Vote for Obama or … Welcome World War IV?

By Bachir Habib

The US presidential campaign is heating up, and Sarah Palin is the latest Republican weapon deployed after the stunning success of the Democratic Convention in Denver. The Palin choice might backfire early against the Republican’s campaign, with personal and professional stories about Alaska’s governor (qualifying her as a bad choice already) invading the press in America and abroad.
However, very strong ideas are making their way to the American political discourse. Frightening principles and words are being used, and “World War IV” is one of them. World War IV entered this campaign when Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor told Seth Colter Walls from the Huffington Post nearly two months ago: “If McCain is president and if his Secretary of State is Joe Lieberman and his Secretary of Defense is Rudolph Giuliani, we will be moving towards the World War IV” (the Cold War counted as World War III).
The more powerful is a Nation, the more its internal affairs become of interest for the International Community. How many non Americans wish they can vote in the US elections to see the candidate that will “help” or “do less harm” to their country securing his way to the White House?
But unfortunately, all those interested in the US elections can’t make their voice heard via powerful lobbies as AIPAC who imposed itself as a pressure group able to guarantee that the elected president considers Israel’s National Interest as integrated to and inseparable from the US National Interest.
It is finally to the American voter alone to decide who will be ruling the American Empire (or what Bush left of it). And that same American voter will indirectly define Washington’s positions towards Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Zimbabwe, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia (etc)… At the same time, the American voter might not be worrying about all the international questions, and his vote might be exclusively on internal issues like healthcare, economy, unemployment, taxes (etc)…
The interaction between internal and international issues becomes crucial when a country holds a position of superpower. Since the end of the cold war in 1991, the US has been considered as the only remaining superpower after the collapse of the Soviet Union. November 2008 is a historical moment for the United States of America. And the Russia – Georgia crisis over Ossetia throws doubt over the US remaining in the position it held since 1991.
It is a test of realism for the American Empire. Will it assume the responsibility of its power by voting for a President able to recollect the pieces internally and adopt a less arrogant tone abroad? Or will it vote for a World War IV perspective that will prove that “Each empire holds in its heart the germs of its self destruction”?

Read More...

Summary only...

Peaceful Palestinian Walks disturbed by Zionism

By Bachir Habib

On the second of August 2008, the title of an opinion article in the Jerusalem Post caught my interest. Titled “The ‘Economist’ Rewrites History” by Zalman Shoval, former Israeli ambassador to the United States it accuses The Economist of revisionism only because it positively reviewed, under the Arts section, a book called Palestinian Walks, Notes on a Vanishing Landscape, written by Raja Shehadeh, a Palestinian Lawyer and founder of Al Haq* organization in 1979.
In his book, winner of the Orwell Prize 2008, Shehadeh describes the change in the landscape of the hills surrounding Ramallah through seven walks he took in the area. His lyrical description of the “Biblical Hills” comes as a perfect justification of the prize awarded to the author and his book. The seven walks counted were not made within a year or two; they are spread at least over two decades. That’s exactly why the reader, while turning the pages of this book, is taken through the geographical changes to the hills and their surroundings over a troubled time, where political and military events had the strongest impact on transforming the peaceful nature of what Shehadeh calls the “Highland Hills of Palestine”.
Shehadeh’s perspective is also interesting in the way he shows how the function of the hills surrounding Ramallah changed over the generations. From a place where Palestinian men used to escape the hot summers, working the land and building Qasr (round stones structures built without concrete dotting the land where farmers kept their produce and slept on the open roof), the hills now fulfill a security function, but this time for the Israeli settlers building outposts to better control Palestinian areas. Shehade’s journey and description of this change of function intersects with the Israeli architect Eyal Weizeman’s thesis called "The Politics of Verticality", where the latter develops the idea that the Israeli architecture has played an important role in the conflict for the past six decades. Weizeman’s more recent work has focused on the way the Israeli outposts are built in a South African “apartheid” style.
Shehade’s book is Art, contrary to what his Excellency the ambassador pretends. How can art not relate to politics in that part of the world where the historical artistic patrimony is transformed daily by political conditions? In that specific sense the book is politically potent. Even if its formal relation to the political sphere is subtle, using hints and questions that push the reader to seek political answers elsewhere.
This last argument is probably one of the reasons why Shehade was awarded the Orwell prize. He doesn’t impose political conclusions nor affirms ideological positions. A fact he comes across as a very harsh critic of all Palestinian factions and militias, simply by counting the number of times he came close to being shot dead by armed Palestinian militants on his walks, or the abuse he suffered, he who founded an organization to protect Palestinian rights, at the hands of those who pretended to protect him.
In its review to Shehade’s work, The New York Times Book Review found that: “Few Palestinians have opened their minds with such frankness”. Such acclaim disqualifies totally Shoval who showed nothing but hatred and racism in his judgmental article published in the Jerusalem Post. Nowhere was that more obvious than in the disdain he showed “a certain Raja Shehade, portrayed as a lawyer and a writer…” As if he, a government official, did not know that Shehade is well known to Israeli tribunals as a lawyer who defended the Palestinians against land expropriation practiced by Israel. Shoval’s position is in fact against anyone who dares looking at the Israeli – Palestinian conflict from an angle that questions long-established Zionist myths. That is why he accused The Economist of re-writing History.
His Excellency knows well enough that if this book achieved fame, it is because Shehade does not play political games. Instead, as an experienced professional lawyer, sticks to the hard facts. A concept that the seasoned diplomat obviously struggles with.

*Al-Haq is the West Bank affiliate of the International Commission of Jurists - Geneva, and is a member of the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network (EMHRN), the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Habitat International Coalition (HIC), and the Palestinian NGO Network (PNGO).

Read More...

Summary only...

A Syrian crane made in France

By Bachir Habib

Picture: www.lefigaro.fr

What we witnessed in Paris was not a Euro Mediterranean summit. The French are not dupe, neither the Europeans; and the occasion provided a good cover. What we witnessed was simply Syria’s reintegration into the International Community. Bashar Assad’s visit to Paris is his first successful international visit since 2004.
This visit has to be placed in a context, and that context is not European, it is purely Middle Eastern and challenging after the failure of the regional American project. What happened in Paris is also a European move on the international foreign policy chessboard; a daring maneuver from French President Nicolas Sarkozy who succeeded in convincing his European counterparts that the time was right for distancing themselves from previous alignment on US policy towards the region. This is even more necessary before Washington itself operates a foreign policy shifting leaving Brussels behind. Not to forget that in the United States, it is now “Time to Change” as said by the Democratic presidential contestant Barack Obama.
Sarkozy opened wide the gates of Europe and the world to the Syrian President. Paris tried to show that Assad is received only because he responded positively to the French demands: Reducing interference in Lebanon or using positive influence to help in unlocking the Lebanese political deadlock, pushing towards a Hamas – Israel truce through pressure on his Palestinian allies, and finally proving a true will to make peace with Israel and continue visibly what started secretly between the two countries two years ago as the July 2006 war raged on Lebanese soil.
This is the tip of the iceberg, but at its base resides a more serious issue: A new balance of power is being formed in the Middle East, there’s a decline (at least temporary) of American influence after decades of direct management of the region while a new Iranian (de facto) regional super power will emerge in case Teheran’s nuclear program is not halted.
This new context is highly important to France and Europe, because it’s not only the American “Greater Middle East” that is broken, but because the post cold war American Dream of a Unipolar World that has been crushed.
Is it the new dawn of Multipolarity that we’re witnessing? It might be. But it is definitely not the Multipolarity the West was dreaming of. It is one where Europe and the US will have to deal with countries like Iran, Pakistan and Venezuela (…) as regional super powers that have a National Interest to protect, same as Washington, Brussels or Moscow.
French diplomacy reveals its conviction that reintegrating Syria in the international community is the only way to take it back from Iran’s arms. But Assad declared this week that following a request from France, Syria would hold talks with Iran to try and resolve the crisis over its nuclear programme! Nicolas Sarkozy knows that this is not how Assad can be stolen from Ali Khamenei, and it is unrealistic, at least for now, to expect Damascus to take a distance from Teheran. It is rather the Iranians who are on the verge of being recognized as a great regional power, by using a Syrian crane made in France.
By the way, was Husni Mubarak there? And even if Saudi King Abdullah was with him, Assad would have remained the only star. It is simply not a good time for US allies.

Read More...

Summary only...

The July War 2006 in Information Design

By Bachir Habib

33, is the number of days it took to implement a new Middle Eastern equation. On the 13th of July, only one day after Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers in Northern Israel, behind the so called “Blue Line”, Israel declared an open war on Lebanon. Hezbollah called its operation “The Truthful Promise” and Hezbollah secretary general Hassan Nasrallah declared that its goal was to capture Israeli soldiers in order to exchange them with Lebanese prisoners in Israel. Two years after a war that devastated large parts of the country in just 33 days, Hezbollah is proving he is standing by his promise as we stand days away from the release of Lebanese prisoners in Israel.

Very few books have been released so far on this conflict and its outcome. But in the months and years to come this topic will become of high interest to Geo-strategists and Historians. In the meantime this war was also a source of inspiration in the artistic sphere. Pamela Hraoui, a Lebanese student of Information Design at Central Saint Martins College of Arts and Design in London decided to use the theme for her Masters project.

In her book titled 33, with a pitch black cover, Hraoui’s concept is articulated in three different movements. The first one is displaying opposing information by contrasting the headlines of the Lebanese Daily Star and the Israeli Jerusalem Post. The second is again opposing two main pictures, one from Israel and the other from Lebanon. These pictures have no legend and speak for themselves! Her third movement involves mapping the human, economical, and military cost on both sides, day by day, with forty novel design characters and symbols of her own creation.
In this unpublished book, each day of the war is summarized in six pages based on visuals, graphics and journalistic information.

Below are snapshots of the book (copyright: Pamela Hraoui) she kindly agreed to post on Arabdemocracy in memory of the July 2006 war.

Read More...

Summary only...

We Can Be Heroes... Just For One Day

By Bachir Habib

As soon as the prisoner exchange deal between Israel and Hezbollah left the secret sphere, it became subject to debate in the media and on newspapers pages. The UN is officially calling it a “Humanitarian Agreement”. But this labeling doesn’t seem to justify such a deal in the eyes of many in Israel.
A quick look at the daily press there is enough to reveal an aggressive debate on the issue. Even some international newspapers have fallen in the trap of the internal Israeli debate. Last week, “The Independent” correspondent in Jerusalem Donald Macintyre was the latest Western Fashion Victims choosing to title his piece “Israel to swap killer for two dead soldiers”.
This debate is not expected to end soon. It may at the contrary amplify in the coming days, as the exchange operation nears.
Whether Israel likes it or not, this UN brokered deal is the direct consequence of the July 2006 war. In a conventional war perspective, where the military operations end with a clear winner and loser, such a deal would have occurred sooner after the war. But Israel was not in a posture to admit defeat in August 2006, while Hezbollah showed much triumphalism describing as a “Divine Victory” his ability to resist the Israeli attack.
Israel needed time; it took over a year for the Winograd Report to be issued detailing the Israeli mistakes after a lengthy investigation. After admitting defeat, it is now time for Israel to pay the price.
Under a “humanitarian” cover, Israel is making a historic move. Giving back Samir Kuntar in exchange of two (maybe dead) soldiers captured on the 12^th of July 2006 is a giant leap. The interesting debate about it in Israel is about fears that such a move might become a political and juridical precedent.
The deal will most likely go forward, and the Israeli government is in need to improvise to justify such an unusual event. The latest justifications belong both to the moral sphere. One of the traditional arguments has a religious connotation, invoking Jewish practices that prohibit abandoning dead Israeli soldiers in the battle field.
But the more important and controversial argument is one of “Moral Superiority”.
After at least five decades of Israeli attempts to prove “Military Superiority” and “Technological Superiority” over its Arab neighbors, now it is has found the gift of “Moral Superiority”.
The deal will soon be implemented, Samir Kuntar will be free and welcome as a national hero in Lebanon, while the Israeli nation will overcome its grief by convincing itself that it is morally superior, only for one day. I say one day because no doubt that Israel will continue flaunting basic human rights and international war while claiming eternal victim status.

Moral superiority can only be a stranger in an entity governed by a war doctrine, where every citizen is a solider, and where peace is not possible before the opponent is completely defeated.

Read More...

Summary only...

Iran and the New Israeli Diplomacy

By Bachir Habib

The New York Times announced on Friday that Israel has carried out a rehearsal for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The large military exercise took place over the Eastern Mediterranean and Greece during the first week of June 2008 and involved more than 100 F15 and F16 warplanes.

The bells of war may not be tolling yet, but the diplomatic fire alarm has been triggered. The IAEA Director Mohamed el Baradei said he would resign if there was a military strike on Iran, warning that such an attack would turn the region into a “fireball”. Russia’s UN envoy commented on the rehearsal saying that threatening Iran with military action could undermine newfound momentum to resolve the standoff with Tehran.

The diplomatic momentum M. Churkin mentioned appears to compete with a military one already in the pipeline.

Today, the risk of an American attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities seems unrealistic, due to many reasons related to security in the Gulf and the Middle East. But the scenario of an Israeli attack on Iran nuclear plants looked like a reality after the report published on Friday by the NY Times.

The credibility of this scenario resides a Realpolitik process that has been running for months now, between the Jewish State and the Iranian proxies in the Middle East such as Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah.

It comes while Turkish brokered negotiations between Damascus and Tel Aviv are going forward, with the Syrian President and the Israeli PM attending the same summit in France on the 13^th of July. It comes as well after Israel and Hamas succeeded in agreeing an Egyptian brokered truce in Gaza. And finally it coincides with a German brokered exchange of prisoners between Israel and Hezbollah that begun with the release of Nassim Nisr weeks ago, and the possibility of freeing Samir Kuntar (prisoner in Israel since 1979) in the next few days. There are also diplomatic signs from Israel towards a possible pullout from Shebaa farms due to what appears to be serious US-UN efforts to transfer sovereignty over the farms from Israel to the UN as a first step.

If Tel Aviv agrees on the two latter points, Hezbollah and mostly its popular base will suffer an existential crisis because the party of god always pretended keeping its weapons till the liberation of Shebaa farms and the release of Lebanese prisoners in Israel including Kuntar.

The new “positive” Israeli diplomacy towards Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah generated many question marks lately, but it is now possible to consider that the answers are starting to be uncovered. The Israeli military rehearsal over the Eastern Mediterranean might help in bringing answers to the surface. In that sense, it might be an American-Israeli synchronized preventive diplomacy aiming at impeaching any Iranian proxy reaction in case Teheran is attacked.

If this logic prevails, the timing of the Israeli attack on Iran will then be carefully chosen after a pullout from Shebaa and the liberation of Kuntar, and after the Mediterranean Summit in Paris next month where the Israeli Syrian talks will be informally on the schedule. And by this time, the truce between Israel and Hamas may have passed its critical phase.

But all this looks very easy, and things tend to become more complicated, because what is expected is a preventive Iranian diplomacy hijacking the Israeli American plans before they get to the crucial moment of attacking. The Israeli game is now uncovered, and it’s time for Teheran to play.

It’s yet very early to proclaim a winner, and uncertain that there will be one.

Read More...

Summary only...

AIPAC, US Elections, and the Arabs

By Bachir Habib

Picture: www.whitehouse.gov

“Following the plenary session, more than 5,000 Policy Conference delegates took to Capitol Hill for some 500 Congressional lobbying appointments”. This sentence is taken from the AIPAC (The American Israel Public Affairs Committee America’s pro – Israel lobby) website. The news article was on the 2008 Policy Conference hosted by AIPAC the previous week. How important this conference was for the US frontrunners for the White House.
Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and John Mc Cain gave speeches about Israeli – US ties.

"We know that we cannot relent, we cannot yield, and as President I will never compromise when it comes to Israel's security (…)" Senator Obama said. He even exceeded what most current Israeli leaders would say by declaring: "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided (…)”.
Clinton vowed that "speaking up for a strong American-Israeli relationship is essential to the interests of the United States", while Mc Cain who opened the Conference in Washington, D.C. in front of more than 6,500 pro-Israel delegates said that “Iran must be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons” and concluded by saying: “In a world full of dangers, Israel and the United States must always stand together.”

From the three speeches mentioned above, the strongest one and somehow the most revolting one comes from Obama, the candidate of “Change” and the author of the “Yes We Can” slogan. It is the same Obama whose comments drew fire in the United States particularly from AIPAC supporters when he declared months ago that “Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people”.
In a campaign for Presidency, and particularly in the United States, such comments can be fatal. There, the “Israeli friendly” ingredient is an indispensable recipe of any successful campaign. The smart Obama appears to be playing it by the rules when it comes to foreign policy. He corrected his earlier statement during a presidential debate when he clarified that his remark about the suffering of Palestinians “was actually an indictment of the Palestinian leadership” that he believes “has caused much of the Palestinian suffering”.

Obama, the “offshore President” as dubbed by the New York Times might be a revolutionary choice for Americans. He is the first Afro-American candidate to ever have a real chance of becoming President. His social and economical slogans might bring him to power at a time when Bush’s administration appears incapable to deal with the foreign policy and economical problems it generated since 2003. But on the Israeli – Palestinian level, Obama is a déjà vu, same as any American candidate who wants to be elected. This is a no-go zone, and AIPAC is just too powerful.
On such occasions, I remember this image of Prince Bandar Bin Sultan (ex Saudi ambassador in the US), relaxing with George W Bush in his Texan ranch.
I sometimes naively ask myself why our powerful Arab officials and Diaspora, and many of them very well connected to the centers of foreign policy making, did not come up yet with a kind of Arab response to AIPAC.

But suddenly, the BAE “Al Yamamah” story brings me crashing back to earth. And this is just only one example of why we are not capable of organizing ourselves the AIPAC way.

* There have been numerous allegations that the Al Yamamah contracts were a result of bribes to members of the Saudi royal family and government officials. According to these allegations BAE Systems paid hundreds of millions of British pounds to the ex-Saudi ambassador to the US, Prince Bandar Bin Sultan.

Read More...

Summary only...

Cairo's Rubbish and the Coptic Question

By Joseph El Khoury and Bachir Habib

Video: Channel 4, Unreported World, Egypt's Rubbish People

A documentary broadcasted last week on British Television claims that the situation for Christians in Egypt has become intolerable. Through interviews with local clergymen, human rights activists and members of the public the reporter thrives to reveal to a European audience a side of Egypt that they know little about (whether they are at all interested is another matter). It comes at an interesting time, when relations between religious groups in the Middle East and beyond are tense. Only today, Sheikh Mohammed Fadlallah, spiritual leader of the Lebanese Shiite community, criticized Pope Benedict for a statement in which he states the right (and duty) of the Catholic church to proselytize and spread their version of Christianity. These tensions are also noticeable within the same faith group, with various prominent Arab leaders accusing Iranian inspired Shiism of challenging Sunni hegemony in the Arab world. Going back to the documentary, I found it unsettling and visually stimulating but also biased in that it failed to show the views of moderate Muslims or speak to some Copts who invariably will have a different perspective on things. Clearly becoming emotionally involved, the reporter was determined to make his point at any cost. One came out with the conclusion that the regime, the Muslim brotherhood and average man on the street shared the same views and attitudes towards any expression of Christianity. This is not only inaccurate but ignores the deliberate attempts by the authorities to spread paranoia between different sections of the population, acting as protectors of the Copts on one hand and guarantor of ‘Islamic values’ on the other. Also, focusing on the ‘plight’ of the Zabbaleen (Rubbish collectors) community was an unnecessary dramatization and a distraction from a serious wide-ranging issue. Over the past decades Minorities in the Middle East have found themselves marginalized, choosing to ally themselves with undemocratic unpopular regimes or aligning their interests to those of foreign powers. When the resistance to both of these is headlined by monolithic movements with an Islamist agenda, the dilemma stops being one. Some believe alienating these minorities is a price worth paying for the attainment of higher objectives but careful consideration of the consequences is required.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Gun of Joseph Samaha

By Bachir Habib

Picture: Al Akhbar Newspaper - www.al-akhbar.com

Every Lebanese and Arab citizen concerned about the events in Lebanon would know Al-Akhbar newspaper. This newspaper in a way transformed the landscape of political journalism in Lebanon. It was established according to the plan and idea of its real founder, Joseph Samaha, who died from a sudden heart attack in 2007.
Despite the image Al Akhbar tried hard to promote as a landmark in investigative journalism in Lebanon, it was considered from its first edition as speaking in the name of Hezbollah and the opposition in Lebanon (8^th of March). This is actually the political side Joseph Samaha chose following the assassination of late Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005.
However, if Samaha’s journalistic heritage was very much respected in Lebanon and the Arab World; it is essentially because of his ability to point his gun in an unexpected direction and against the common wisdom. Repeatedly during his career, later events showed that Samaha was right in choosing his targets. It is yet to be proven that Samaha made the right choice in aligning Al Akhbar to Hezbollah’s positions two years ago and in using this new and modern journalistic platform to gloss the party’s image by promoting it as a natural successor to the leftist liberation movements of the 1960’s and 70’s.
It is unfortunately a false image and a false analogy, which while widely shared within the Arab masses, tends to forget that Hezbollah is a Shiite communitarian party (and this goes beyond only having its roots in Islamic tradition as is the case for the AKP in Turkey). Our masses forget as well about the Iranian dimension of Hezbollah, and the fact that the party of god is considered by Teheran as the only successful exportation of the principles of the Islamic Revolution.
Khaled Saghiyeh, a disciple of Samaha wrote an outstanding piece in Al Akhbar on 21/05/08. I would not have been surprised if this article was published under Joseph Samaha’s name.
Saghiyeh titled his article “Shame and Sadness”. In it he expresses his deception regarding the outcome of the Lebanese Agreement of Doha and he rightly points that the Agreement regenerates the communitarian equation on one hand and gives Lebanon on the other hand a new President, who does not have a political record and who has not yet announced any plan or vision for the country.
I may be a long way from changing my mind about Al Akhbar newspaper and its misleading political project, regardless of the very valid occasional investigative social journalism accomplished in a very professional manner. But in the case of Saghiyeh’s article, I simply felt that the writer had finally taken Samaha’s gun from its box, and let the gun guide his hand to point it in the right direction: sectarianism.
This was a successful shot, and hopefully for Al Akhbar there will be others, as we come to close the era of 8^th v/s 14^th of March equation. The funerals of this era took place in Qatar on the 21^st of May 2008, and the condolences will follow in the Lebanese Parliament, on the 25th of May 2008, the day where our designated President will be "Elected".

Link to Khaled Saghyieh's Article: http://www.al-akhbar.com/ar/node/74433

Read More...

Summary only...

تجاوزوا الحواجز النفسية الاخيرة... انها الحرب الاهلية

بشير حبيب

Picture: Al-Akhbar newspaper www.al-akhbar.com

هل بدأت الحرب الاهلية في لبنان؟ هل تنفع التطمينات بأنها لن تحصل؟ هل هي حرب اهلية سنية شيعية ام حرب بين مشروع وطني ومشروع اميركي-اسرائيلي للنيل من المقاومة؟

كم تكثر الاجابات على هذه الاسئلة وكم ستتحفنا تطورات الايام المقبلة ببراهين واضحة تؤكد امرا واحدا لمن لا يزال يشكك يطبيعة النزاع اللبناني.

بكل بساطة هي حرب اهلية، كانت حتى اليوم باردة تخللتها منذ عام ونصف العام فترات وجيزة ساخنة، كانت ترتسم بعدها في كل مرة حدود النزاع البارد ومستلزماته وفقا للتعبئة الشعبية من قبل الفريقين الرئيسيين، ووفقا لما يمكن ان يستخدم من ادوات في الفترات الباردة التي تلحق التطورات الساخنة التي كانت تحصل.

مثالا على ذلك، الانتقال من التظاهر السلمي لفريقي 8 و 14 آذار، الى الاعتصام بشكل آخر ودائم للمعارضة في وسط بيروت ما غير قوانين اللعبة التي تقتصر على التظاهر ليوم واحد.

بعد ذلك جاءت احداث اضراب 23 كانون الثاني 2007 واسلوب التعبير من خلال قطع الطرق بالاطاارات المشتعلة من قبل المعارضة ما استفز الطرف الآخر شعبيا وكانت احداث جامعة بيروت العربية بعد يومين والظهور المسلح الاول لانصار تيار المستقبل، ما كسر حاجزا نفسيا آخر باتجاه اعتماد ظاهرة السلاح الفردي كواقع، وعملت الاحزاب الموالية والمعارضة على حد سواء على تسخيف هذا السلاح بالقول ان السلاح الفردي موجود اصلا في كل بيت لبناني.

وجاءت بعد كل ذلك ظاهرة استعمال السلاح ابتهاجا او تأييدا بعد كل كلمة متلفزة يلقيها احد الرموز السياسيين للطرفين، حتى انه تم قطع حواجز نفسية اخرى في هذا المجال وهي استعمال قذائف الار بي جي.

تجدر الاشارة هنا بأنه قبل عام تحديدا لم تكن هذه الظاهرة منتشرة الا في مناطق حزب الله بعد كلام امينه العام حسن نصر الله.

اليوم ليس صحيحا ان الوضع يختلف جذريا عما سبق قرارات الحكومة اللبنانية بتفكيك شبكة اتصالات حزب الله وازاحة رئيس جهاز امن مطار بيروت من منصبه بسبب قضية تنصت قد تكون تجري في المطار.

لقد اخطأ نصر الله بتوصيفه قرار الحكومة على انه اعلان حرب، لان ما يجري ليس الا استكمالا ساخنا لحرب اهلية باردة غذاها حزب الله بدهاء كبير من خلال اعطائه الذرائع لخصومه تدريجيا لاعادة ادخال ثقافة اظهار السلاح الفردي واستعماله عند الضرورة.

لقد بدأت مرحلة ترسيم حدود المناطق في بيروت وغير بيروت. قطع طرق، شبان في الازقة والشوارع الداخلية جاهزون للمواجهة حتى ولو انكفؤوا عن المحاور الرئيسية.

حاجز نفسي جديد تم تجاوزه، فللمرة الاولى منذ نهاية الحرب الاهلية عام 1990 تدوم اشتباكات داخلية اكثر من 24 ساعة.

حتى لو تم احتواء كل ما يجري خلال الساعات المقبلة، وهو امر مستبعد، فان الاكيد ان الحاجز النفسي الاخير قبل الحرب الاهلية الساخنة التي ستدوم قد اجتيز بجدارة وقد تكون المراحل المقبلة تتعلق بادارة العمليات العسكرية.

ولكن بالمناسبة، اين الجيش اللبناني؟

Read More...

Summary only...

Egypt & Jordan: Where Strikes Fail

Picture Galley: Courtesy of http://egyptianchronicles.blogspot.com/

In some countries, Jordan and Egypt for example, the only way to make a strike succeed is for the State to call for it. Imagine a State calling its workers and citizens to protest against the rise or prices of essential goods. It is conceivable wen the authorities decide to blame “Imperialism” for it.

In Cairo, on Sunday morning, correspondents there reported a “serious” police presence in the streets. A month ago, the relative success of the strike and the incidents of Mahalla where security forces clashed with protesters were followed by a vague of arrests against traditional and virtual activists. Security forces are catching up with creativity by arresting bloggers and facebook users who might be potentially dangerous.
Remember Esraa Abdel Fattah who has been detained for hours last month just because she was behind the facebook page calling for the 6^th of April strike. And remember how the Egyptian police arrested bloggers before even starting to arrest the hundreds of demonstrators. Bloggers in Egypt seem to be perceived as a potential threat to National Security, that’s what I understand from the official Egyptian reaction.

Apparently the preventive actions against activists are the right weapon in the hands of our local tyrants.
In Jordan, on the evening of Sunday’s strike, three members of the Jordanian Left Social Movement were arrested for distributing pamphlets calling citizens to be part of the strike that will only last till 11 a.m. One more detail left, the Jordanian authorities denied arresting anyone… Classical!
Meanwhile, correspondents in Jordan say that facebook has been a tool widely used to diffuse the call for the strike. I am sure it’s a matter of time before facebookers and bloggers in Jordan become officially a National Security threat.

The outcome of these two strikes was practically a failure related partly to intimidation, but also to a lack of a political culture practiced within healthy and democratic multiparty system.
No wonder why the ruling parties in the Arab World are generally the only ones capable of mobilizing on demand. We pay the price in Fundamental, Civil, and Political Liberties for them to stay in power in the name of stablility and security.

The choice of the 4^th of May for the Egyptian strike was not a coincidence; it was the 80^th birthday of Egyptian President Hosni Mobarak. Today he can sit back and relax, he had a happy one!

According to all the international reports, food and prices crisis is a part of a global economic crisis settling down surely with no real international solutions for it, just alarming reports. So we will have to expect more demonstrations and movements related to that matter in the near future. That will hopefully give the oppositions in Arab Countries more chances to mobilize.

Incidentally, a demonstration under the same slogan is planned in Beirut on the 7^th of may, but the Clausewitzean style might be the best way of describing it before it even happens: It will just be the continuation of the struggle between the '8^th' and '14^th of March' fronts by other means.

Read More...

Summary only...

Middle Eastern Egos

By Bachir Habib

Image: Courtesy of http://maloof.wordpress.com

“Khomeini chose Reagan, and freed the hostages the moment he was sworn in as president. Khaled Meshal, Ahmad Jabari and Muhamad Deif (of the Hamas military wing in Gaza) are now working for McCain. This may yet do some good for the hopes of peace”.

In Hamas for Mc Cain, Amir Oren, Haaretz, 22-04-2008

Arab Egos are always present in different shapes and forms in political salons. They sit around and watch political talk shows, analyze situations, move on to cafés and make statements as if they were bonafide members of think tanks or political science experts. If interviewed by a radio or news channel in the street, they rarely react as citizens but as prominent politicians. This is for the average citizen. If we step into the journalistic sphere things get even worse. The number of invalid analysis and unfounded pretentions fill tens of newspapers pages everyday.

But it seems this is not only an arab problem but one of an overinflated Middle Eastern Ego. From Tel Aviv to Teheran passing by Beirut, Ryadh and any Middle Eastern Arab capital, reading the local newspapers gives a false impression that the Middle East is having a major impact on every foreign elections results. The quote introducing this article is one example. We have seen many others and we will be reading many more. From those who claim that the Hezbollah supports Barack Obama in his race for the US presidency or that the Democrats would negotiate with Teheran in case they make it to the White House. Others in the 'political Market' hypothesize that Mc Cain will continue George Bush’s policy and will push towards tougher sanctions against Teheran. At the opposite end of the spectrun, as Oren said in his article “Meshal working for Mc Cain may yet do some good for the hopes of peace”.

The Middle East is definitely playing a role in the US elections on three specific levels:The first one is Israel’s Security.The second one is the American troops presence in Iraq.The third one is the policy to be adopted towards Iran’s nuclear program (which is an issue directly related to Israel’s security). However, these three levels are present in the US campaigns for presidency not because they are vital to Washington but because they have to be part of the debate between the candidates. Whether it is Mc Cain or a Democrat who wins, the Middle East will be dealt with as usual, via Congress Partisan and bipartisan commissions following a very stable lead lines in American foreign policy: US National Interest. It might disappoint those in the Middle East who think that a change in Washington will bring solutions to the Middle East problems, or will prolong the war many are profiting from. The reality is that,after November 2008, the task of the new president in the White House will be to deal with the economic crisis and its impact on the American Citizen.

In the Middle East and especially in our Arab Countries, governments and oppositions will have wasted much time and energy betting on elections happening thousands of miles away to find out that 'plus ca change plus c'est la meme chose' as the French say. In the meantime the problems in our societies, from Human and Political Rights to economical and social conditions remain, with no one to tackle them and most sadly with no sign yet of any serious alternative to our Monarchs, Oligarchs and Tyrants.

Read More...

Summary only...

You, Facebook and National Security