A Letter to General Aoun

Dear General Aoun,

As you should know, the presidential elections in Lebanon are approaching. And you are one of the most distinguished characters applying for the position. Your application will be certainly treated with the utmost respect that it deserves. We wish you best of luck.

However, as you should know, Lebanon is going through dire times. And since you have always cared for Lebanon more than you cared for yourself, sacrificing a lifetime for the benefit of the country, we assume that you are always willing to listen to what some of the poor people of Lebanon have to say.

Here’s what we have to say.

As you should know, Hassan Nasrallah is the main leader of the Shiites. Nevertheless, Hassan Nasrallah is not the president of the parliament, the highest position attainable by someone from his sect. This position is currently occupied by Oustaz Nabih Berri.

As you should know, Saad Hariri is the main leader of the Sunnites. Nonetheless, Saad Hariri is not the president of the cabinet. It is Fouad Siniora that president.

Initially, we were under the impression that you were under the impression that Hariri is the president of the cabinet, and Nasrallah is the president of the parliament. Hence your obsession with the presidency of Lebanon. But given the fact that you curse Siniora and his government at breakfast, lunch, and dinner, therefore we came to the conclusion that you are not under any false impression, and that you are clearly aware who manages the cabinet and who manages the parliament.

So given that none of the major leaders are in the key positions, we wish to ask you the following questions:

Is it fair to have the leader of the Christians be himself the president of Lebanon?

Or should we have in this position another Christian, with a great personality but a little more neutral than the leader of the Christians?

Someone who is at equal distance between Shiites and Sunnites?

Someone who does not curse Siniora and Hariri morning, noon and evening? Someone who knows that these two dudes are not so insignificant to the Sunnite community, and hence they should be respected? Someone who does not seem eager to start a war with the Sunnis following any minor argument. We have seen in the past stubborn leaders enthusiastic to start wars left and right.

Someone who is strong and yet flexible. Someone who listens... to you, to Geagea and to all Lebanese gurus before taking a decision. Someone who you can guide with your eternal wisdom.

Don’t you think it is a little unfair that the Christian leader should be the president of Lebanon while the Druze leader has no such privilege? You speak of neglected Christian community... what about the Druze?

Unless you do not consider yourself to be the leader of the Christians, we urge you to reflect a bit on the above ideas before sending your resume for the Job. You have always believed in the “great people of great Lebanon” (sha3ba Loubnan al 3azim). Therefore we believe that you will easily find (at least) one Christian who you think is qualified for the task (there are one million of these great people, damn it!!).

Dear general Aoun, we wish you best of luck in your career but we also urge you to correct course. Instead of bickering over this little seat of the presidency, we ask you to become the great general of the neutral Lebanon. A Lebanon neither with modernity nor with antiquity. A Lebanon as it has always been and as it will always be. A link between West and East. A lighthouse in the sea of culture and passion.

The Curse of the 10 to 1 Ratio

After 60 years of violence with significant loss and little gain, I think it has become clear that violence is not serving the Palestinian people. The PLO who used to be at the forefront of the conflict with Israel, before Hamas was even born, has understood that violence is only costing the Palestinian people death and poverty. Hamas is slowly but surely coming to the same conclusion.

Hezbollah and the people of South Lebanon have also paid a very high price for the misadventure with Israel. For a punishment, it was beyond harsh and Hezbollah has no option but to stay quiet.

At the core of the Israeli strategy is a "10 to 1 Ratio."

That is, for every violent act against Israel, the latter responds 10 times more violently. If you follow the statistics of people killed in confrontations, you will typically observe this ratio. For example, around 150 Israelis killed in July 2006 versus 1500 Lebanese.

The same sort of ratio holds for Palestinians vs. Israelis killed in wars and Intifadas.

So Israel made it exceedingly costly for the Arabs to try to engage in wars or terrorism. The end result is that the Arabs are quite tired, burnt out. At least those who live in the vicinity of Israel.

The way forward? Find alternatives to violence because violence is simply not working. The Palestinian territories keep shrinking!

Time is capable of miracles. Give peace to Israel and let time give us back what is our right. In a few short decades, if we are not too impatient, the Israeli model based on a Jewish State will start to shatter. You will see deserted Synagogues like today’s deserted Churches in the West. The population will age and will need young workers. Immigration will fill up the void.

Hopefully, by then, Churches, Synagogues and Mosques will all become vestige of the past, no more than beautiful museums. Nations will turn secular. And what’s at the heart of the problem in the Middle East will simply dissipate like a cloud to make room for the sunshine.

But before we can dream of that bright future, we have to try to lighten a bit the dark alleys we currently live in. And despite the lesson that Hassan Nasrallah has learned in July 2006, the tragedy of that summer can be reiterated. How? By amassing more and more missiles, the chances of triggering another deadly war can only increase. I do trust Hassan Nasrallah. He will try his best to avoid another war. He sincerely loves his people and does not want them to go through another round of death.

However, a foreign power is capable of pushing aside Nasrallah (by assassination if necessary) and replacing him with someone willing to fight wars.

During the cold war between the US and Russia, any mistake meant the end of both nations, as well as the entire planet. And the more they built weapons the graver the danger. But there is an important difference in the case of Israel vs. Hezbollah. Israel has an extreme superiority in terms of weaponry. It can wipe South Lebanon out if a few houses in Tel Aviv are hit. It can use Weapons of Mass Destruction with the excuse of self defense.

The greatest losers? The people of South Lebanon.
For every 1000 Israelis killed there will be 10,000 Lebanese killed.
The curse of the 10 to 1 Ratio.

If Hassan Nasrallah wants to spare his people the risk of more misery and death, he should act today: give up the armed section of Hezbollah. Let it join the Lebanese army. Then the risk of war is substantially reduced. Israel is tempted to attack a militia that sits at the border. But it won’t attack a country.

A Charming Personality Visits Paris

Click on image to enlarge smile.

Thank you Ahmadinejad

Ahmadinejad has threatened Israel with destruction should it intervene in Lebanon this summer again.

The Lebanese people should be thankful to the Iranian leader who is so thoughtful.

Last summer, Ahmadinejad offered the same support to the Syrian people in the event Israel attacked Syria. Back then, while Lebanon was being bombed to near annihilation, the very considerate Ahmadinejad threatened Israel with destruction if it attacked Syria. So the Syrian people should also be thankful to this generous man.

Some might ask "but why didn't he threaten Israel when Lebanon was actually being bombed last summer?"

To such ungrateful people I say "Ahmadinejad does not make empty promises."

When he promises something he delivers. And so he only promises when he knows he will not have to deliver...

Because imagine the moment comes when Ahmadinejad is obliged to deliver on his promise! What a mess that would be. Israel could be hit by a couple missiles. In return, Syria and Iran could have several large cities wiped off the map, the nuclear sites of Iran something of the past, and the leaders of Syria and Iran either toppled or hiding in dungeons.

So Ahmadinejad is also a wise man. He wouldn't want something bad to happen to Iran and his people. This is why he has to strike a balance between the support he offers to Arab nations and the consequences of such a support.

In summary, we should be reasonable and only expect from Ahmadinejad non-empty empty promises. And we should rejoice because we now know that Israel was not planning any invasion this summer since Ahamadinejad has just offered us the full backing of his mighty power.

If Fath al-Islam Were Al-Qaeda...

... then shouldn't we see terrorist bombs in Shiite areas in Lebanon?

But we don't see that. All terrorist bombs are taking place in Christian areas. Isn't that odd? In Iraq, the main targets of Al-Qaeda are the foreign armies as well as the Shiites. And if Fath al-Islam were really linked to Al-Qaeda the terror bombs would not be limited to Christian areas.

One explanation is the following: Fath al-Islam is actually a Syrian sponsored terrorist organization. Obviously, the secret service of Hezbollah knows that. Hence, a clear directive from Syria to Fath al-Islam is "never target Shiite areas". Otherwise, it will provoke a major issue with Hezbollah.

So Syria has to play carefully: targeting Christian areas is fair game.

Quite simple!

The Big Fraud

Michel Aoun does not want a compromise Lebanese President.
But does he want a compromise Prime Minister?
Are the Christians allowed to have their favorite President but the Sunnis can't have their favorite Prime Minister?

Aoun thinks it is OK for the people to elect a top Christian leader. But the top Sunni leader cannot be elected by the people!

Assuming Aoun is elected president, who will he choose for prime minister? Will he accept Hariri? Can the government function with Aoun and Hariri fighting over every detail? Won’t they shoot each other in something like a remake of Virginia Tech’s tragedy?

Weren't Saniora and Berri compromise figures, technocrats so to speak, less divisive than Hariri and Nasrallah? So why should the Christians have their strongest but also most divisive leader, while Sunnis and Shiites have weaker but more moderate figures at the top?

Aoun can't seem (or does not want) to understand the difference between France and Lebanon. We are not quite yet a fully functioning democratic nation. And we, like Iraq, still need a lot of careful treatment. This is simply to prevent wars.

It seems to me that Michel Aoun is living a fantasy: he is riding a white horse and his soldiers are calling him "Napoleon our master"...

But there are two important points he is missing: Napoleon was extremely intelligent, and he won most of his battles. What battles did Aoun win so far?

Secularism

Michel Aoun suggested that secularism is the solution to Lebanon's trouble. Using the word "secularism" for propaganda is quite ugly.

Aoun knows very well that "secularism" in Lebanon is not a simple thing. In the same way that "democracy" in Iraq is not a simple thing, as we have seen. You can not parachute a concept from the West into the East.

Actually, Lebanon is secular to some extent. We have to distinguish between two distinct facets of secularism:

1) Separation of Religion and State.
2) Affirmative action.

The first point is already quite established in Lebanon. The religious order does not usually impose laws (unlike in Iran, for example). Reasonably non-religious parliament and government manage the country. Certain aspects are handled specifically by each religion as long as other religions are relatively unaffected. No one is enforcing wearing the cross or the veil. So the issue in Lebanon is not about separation of religion and state. Iran has such an issue.

The second point, affirmative action, is a system of quotas to protect minorities, or more precisely in Lebanon's case, to give some minimum guarantees to various faiths.

So when we discuss secularism in Lebanon, we are actually referring to the system of quotas. Obviously, the need for any system of quotas reflects deep rooted problems in society. But quotas continue to be used by nations around the globe as a starting point for resolving the deep rooted problems. In the USA, affirmative action is used to help women and African-Americans obtain more access to universities. France is considering a similar system to help immigrants who did not get a fair chance while growing up.

In Lebanon, affirmative action subdivides government and administration positions between various religious groups. Each sect has access to a somewhat fair share of positions in the administration. Without affirmative action it is possible that certain sects take over a much larger number of positions than they deserve. Merit is easily replaced by religious or group affiliation. Hence, from a scientific point of view, affirmative action attempts to reduce group biases that naturally occur in society by reserving for each group a number of positions proportional to the size of the group. And the generally valid assumption is that each group will produce a proportionately number of worthy people to hold the positions. Affirmative action encourages diversity that is otherwise diminished by the rule of the strongest.

Affirmative action, among other things, allows the Christians to retain a certain Western educational model, while the Muslims can follow an Eastern model. No sect imposes its preferred model onto another sect. Slowly, and with the advent of the computer/internet age, all sects are converging to the most progressive educational model, anyway. The education aspect is in the process of being resolved without dispute.

But abandoning affirmative action altogether and promptly is dangerous. Religious and ethnic fervor is still running very strong in Lebanon. With the state of things today, it is unlikely a Sunni votes for a Shiite.

Without some amount of affirmative action, larger religions and ethnic groups will suffocate smaller ones. Affirmative action is one temporary solution. But it should be complemented with measures to gradually diffuse religious and ethnic passions. Once religion stops occupying a sacred place in society, once people start worrying more about education, work, health, etc., and less about churches and mosques, only then we can entirely abolish the affirmative action facet of secularism, like in Western nations.

And more importantly, before we can speak of full secularism, true political parties have to emerge and that obey one golden and one silver rules:

1) Genuinely democratic parties that do not revolve around one strong leader. Sheep mentality is a recipe for disaster. Diversity of thought is extremely important.

2) Parties with universal ideologies (not based on particular faiths with no scientific foundation), and with followers from a broad spectrum of religions.

One can counter with the example of Turkey: why is it that Turkey is at the same time a nation of the East and fully secular? The answer is simple: separation of religion and state occurred in Turkey just like in Lebanon many decades ago (it happened via dictatorship in Turkey). Affirmative action, on the other hand, is less needed in Turkey because most people are Sunnis anyway, and they crushed certain minorities. Actually, some amount of affirmative action could have helped diffuse the tension with the Kurds.

Entirely removing affirmative action from the Lebanese system today will result in some religions overwhelming other religions, and then either to civil war or to massive emigration of the losers. The same applies to Iraq: if no political and administrative positions are pre-allocated to the Sunnis, there will not be peace.

Dictatorship with closed borders is an alternative. Perhaps this is Aoun's dream.

"We will sacrifice ourselves for you, Nasrallah"

I don't hear anyone in Israel shouting "we will sacrifice ourselves for you, Olmert."
Or Sharon, or Golda Meir.

I don't hear anyone in the USA shouting "we will sacrifice ourselves for you, Bush."
Or Kennedy or Washington.

No French citizens sacrificing themselves for Sarkozy, Chirac or De Gaulle.
No Germans sacrificing themselves for Merkel (maybe 60 years ago for Hitler, but we are in 2007, for God's sake!)

Anyone in Venezuela making such generous offerings to Chavez? Unlikely.

So what is this phenomenon in Arabia, especially in Lebanon, where people offer their soul or blood to some leader?

Most of them are not honest and will chicken out and run away at the first sign of trouble. But bizarrely, some of them do take things too literally. Typically they overreact during a political showdown with fellow citizens who offered their souls and bodies to opponent leaders. Things can get nasty, and sometimes they don't waste the chance to fulfill their promise to the darling leader.

In my humble opinion, this sort of chants is not a sign of what the world sees as a modern civilization. No one should be sacrificing their lives for no one else, especially not for crooked leaders. And we all know that ALL politicians are crooked. Note: beware if they are simultaneously political and spiritual leaders. This category tends to be doubly crooked.

QUESTIONS:
Will Nasrallah sacrifice himself for you? Where was he hiding in summer of 2006?
Who did Aoun sacrifice in 1990? Himself or yourself?

MORAL OF THE STORY:
My dear Lebanese people, stop chanting stupid slogans! Get a life.

Gauche Caviar

According to an article published in the French editorial Le Monde Diplomatique,

http://mondediplo.com/2007/04/02lebanon,

the UN's international tribunal to prosecute the killers of Rafik Hariri is illegal.

But the article is a bit of a reminder of the French left that hates anything American. There is good reason to hate many things American but some of these French have made it their darling obsession. And since the international tribunal is endorsed by the Americans and the French right, therefore there must be something cooked up.

I find it hard to believe that the UN's abundant lawyers and experts, many of whom aren't American or French, missed the point that the editors of this article are trying to make.

I find it even harder to believe that the murder of the prominent political figure Rafik Hariri, that happened while the Syrian army occupied Lebanon, should not be prosecuted by the UN. Can the Lebanese government effectively prosecute Syrian president Hafez Assad if it turns out he commanded the murder?

Yet one more thing hard to believe: the murder of Hariri has triggered a series of events that may unleash a civil war in Lebanon, thereby endangering the lives of millions of people. Such a civil war can spread to other areas in the Middle East. Isn't that a sufficient threat to humanity, justifying the involvement of the UN?

The events that followed the assassination were predictable to some extent and the UN acted quickly. For once, the UN is not leaving the state of affair deteriorate to a point of no return before it takes action.

About 20 more political figures were murdered in Lebanon since then (and many more before then). Many terrorist acts and threats against civilians, while the Lebanese people and government are watching helplessly. When should the UN get involved?

Syria occupied Lebanon for decades and nearly annexed the country. The Lebanese people widely believe that Syria is behind the murder of a myriad of Lebanese politicians and journalists. No Lebanese tribunal has ever managed to prosecute Syrian leaders. Without a UN tribunal, Lebanon will continue to be the hostage of its neighbor's mood.

The French left should stop eating caviar for a minute, forget their obsession with America, and take a new objective look at the situation in the Middle East. David, Jesus and Muhammad existed before America.

What would Canada do?

Imagine Canada's prime minister is murdered (God forbid).
Imagine there is a nearly slam dunk proof that the US government is behind the murder.
Imagine a terrorist campaign goes on and kills about 20 political figures in Canada, as well as many civilians.
Imagine that terrorist campaign is highly likely sponsored by the US.

What would Canada do?
What would a nation with a minimum self-respect and pride do?
What would normal people do?

Looking at it from far away, from a detached and objective position, I think you will quickly come to the same conclusion that I reached.

The Canadian people and government will:

1) Invade the USA if they can.

2) If they cannot, they will severe all ties with the US until the current government is toppled and the guilty punished, including the US president.

3) Hang anyone in Canada who says "thank you USA."

4) Hang anyone in Canada who questions for 2 seconds any point in an international tribunal, which is drafted by UN experts.

5) Hang anyone in Canada who, while the country is going through grave danger, terrorism, risk of civil war, finds it funny to verbally attack the government on nonsense, bullshit and ridiculous issues. You see, it's not a joke if Canada is in danger of a major blow up while idiot politicians find the time and energy to constantly accuse the government of petty crimes.

6) Hang anyone who resigns from his or her responsibilities in the government, for pointless reasons and obviously driven by external pressure from the US.

7) Dismantle any party named "Party of unification with great USA."

This is how normal people living in a normal nation would react.
For an example of how abnormal people living in a farm would react, read the news in …

Let them eat Uranium!

"If they have no bread, then let them eat cake!"

These words were attributed to Marie Antoinette a bit before the French revolution sent her to the guillotine. But it is unlikely she said them.

However, Ahmadinejad is undoubtedly saying out loud to the Iranian people "Let them eat Uranium!"

The religious clique governing Iran seriously thinks that it is more important for the country to engage in nuclear research, even if Iran has to stop any other kind of research for the next 10 years!

Forget Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Chemistry, Medicine, Psychology, Economics, Social Sciences, Literature, Art, etc. Forget any field that improves technology and generates wealth.

Just focus on Nuclear. If the people are hungry they can have half a kilo of Uranium or Polonium.

In the meantime, the Iranians are queuing up in thousands at the door of foreign embassies to leave the country. Reason: poverty, no jobs, no future. The religious clique is oblivious to their plight.

Striking Similarity

USA has the largest debt in history
Lebanon has the largest debt in history

US government signed Patriot Act
Lebanese government signed International Tribunal

US government took the country to a disaster war
Lebanese… opposition took the country to a disaster war

US opposition contemplates the idea of impeaching Bush
Lebanese opposition has already impeached Siniora

US opposition is working within the congress
Lebanese opposition has blocked the parliament

US opposition has won the majority in congress
Lebanese opposition… believes it will win majority in parliament

US opposition waited for elections to win majority
Lebanese opposition can't wait!

One Free Sabbatical Year To All Leaders

Let us propose one sabbatical year to all leaders in Lebanon.
They can go on vacation wherever they want and "we will happily pay them the vacation".
It will be far cheaper on our pocket than a civil war.

Hawaii, Tahiti, Madagascar, etc are all fine destinations that our leaders can check out and enjoy before they die (and before they kill us). They can get a 5 star hotel or better yet, they can try (for once) a nice camping site. It will get them to meet average people and learn more about the proletariat.

If they wish, and given their legendary wisdom, our leaders can send postcards or letters of advice to the party or group they are affiliated with. But they cannot make public speeches for 1 full year. Before leaving on vacation, they are welcome to impose… sorry, I meant they are welcome to choose a replacement leader, for 1 full year.

Every time they appear on TV or radio, our leaders make fool of themselves. So our advice for them to go on vacation is for their own good. Preserve a bit of what's left of that image!

Our beloved and valiant leaders think and talk like high school students. We can suggest that while on vacation, and between a hike and a snorkel, they catch up a little on their readings of Moliere or Shakespeare (or Orwell).

In one of his latest Napoleonic speeches, Michel Aoun mentioned "his rights" (in Arabic he says houkoukna in a clownish way) that he wants no matter what. I am not sure what rights he's talking about. But we too have rights! And we want our rights: all leaders go on vacation and leave us in peace (literally).

If you think about it, their sabbatical year would also be a well deserved vacation for us! In essence, we would be paying ourselves a nice vacation. Can you imagine a Lebanon without the current collection of leaders? I can… and I can see it shining again, I can see a true spring…