Fair enough, I will try to address your questions. But yalla, come up with a list of 10 things first.

So, you “tuned off” and avoided most of my question marks in my 3 posts, and you still expect me to send you a list…helweh minnak, shou am tisleba a3layeh?

You said: “The scores of speeches, academic lectures, press conferences, and published studies detailing the answer to your question are countless.”

I tend to tune out when I hear people talking about the loss of Christian rights, so could you just provide a very basic list of what they are? Besides the tahjeer issue, what else is at stake? You add “genuine and fair participation in the political and decision making process”, but I’m also not sure what this means.

Give me a simple list of ten areas where the Christians have lost their rights and how they should be restored. Should we have a directly elected president? What additional powers should he/she have?

Your political savviness exemplified in most of your posts makes me wonder as to whether the questions you’ve put forth in this particular post are merely intended for provocation or whether the Lebanon you know and the Lebanon I know exist on two different planets. Anyhow, I think that there is a slight chance of either one of us misinterpreting what the other one is saying, so please don’t consider my comments directed against you. Besides, no one is angry at you; disappointed would be a better term.

1) “I am at a loss when I hear people (Gemayel or Aoun or Frangieh) talk about restoring Christian rights. How exactly have Christian rights been usurped?”

QN, it is common knowledge that the Christians of Lebanon, particularly the Maronites, have long enjoyed a privileged status in governance from the days of the French mandate and throughout the Second Republic. The Taif Agreement attempted to balance the status quo by transferring vital executive powers from the Maronite President to the Sunni Prime Minister and by making the latter directly responsible to the legislature, which in itself was amended to achieve a better representation of the demographic distribution of the Lebanese population (before the Taif Accord, the number of Christian MPs exceeded the Muslim ones). FAIR ENOUGH. In essence, I believe most Christians have no problem with this scenario.

The problem however has been in the implementation of this so called “National Reconciliation Accord”. As you pointed out, “the political will of the Christians during the Syrian era was largely suppressed as a result of gerry-mandering and crackdowns against the proto-FPM and other parties”. TRUE, so why not also mention that the gradual loss of Christian rights during the 16-year period of the Syrian occupation (1989-2005) was mainly a byproduct of the beneficial collaboration between the occupation and the ruling elite back then; i.e. today’s neo-independents who saw this occupational presence as “darrouri, sharei, and mouakat”. The occupation ended in 2005, but as of today, much of those Christian rights are yet to be regained.

2) “What rights do they want to restore?”

The scores of speeches, academic lectures, press conferences, and published studies detailing the answer to your question are countless. My select takes on this include GMA’s speech during the FPM annual dinner on 05/31/08, and MP Abi Nasr’s speech during the FPM Keserwan dinner on 07/06/08. I am aware that some may be allergic to both of them, so if you prefer more scholarly references, I recommend you check the synopsis and the numerous counts on this matter by MP Dr. Farid E. el Khazen, and by Mr. Edmond Saab of Al-Nahar newspaper.

Among the many facets of “tahmeesh” that have hit the Lebanese Christian community until this day, I think that two are of utmost importance and lie at the core of the Christian existence or lack thereof in Lebanon:

a. It has been TWENTY FIVE YEARS plus keep counting…, and many Christians affected by the waves of “tahjeer” from East Saida and el-Jabal are awaiting the return to their homes and lands. And please, it would be an insult to my brain cells for someone to suggest that those people have been unable to return simply because of the objection of the Syrian patron. As long as this open wound keeps on bleeding into the Christian psyche, you’ll keep on “hearing Gemayel, Aoun, and Frangieh talk about the restoration of the Christian rights”.

b. Genuine and fair participation in the political and decision making process

Now that “we have an electoral law that allowed a much higher proportion of Christians to directly elect their representatives”, “so what is the problem?”

The electoral law you mentioned was not handed to us on a silver plate and certainly “mish karam akhlak” from the ruling majority. What are the chances that the 2000 Kanaan – Hariri electoral law would have been swapped with the fairly acceptable electoral law and the latter one approved in the Doha meeting if it weren’t for the strong supportive stance of the Shia MPs in the opposition?

3) “and how do they propose achieving this restoration? How would a Maronite president with greater executive powers make a significant difference to the Christian community?”

Please, refer to “watheekat el tourouhat” that resulted from the expanded Christian dialogue meetings that took place in Dec 2007 and the subsequent press conferences.

4) “This kind of discourse is bewildering to me, and also kind of dangerous.”

MAYBE, yet the rhetoric in Mr. Young’s article (that you seem to agree with) can only amplify the risk for pushing this discourse forward.

QN, the sense of mistrust among the Christians of Lebanon and hence the constant need to be on the defensive mainly stems from their experiences since Ta’if till this day, but it is also very much fueled via the continuous efforts by the likes of Mr. Young to falsify and make mockery of our communal legacy. Between 1989 and 2005, the majority of Christians resisting the Syrian occupation and the resultant imposed system, were automatically tagged along the American-Israeli axis. From 2005 and till this day, simply because a significant fraction of these “lost and confused” Christians reached out to another large sect in the country and dismantled mistrust barriers that have long existed between them, suddenly the two have been hooked to the Syrian – Iranian axis. Then, you hear of “Christian loss”, “Christian confusion”, “Christian split votes”, “the Sunni Christians”, “the Shia Christians”, “Christian lack of unanimity”, “Christian unanimity”, “Christian isolation”. GIVE ME A BREAK! Find me a regular Lebanese citizen who is not intrinsically confused or is at loss of how the political alliances tend to switch between day and night. So, how come we’re singled out? Besides, isn’t it clear that the Christian divide is not a confessional one but rather a political one? And what is so wrong about this? What is so wrong with the split votes? Isn’t this what democracy is supposed to be about? When Aoun had an overwhelming majority of Christians rallying behind him, he was described as the bad shepherd herding the lost sheep; now that his support declined to near 50%, we’re described as being confused and split. Walla ihtarna? Then, whenever 2 Christain figures happen to meet each other 1/2 way on a wise day, the initiative is blasted as
“commual suicide” or “anti-someone”!

QN, what I find appalling and offensive in Young’s article is not the criticism per say but more so the timing and the double standards. Why this bashing of Sami Gemayel came only after the elections were over and less than a week after his visit/luncheon with MP Frangieh? What is so wrong with Gemayel reaching out to Frangieh to achieve more Christian unanimity? How is it communal suicide? How come the reaching out between MPs Jumblat and Arsalan was not perceived as Druz communal suicide? How come the reaching out among the opposing Sunni factions in Tripoli was not described as communal Sunni suicide?

Finally, wasn’t the lack of Christian unanimity between the previous generations of Gemayels and Frangiehs what lead to the sad events of June 13, 1978 which were nothing short of communal suicide? Can you look into the eyes of innocent 4-year old Jihane Frangieh whose life was cut short 3 weeks prior to your receipt of the blessing of life and still think that Young’s bashing of Christian attempts at unanimity is not offensive?

I used racism for lack of a better word. But this being said, when I criticise the dominant israeli discourse on Arabs, I denounce it as racist, even though I don’t consider Arabs as constituting a race. And frankly I don’t think there is such a thing as a race, but this doesn’t mean that racism doesn’t exist either. Don’t you agree?

What I found abundant in Michael Young’s article is the prejudice and antagonism he professes. And frankly, I find it echoed in many of the comments I read under this posting (ex: AIG’s hopes on the emergence of a liberal non-sectarian Sunni middle class… or saying that Christians are this, and Sunnis are that… and Shiites are this…).

All this blather is grounded in my view in the confessional mindset. This Middle Eastern sectarian bigotry is obviously based on prejudice, but it the past decades it has gained ground in academia and has become so common place that people do not even shy to express it in a newspaper. Interestingly enough, this mindset is totally independent from our “confessional” system because it is quite prevalent in countries that do not share our system, and locally, those who suffer from it usually advocate quite sincerely the abolishment of the confessional system.

I don’t know how I’m going to redeem myself in your eyes, bas ma3lesh. I’ll give it a shot.

What I have a problem with — and what I think Young addresses in this article — is the discourse of “Christian rights” that have been trampled upon as a result of Ta’if.

I don’t undestand what this term means, and yet, Christian politicians refer to it as if it were common knowledge. How exactly have Christian rights been usurped? Of course, the political will of the Christians during the Syrian era was largely suppressed as a result of gerry-mandering and crackdowns against the proto-FPM and other parties. But today we have an electoral law that allowed a much higher proportion of Christians to directly elect their representatives. So what is the problem?

Furthermore, what is the problem with a Christian politician allied to a majority Sunni party? Just because the vast majority of that politican’s constituency is Sunni, why does that disqualify him in the eyes of other Christian leaders?

These are not rhetorical questions. I seriously do not have answers to them and I am at a loss when I hear people (Gemayel or Aoun or Frangieh) talk about “restoring Christian rights”. This kind of discourse is bewildering to me, and also kind of dangerous. What rights do they want to restore, and how do they propose achieving this restoration? How would a Maronite president with greater executive powers make a significant difference to the Christian community?

Let me be clear, however: I don’t think that the FPM’s Memorandum of Understanding falls under this rubric, and this is one place where I actually do disagree with Young. But, to me, calling for “restoring Christian rights” (without every specifying what this means) contradicts the spirit of the MoU, which is a step in the right direction: creating inter-party bonds on a nationalist basis, not a confessional one.

I still think it is not offensive.

“Or replace all references to Lebanon with references to the US, and then substitute “Maronite” with Black. And offer this piece to any American and ask him what he thinks of it.”

Ok, so when did Maronites become a race unto themselves? I feel that “racist” is a term that gets thrown around a little too liberally in the context of Lebanese politics.

Worried Lebanese,

I think the reason that I don’t find this article to be bigoted or offensive is because he is talking about the political outlook of a confessional community. And even if Young paints with a broad brush when he talks about “the Maronites”, I think his point is that there is a significant convergence among rival Maronite political leaders on a common track vis-a-vis how they relate to the other sects. I’ll explain more in my next comment, which will be addressed to PN, who is very angry at me.

I honestly could not care less whether/how Mr. Young would respond to my rejoinder. I addressed my questions to you because you mentioned that you agreed with his analysis!

The population survey(s) you referred to could be accurate. However, in the past few years, a couple of studies refuted similar estimates. I can not recall the names, but I read one of them in Al-Diyyar newspaper in 2007 and another one was posted on Tayyar.org earlier this year. If my memory is not failing me, the latter one was conducted by an archbishop taking into consideration baptism registrations in Lebanon and abroad. The single fact is that there has been no official national census since 1932 and no one really knows.

Having said that, I fully agree with you that “this is not the main issue”, so why then Young made it an issue in his article? In my opinion, it is exactly such statements that drive more Christians to worry about the limited powers of the Maronite presidency.

Simply put, it is a LACK OF TRUST. For Mr. Young or anyone else to single out Christians or Maronites on this notion would be so unfair since mistrust plagues most relationships in between confessional groups in Lebanon and in some instances within groups in the same confession (and that does not apply to Christians only). I believe that you and me (and perhaps many of your readers) would like to see the “dismantling of the confessional system altogether” a reality one day, but articles like Young’s only make things worse. Not only it portrays Christians, and particularly the Maronites as being “bitter” and anti-Sunni(so you can only imagine the impressions it may leave on its Sunni readers), but it makes a non-Maronite Christian like me wonder/ worry as to why he was asked or at the least permitted to publish such a piece especially if his employer is really genuine about national unity as we keep hearing day in and day out. In other terms, this article succeeds in 2 things; spilling negative energy and raising my blood pressure.

“Let’s say that the FPM won the election on the back of the 1960 electoral law. Do you think that they would have gone about trying to replace it with a new one, after it worked so well for them?”

YES, I DO. Give us a chance. We might exceed your expectations.

“Walla, if I made it this far and this is the first disappointing post on my blog, then I should feel really good about myself!”

As the Lebanese saying goes, “ghaltit el-shater b-miyeh”; Elias, it is gonna take a lot of impressive work to compensate for this one.

Worried Lebanese,

Thanks for your feedback, but what is it with the “Banana Republic” you mentioned, or “The Potato Republic” and “The Hummus Republic” that Professor Assad Abu Khalil keeps referring to?

Best.