a long time since its inception, Al Jazeera has been hailed as the bearer of a wakeup call to the dormant peoples of the Arab Region, often sending shivers down the spine of many a corrupt and brutal Arab despot.

At times, however, it gives the strong impression of descending into petty, spiteful, and chauvinistic Inter-Arab rivalries. This trend seems to have been getting more pronounced in recent times, and nowhere is it more apparent than in what relates to Lebanon and the Lebanese.

While based in Qatar, AlJazeera is heavily staffed by Palestinian/Jordanians. These promptly take sides with their compatriots in Lebanon when the latter are at odds with the Lebanese authorities. Understandable. It is equally understandable that they should deplore the civilian casualties among the Palestinian refugees in Nahr Al Barid.

What is not understandable, and certainly not justifiable, under any tenet of Media Ethics, is that they should state that the Lebanese Army "says" or "claims" such and such. No other news channel in the Arab World has done so.

Are they accusing the Lebanese Army of lying?

If so they have a lot of explaining to do.

To add insult to injury, they broadcast one of the leading thugs of Fatah Al Islam confirming that he was alive, sabre rattling and uttering all sorts of macabre threats. This has had the effect of raising the enemy's morale.

They did the same during the early days of the US War on Terror, broadcasting footage of Osama Bin Laden, thus causing the American Administration to dubb them "Al Qaeda's Mouthpiece". Reviled as the Bush Administration rightly is, a self respecting news station does not give publicity to mass murdering terrorists just to get high ratings. That only gives the impression that it has a political agenda at hand, and a suspect one at that.

What they do not seem to bear in mind is that it is not the purpose of the Lebanese Army or Government to kill Palestinian civilians, but to fight Fatah Al Islam, most of whose members are NOT Palestinian. These civilians chose to stay in the camp knowing full well what was coming, and are now being used as human shields by Fatah Al Islam. Yet Al Jazeera seems to insinuate that the Lebanese Army is to blame.

Finally, Al Jazeera's claim to be enlightening the Arab masses falls flat on its face when it gives the limelight to common criminals who use the faith of Islam to justify murder, mayhem and subversion. If Al Jazeera does hold the Arab weal at heart, it should stop flirting with fundamentalism and uphold secular values, something we badly need given the current hysteria of fanaticism sweeping over the region.