People of the Book

Posted by Qifa Nabki ⋅ January 19, 2014 ⋅ 425 Comments

Filed Under Salafists, Tripoli

saeh I’ve written something for The New Yorker’s literary blog about the fire at the Sa’eh Bookshop in Tripoli. The first paragraph is below, followed by a jump to the site.

If you’d like to donate books to the library, check out the book drive’s Facebook page. Would prefer to make a cash donation? Here’s the relevant page.

Letter from Lebanon: A Bookshop Burns

On a Friday night shortly after New Year’s, a group of men broke into an antiquarian bookshop in the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli and set it on fire. The shop belonged to Father Ibrahim Sarrouj, a Greek Orthodox priest. A longtime resident of Tripoli’s old Serail neighborhood, he had amassed a large collection of books—rare first editions of scholarly texts, novels in different languages, dictionaries, encyclopedias, out-of-print magazines—in the forty-plus years since he opened for business. The fire burned for under an hour before it was discovered, but an untold number of books were destroyed.

Tripoli is a mess. Just a few miles from the Syrian border and comprising a religiously mixed population, it’s become one of the most dangerous places in Lebanon. Sunnis and Alawites—variously at odds since the Lebanese civil war and now feeling the stakes of their feud deepened by the existential conflict next door—lob mortars and rocket-propelled grenades at each other’s neighborhoods while car bombs explode outside congregational mosques. A preponderance of religious and political powerbrokers in the city has made it difficult for the Lebanese Army to establish order. Radical Islamists—previously a kooky fringe in Lebanese politics—attract more support each day from Tripolitans incensed by Hezbollah’s involvement on the side of the Assad regime in the Syrian civil war, which has brought over a million refugees into Lebanon. Meanwhile, the princes of the alleyways (as neighborhood strongmen are sometimes called) vie for influence with the city’s other grandees, including two Sunni billionaire politicians and a former security czar. (keep reading)

Discussion

425 thoughts on “People of the Book”

The bookshop may be a vestige of “gentility”–or it may point to the fact that gentility no longer has much use for books. In any case, Father Sarrouj is anything but genteel. He has Marxist leanings, possibly picked up during his seminary training in Moscow. He was definitely a man of the people. As such he was an anomaly. People who read books, who care about real knowledge and real change, have little place in our society.

Posted by melmakko | January 19, 2014, 5:45 pm
Lebanese Sunnis are joining radical Takfiri extremist groups that are committing massacres and crimes against Shia, Sunni, Christians because they are incensed by Hezbollah fighting in Syria against radical Takfiri extremists ? Seems logical only to the illogical…

Posted by Marion Mourtada | January 21, 2014, 3:26 pm
Who is brainwashing these young Sunni men into thinking in such a convoluted way? What kind of ideology are they following? Who is spreading the Sunni versus Shia mindset among them here in Lebanon and the rest of the region? You can’t blame Hezbollah and Iran for everything… You need to look within yourselves to find your answers, and stop letting the sick ideologies of Salafi -Wahabis influence your children…

Posted by Marion Mourtada | January 21, 2014, 3:37 pm
Marion,

I blame Hezbollah and Iran for the following:

– creating an extra-governmental fighting force in Southern lebanon that takes its orders from Iran, not Lebanon

– fighting a foreign war (in Syria) against a mostly sunni population to prop up a criminal despot whose family has refused to democratize for over 40 years.

Posted by Akbar Palace | January 21, 2014, 4:49 pm
Based on your Zionist leaning ideologues Akhbar, You’re opinion is irrelevant ….

Posted by Marion Mourtada | January 21, 2014, 11:29 pm
It is asinine Zionist- Wahabi oriented propaganda like yours Akhbar, that these convoluted young Sunni men are buying into…

Posted by Marion Mourtada | January 21, 2014, 11:35 pm
Marion,

My late night erratic diatribe:

There are many who share your thoughts and concerns. Unfortunately, this seemingly ‘liberal’ space (and I don’t mean to castigate QN himself for that – although his politesse anglo-saxonne seems to find no enemy, Israeli or otherwise and this omission is in itself unethical in my point of view – a missed opportunity in communicating tangible core lebanese concerns -or at least a big portion thereof- in a non-ironic and non-anthropologically-detached (i.e. nonchalant) manner to a broader audience—I have a theory, namely that QN does not want to offend his own americanized taste in substance inclusive) is a hangout for the likes of Akbar with their deluded fanaticism, ready to hand the region over to shilit gulf-arab–bankrolled zo3ran who can’t even keep up proper dental care regime let alone offer a viable political one & ragrag takfiris who want to enter heaven penis first (Free Syrian Army & Da7ish/Nusrah in order).

You will also encounter here die hard actual (not proxy) Zionisits including a self confessed Israeli IDF member. Yep.

So they flock here because, I assume, this is quite an american-friendly space (in the sense that its palatable to american media ….as well as to the Khanzeera – Q to QN: What in the hell made you go on AlJazeera knowing, as I’m sure you do, what a sham of a TV station it is, misrepresentative ..was that opportunism on your part? Media attention? Seriously) . You know, because thats exactly what the americans need more of, misdirection and misinformation.

If i recall correctly, one of those nebbishes, excuse the yiddish, actually claimed Iran or HA was killing its own car bombs not the takfiris. Ironically, they start accusing others of being conspiracy theorists.

Aside, QN, you have an interesting thing going on (when you don’t mess around with politics especially). Keep up the good work and cease the bad work.

Posted by Tammuz | January 22, 2014, 3:30 am
Based on your Zionist leaning ideologues Akhbar, You’re opinion is irrelevant …

Marion,

Yes, the professional resistance leaders have been saying this since 1948. And what do they have to show for it, except a trail of death and destruction.

Posted by Akbar Palace | January 22, 2014, 6:12 am
Tammuz,

Coordination is your friend; subordination, not so much.

🙂

Will respond later. (Also, please stick to one moniker… either Tammuz or Trinkets).

Posted by Qifa Nabki | January 22, 2014, 8:09 am
Tammuz/Trinkets said:

“although his politesse anglo-saxonne seems to find no enemy, Israeli or otherwise and this omission is in itself unethical in my point of view – a missed opportunity in communicating tangible core lebanese concerns …is a hangout for the likes of Akbar with their deluded fanaticism”

I think you are new to the comment section, which is a hangout not just for Zionists but also supporters of Iranian and Saudi theocracy, American imperialism, political Maronitism, Gramscian war of position-ism, Shiite revanchism posing as principled Marxism, Sunni revanchism posing as principled Marxism, Christian revanchism posing as principled Marxism, and so on. This is, rather by design, a big tent. That offends some people, like yourself, but the constituency offended by dialogue is a constituency I’m not so interested in. (Not to castigate Tammuz him/herself, and no I don’t have a psycho-babbling theory as to why you believe what you do based on my on-screen non-encounters with you…)

Marion, we’ve had this discussion before. I think you are being disingenuous. 🙂

Posted by Qifa Nabki | January 22, 2014, 8:45 am
God Bless America, Lebanon and Israel 🙂

Posted by Vulcan | January 22, 2014, 9:56 am
It’s shameless how some don’t see the hypocrisy when they cheered Al Khanzeera Jazeerah while it hailed the Assad fueled “Muqawama” in Iraq, the same “Muqawama” that is now blowing up innocent people in Lebanon.

I am curious, is it still heroic and honorable to blow yourself up killing innocent men, women and children in a Tel Aviv restaurant or bus? If so, how different are you from those blowing up in your part of town?

Posted by Vulcan | January 22, 2014, 10:27 am
Qifa If I am disingenuous, so are you….you do not know anything about me to know… You are only basing your opinion on a few of my postings here… 🙂

Posted by Marion Mourtada | January 22, 2014, 1:40 pm
Vulcan, why don’t you talk in a language we can understand? Who are you accusing of blowing up people in Tel Aviv? And is blowing up people by dropping millions of cluster bombs, or phosphorus bombs, or whatever other US bombs Israel possesses, and killing innocent people any better?

Posted by Marion Mourtada | January 22, 2014, 1:45 pm
QN;

It is obvious where your larger home ‘consistuency’ flocks from and for what purpose as expressed previously in my other post. Its clear from their own representation here.

And no, I am not offended. It was my reading of where you stand or don’t stand. Nowhere did I indicate that I am against dialogue. Perhaps it is you who were offended as expressed vide your implied disinvitation apropos being criticized : ” but the constituency offended by dialogue is a constituency I’m not so interested in”. This is unfortunate because you would be the one unable to engage.

Furthermore, your accusation could equally extend to Vulcan, Akbar and the like who obviously and herein regurgitate their own impenetrable monologic and belief system – you call their one-sided vitriol dialogue? Perhaps you are more likely to weild your blogness authority against those who stand for the resistance trajectory -also noting your patronizing reply to Marion – and this is my suspicion: your “agnosticis” is nothing but a learnt disguise cladding an actual proclivity and belief. Its obvious from your comments, your direction of thought, your participation in the AL Khanzeera emission.

Furthermore, you whimsically -and cynically- collapse regional idiosyncratic currents into preprepared formulas (rife with american formulaics). Although I totally agree with you on the effect of leftist rhetoric (echoing my contribution to the Levantine Dystopia post) it is quite simply something else to envisage -as you do- these tendencies posing as Marxism. An effect does not enslave the affected. A regional and ideological contextualization would define these currents and would look for actual motivational forces at play, not come up with a fundamentally foreign reconceptualization meant to impress with the profusion of name dropping and academic conaissance. This is why I deem your viewpoint american (american friendly) in that it presents an academically cliched (and actually, coming from a person who shoud be able to portray the region in a more accurate manner- reads of as a snide) idiots-guide.

In other words, politically, you are a deceptively good (but not really) guide to a largely topically-externalized dilatante audience and the danger you pose is in your capacity to misinform and misdirect.

Apologies if the above is a bit rashly dashed out.

by the way, noted about the monikor. It was very late and it wasnt deliberated really. I did enter same email so no need to suggest anything else (would be a bit vulgar to).

Posted by Trinkets | January 22, 2014, 2:07 pm
Trinkets said:

“Nowhere did I indicate that I am against dialogue. Perhaps it is you who were offended as expressed vide your implied disinvitation apropos being criticized : ” but the constituency offended by dialogue is a constituency I’m not so interested in”. This is unfortunate because you would be the one unable to engage.”

Not being interested is not a dis-invitation. Please participate, by all means. We’re chatting now, aren’t we?

Perhaps you are more likely to wield your blogness authority against those who stand for the resistance trajectory -also noting your patronizing reply to Marion – and this is my suspicion: your “agnosticism” is nothing but a learnt disguise cladding an actual proclivity and belief. Its obvious from your comments, your direction of thought, your participation in the AL Khanzeera emission.”

This should not be a rude awakening, but it apparently is. I have never pretended to be sympathetic to the resistance trajectory (which I anyway consider to be just a marketing term for a collection of political actors no less principled than their electoral opponents). Also, political agnosticism isn’t a conscious commitment on my part, but rather I suppose an implication of an empirically-based stance against all the Lebanese mainstream political parties, Hizbullah included. If I criticize Hariri, in other words, it’s not to balance the scales with my criticisms of Hizbullah. It’s because… oh never mind. You should be able to understand my argument even if you don’t believe me.

“Furthermore, you whimsically -and cynically- collapse regional idiosyncratic currents into preprepared formulas (rife with american formulaics).

Huh?

“A regional and ideological contextualization would define these currents and would look for actual motivational forces at play, not come up with a fundamentally foreign reconceptualization meant to impress with the profusion of name dropping and academic conaissance.”

Huh?

In other words, politically, you are a deceptively good (but not really) guide to a largely topically-externalized dilatante audience and the danger you pose is in your capacity to misinform and misdirect.

Thank you. I try.

Apologies if the above is a bit rashly dashed out.

Apology accepted. Please clarify and then maybe we can have a productive conversation.

Posted by Qifa Nabki | January 22, 2014, 2:29 pm
Marion,

It’s true, I’m basing my response to you on your previous postings here. That is all I have to go on. And based on your previous postings, I can only conclude that you are a dyed-in-the-wool supporter of Hizbulah who defends the party no matter how far it has fallen.

Posted by Qifa Nabki | January 22, 2014, 2:33 pm
Trinkets, let me also confess that I had not read your very interesting contributions on the Dystopia post. I apologize for missing them, will go back and read them carefully, and then respond on that thread. If I disappear for a day or so it’s because the semester has just begun. Misinforming and misdirecting a largely topically-externalized dilettante audience takes time…

😉

Posted by Qifa Nabki | January 22, 2014, 2:44 pm
Where did you read I said it was any better killing people by US or Israeli bombs? Unlike you and the Muqawama crowd, I condemn violence against all human beings, and I work towards or at least wish for solutions, I don’t go on propagating, inciting and glorifying hate and violence against groups of people because of a certain herd mentality or just to serve a prejudice that has been spoon-fed to all Arabs for hundreds of years.

I can speak your language very well Marion. I know quite well where this satanic spell of intolerance, hate, racism, bigotry and horrible violence that inflicts the region come from. it’s not “colonialism” nor “imperialism” it’s 100 percent home brewed. You need to muster the courage and look deep inside you, always blaming the Zionists and the West is such a old and tired lie, used by your beloved Butcher of Damascus and the rest of the Arab Tyrants and regimes.

Posted by Vulcan | January 22, 2014, 2:45 pm
There is an urgent need to classify Hezbollah as a fascist organization in addition to being a clearly terrorist one. The classification must include both the military branch as well as the so-called political branch. In reality, there is no difference between the two. Only the gullible will buy into this fake distinction.

Posted by mustap | January 22, 2014, 3:30 pm
Suffering synchophants!…it doesn’t take “courage” to kiss the Bossman’s @$$, tug forelocks, self-flaggelate and regurgitate the partyline. </;-)

Posted by lally | January 22, 2014, 3:37 pm
When you disagree with a Muqawama, you lose your foreskin NewZ

Lovin’ the past few posts. Kudos to QN and Vulcan, who consider Joos as human beings and, maybe, even “relevant”.

We have come to a point in history where everyone is relevant, including Jews, Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese, and Iranians and ALL actors are judged by their actions EQUALLY. Welcome to the 21st century, where we now have freedom of information and people can read the news outside of their government-controlled media.

As a pro-Israeli, I’m still having trouble understanding why Zionism (Israel), who was responsible for killing about 27 Palestinians in the West Bank in 2013 is more of an evil than the regimes that govern arabs and muslims today and still killing their own people at a rate ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more than Israel.

While killing any innocent person is evil, Israel’s TOTAL killing of 27 in 2013 is roughly the number getting killed in the ME on a DAILY basis! In fact, considering Syria and Iraq these past few years, it’s more like 100 dead/day.

http://news.yahoo.com/israeli-forces-kill-27-west-bank-2013-ngo-155532711.html

The typical muqawama knows about every cluster and phosphorus bomb the GOI has used. But they don’t like to compare the violence arabs have subjected their own people to in comparison to big bad Israel. It’s the old “Get Out of Jail Free (ME) Card”, where only Joos are the guilty party, and Arabs aren’t responsible for their actions at all.

Last, but not least, arab-Israelis are the freest arabs in the ME, another issue muqawamas are silent about.

Posted by Akbar Palace | January 22, 2014, 4:25 pm
QN;

Your linked Al Akhbar article, in my estimation, undermines the intelligence and knowledge of people who support the Syrian regime as a proxy to supporting the resistance axis. You’re telling us: hey look at that, see what a hypocrite he is (and by extension, you are). We live in the area; we are privy to compromises and corruptions at the lowest and highest levels. But the logic of excluded middle does not operate here – in the larger scheme of things, it is a balancing act rather than a juggling-act. When Syria was in Lebanon, a good portion of its current supporters were then against it (in contradistinction to those Lebanese who today are against it but were kissing its butt back then) ; yet, after 2006 and its revelations, they changed their minds. A consequence of balancing acts.
This was not because HA or Iran (keeping in mind the multiconfessional and nonconfessional support base they pulled) brainwashed them – which is an assumption many critics hold . I see that as a nihilistic assumption that stunts any substance based understanding and can be wielded against any which side really: Saudi Arabia brainwashes, the US brainwashes….ergo, Lebanese as mindless externally automated zombies. That is unrealistic. Why don’t you crawl down that Descartian hellhole and ask yourself why aren’t you, on par, brainwashed and if all it is is a demon piping illusions into your mind? No, its unrealistic. You owe it to people to respect their tangible concerns and not assume idiocy or delusion.
Nor is it because, as you portray them and their support base, they constitute vestiges of a form of radical leftism – be they religious shias, members of other sects, or secular. If Hezbullah and its audience propre was truly a left leaning (albeit) religious body, they would never ever ever have acceded to be associated with the Hariri-led Future group as they did on many occasions, political , economic and so on. In fact, for the true leftists in the country, this was a strong signal that Hezbollah does not have a leftist base (but rather an infrastructurally Islamic –which some critics have pointed out to be more in line with traditional capitalism (as opposed to neoliberalism) – albeit idiosyncratic one) – and I know a few who do not forgive them this sin although they absolutely back HA’s resistance. Thus, your description is useless, functionally. A resistance armed group is not Marxist by definition. Just because they formed a resistance group – a very idiosyncratic one that offers itself up as a paradigmatic model- does not logically necessitate marxist tendencies. You err by committing associative thinking; perhaps with this colouring, one would hope to render oneself an astute academic and a sharp critic by bridging literary and (perhaps more pertinently) critical theory to an idiosyncratic case of middle eastern politics with its density, peculiarity and complexity beyond such forced, formulaic and implanted readings.
Also, Syria under Bashar Assad had naught to do with leftism and, in fact, opening up the country to neoliberalism helped fuel the discontent of the people (I think there was an Al Akhbar article on that not too long ago) and exasperated the divide between the privileged (ie the favoured) and the poor – I think an extremely pertinent point was made by a Judy Bello in the first commentary pursuant to your Al Akhbar article (scroll down). I totally agree with her and it is indeed a formula that has proven to lead to state failures across the world. Regardless, my own stance is not measured against this – I think Syria has or had a self-sufficiency rare to come across (nearly everyone had homes and amount of mortgages were one of the lowest in the world, everyone had jobs, bare necessities available..and so on, yes we know the negatives as well) and that Bashar Assad, ironically, somewhat compromised this . I find much more substance there than drawing whimsical connections with those academic formulas and an inheritance of American phobia (or scapegoat) of leftism and Marxism – you know, everytime some entity or country dissented, it was called Marxist. Obviously this chronic habit must be making itself stylistically retro and therefore very de rigueur.

To develop this a bit further, touching on HA, HA is largely a product of Lebanese shia youth (duh i hear you say), its core a product of the south which was in direct conflict with the Israelis -with the latter’s historically proven nefarious infringements a given- over an extended period of time. A conflict that many other Lebanese factions had not been subjected to. This, I believe, is the root cause why many Lebanese simply do not believe that HA’s vision is denominated by Israel . We, en masse, lack in the national imagination department. If the south got hit, Beirut didn’t care much. Can we imagine the same happening in the UK, Germany, elsewhere? No. So, to bridge to the preceding paragraph and the point regarding your misimagination of HA , it is in fact your own social and cultural dissociation from the resistance faction in the country (ie resistance proper and its supporters irrespective of confession and belief) that, for you, renders their struggle against Israel somewhat of a ghostly specter. Thus you insidiously dismiss it by rendering it intangible, a struggle against virtuality and thereafter, more ominously, you don on it a masi7-dajjel aspect, an anti-christ of a specter, namely that it masks itself as a resistance to elicit acquiescence. This is a natural consequence of the national schizophrenia that harbours and allows for your cultural and nationalist dissociation from them that then gets rationalized through the above depicted chain of associative thinking.
From my point of view, as a secular person of a different confessional background, I see no threat whatsoever from the direction of HA – whether I like their religiosity or not is irrelevant. I certainly see the threat in the neighbouring kleptoparasitical racist and exclusionist ideology that, to date, continues to geographically expand (this farce about illegal settlements being frowned upon by ‘parts’ of the Israeli government is a farce; it is an unwritten law dictated by their tradition). It is an active and primary threat, a first tier enemy that, to a necessary extent for us as a national unity, dictates, and should dictate our political alliances. Israel’s CV is not merely sufficient grounds for isolating and despising it but also must be seen as a blueprint of its modus operandi . The fact that this does not register with you and that you would rather focus on reading into a certain set of compromises whose sort really all geopolitical entities must (or see as necessary to) make to survive an evidence of the fallibility, generally, of the principle of defensive resistance turns out to be actually nothing but an evidence of your own ethical fallibility in deliberately creating a metafiction out of contingencies for the purpose of misleading obfuscation . No, there is no contradiction whatsoever between making certain compromises to stay afloat and, consequentially, to keep the resistance afloat. Neither have you nor I the proof of this, HA has the proof in the form of its immense amassed reserve and military stockade. Thus, again, your thinking is based neither on evidence nor on logical derivations but on marginal interpretations akin to trying to denying the solid form of a rope by fashioning a narrative of a few wayward filaments . Creative as a piece of fiction, unrealistic as a piece of political analysis.
And I also see the threat in the equally ideologically belligerent and exclusionary (sectarianist) Wahabi influx we see nowadays in our region. I do not see the other indigenous neighbouring elements as forcing themselves on us, on our way of life, our right to practice or not to practice one religion or the other and so on. Not Assad, not HA, not Iran…. Like Zionism, Wahabism carries a banner of hatred for others.
So naturally, pragmatically, the likes of me aligns themselves against those two primary active self-declared threats whilst maintaining all the freedom to criticize and be unlike those in that alignment. However, trying to recast indigenous neighbours (not cuckoo ones) and their regimes as THE enemy, to background and trivialize the actual threats serves not us but those two and especially Israel . Although circa late last century, this speaks voices about Israel’s long term plans (from the Yinon document ):
“ Lebanon’s total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precendent for the entire Arab world
including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track. The
dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unqiue areas such as in Lebanon, is
Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power
of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its
ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a
Shi’ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus
hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and
certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and
security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today.
…Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will
shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in
Lebanon
….It is obvious that the above military assumptions, and the whole plan too, depend also on the Arabs
continuing to be even more divided than they are now, and on the lack of any truly progressive mass
movement among them. It may be that those two conditions will be removed only when the plan will be
well advanced, with consequences which can not be foreseen
…In order to ensure this, the plan, as explained orally, calls for the
establishment of Israeli garrisons in focal places between the mini states, equipped with the necessary
mobile destructive forces. In fact, we have seen something like this in Haddadland and we will almost
certainly soon see the first example of this system functioning either in South Lebanon or in all
Lebanon. “

Click to access the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east.pdf

So, you see how that guy really cares about his country and people? You see how attached he is, how not neutral. Its admirable in a way; he works his brains for what he deems to be good for himself and his people albeit measuring this in inverse proportion to the detriment of others. And here you are, amusing yourself with these surgical incisions the likes of him have worked on, poking the pieces of the region apart with your disinterested long academically jargonized stick to reify, for your readers, the sense of fragmentation whilst dispelling historically valid, organically intertwined and entrenched historical identities, thinking yourself too highly minded, too antiseptic and hypochondriac as an academic to accept a cliché, too pedestrian for you…maybe too passé, too common for your taste… that Israel is an enemy. No, better yet, let’s find a colourful way to connect HA to Gramsci. Yes, dilettantism, that’s your political expertise. I was not referring to your job at the university – I have all the respect for what you do within your academic domain – it is indeed a vital and vibrant domain that I would never think to belittle. I meant a dilettante when you venture into pseudo-intellectual political forays.
Although I appreciate that the above might be abrasive, please be assured that none of it was meant personally.

Posted by Trinkets | January 23, 2014, 1:29 am
I have a friend who thinks all the problems of the world are caused by Zionism. He doesn’t know what Zionism really means, but believes that it is altogether the problems caused by imperialism, colonialism, western militarism, Globalization, modernity, Technological advances, Scientific progress and the daily grind/rat race. he believes people like Hizballah and Assad are the last bastion of purity and resistance against the evil of Zionism. I think he spent a lot of time with his grandfather on a porch up in a village in Lebanon for far too long.
I also think that he and his likes are not rare species. Me believes his like are a dime a dozen. I see this thread has reminded me of my friend. I do apologize for the rant but if anybody has had a good experience in dealing with this kind of mentality, please feel free to advise me on the best method of conduct. I’m sick of arguing.

Posted by Maverick | January 23, 2014, 1:34 am
Maverick,

Your post wasn’t a “rant”; just a short story showing the by-product of the government-controlled ME media.

I think the real rant was the post just before yours.

Posted by Akbar Palace | January 23, 2014, 5:44 am
AP,

The post before mine was not a rant either. ‘Twas more a heralding of the end of times in a prophetic like manner after summoning the powers of the oracle at Delphi.

Posted by Maverick | January 23, 2014, 7:27 am
Maverick,

No, I still think “rant” is a good decription. I liked this comment:

Like Zionism, Wahabism carries a banner of hatred for others.

Once again, the by-product of the government-controlled media, clerics and misingormation.

Israeli-arabs are the safest and freest arab community in the ME. The Israeli christian community id the only christian community in the ME that is growing. Meanwhile , arabs are murdering each other on a daily basis.

It’s nice to have Trinkets with us here on QN to remind us how backward the ME still really is.

Posted by Akbar Palace | January 23, 2014, 8:34 am
Correction to my preceding post, should read: …albeit measuring this in proportion to the detriment of others (and not inversely proportional, naturally).

Posted by Trinkets | January 23, 2014, 9:50 am
Trinkets, am not an English major to judge but to a layman like I, your sentences are really difficult to comprehend, somewhat too scattered and at times incoherent. Perhaps it’s just me but I am now leaning towards Parhesia comment on your writing style. You should try a little more simple form in conveying your points so we can understand you better.

Posted by Vulcan | January 23, 2014, 11:14 am
Vulcan,

Have a few shots of Oban, then a smoke from Argileh(extra) then put on a “Nylon” disk on the turntable of Umm Kalsoum (any song)…Then you might comprehend or decipher. 😛

Posted by danny | January 23, 2014, 11:55 am
Am actually considering moving to Colorado 😉

Posted by Vulcan | January 23, 2014, 12:10 pm
Trinkets, will respond tonight.

Posted by Qifa Nabki | January 23, 2014, 12:38 pm
And here you are, amusing yourself with these surgical incisions the likes of him have worked on, poking the pieces of the region apart with your disinterested long academically jargonized stick to reify, for your readers, the sense of fragmentation whilst dispelling historically valid, organically intertwined and entrenched historical identities, thinking yourself too highly minded, too antiseptic and hypochondriac as an academic to accept a cliché, too pedestrian for you

Definitely. I think you should take a lesson from Trinkets on how to get rid of your “jargonized stick” and learn to write clear, comprehensible prose.

Posted by sean | January 23, 2014, 3:19 pm
You forgot to italicize the qualifying ‘disinterested’ and ‘academically’ (for instance, marxist revanchism – which I object to not for the language but for the associative enforced qualification ); i refer to the specific jargon (therefore intellectual conztructs – unlike you sean, Im not interested in scoring cheap points about one’s language) of a specific discipline being enforced here. For instance, if I object to “black cats”, I don’t object to ” cats”. Either engage substabtially or ignore my post; no need for your retort to be lacking in intelligence, relevance AND be condescending.

Vulcan, sorry whats mine is mine and whats yours is yours. I will totally understand if you choose to ignore ishould my language doesnt agree with you.

Posted by Trinkets | January 23, 2014, 4:05 pm
Not ignoring, if I wanted to do that I wouldn’t have commented earlier. With all due respect and just sayin, a less flamboyant and crowded style, might convey your message better.. Anyhow, carry on as you please.

Posted by Vulcan | January 23, 2014, 5:09 pm
That link you posted to a document from 1982 that discusses Zionist plans from 1900..let it go man, a lot has changed, it’s like you guys are grasping at straws. face it, the Arabs are a Zionist dream come true 🙂

Posted by Vulcan | January 23, 2014, 5:22 pm
IT must be nice to be Chinese. Just the other day I met a Chinese person. He asked where I was from, I said Lebanon. He looked a bit at a loss. I said, thinking surely this will light a bulb, next to Israel. Same Blank. Sweet for them. It is no wonder they delegate the ME to Russia.

A general point because it is tiring listening to so much inaccurate language: you may be against Hezballah or for them, but would someone please explain how Hezballah is terrorist? Other than the Israeli political frustrated at not being able to beat them down, which population is being terrorised exactly?

And anyone who thinks Iran created Hezballah, or Iran and Hezballah created a fighting force in the South of Lebanon: explain what would have triggered the creation of Hezballah if the IDF had not invaded and hung around for 20 years. Resistances are created by the invaders.

Finally, whatever anyone says now in these days of sectarian strife, in August of 2006 every Arab, every Muslim, every one with any sense of justice about the middle east (including my orthodox Cyrpiot doctor who said “I don’t know anything about Hezballah, I don;t know if they are terrorists, but I hope they win”) EVERYONE was ecstatic that after 60 years of losses, someone on our side gave them a big bloody nose.

No one should ever forget that. A big bloody nose even though the Saudis et al, the Egyptians, the EU, the US (with the proud exception of Jacques Chirac) were actively conspiring to defeat them [this is not a theory, search wikleaks on Saudi Arabia around the time of the war and see what the saudis were saying].

And, if today they are involved in a quagmire, and things are not black and white, well, so be it, that’s humanity for you, hero one day, screwing the pooch the next. But at least they’re not getting all emotional and killing civilians in their opponents “strongholds”.

Posted by Epok | January 23, 2014, 5:34 pm
And QN, sorry for the totally non-related nature of the post, but I am not the first on this thread 🙂

Posted by Epok | January 23, 2014, 5:36 pm
After Taleb “Those institutions that have existed the longest are, in all likelihood, those that will continue to exist into the future. As an example, imagine that the year is 1988 and answer the following: which structure will last the longest, the Berlin Wall or the Great Pyramid of Giza.”

It is 2014. Which will last longer Iran or Israel.

Posted by Epok | January 23, 2014, 6:00 pm
EPOK,

I am sure you are proud of giving them Zionists a bloody nose, especially as you directed the war efforts from your balcony in Jounieh or Broumenah with your VIP friends over scotch and caviar.

Tell it to the thousands who died or lost limbs or just lost their houses, for the sake of freeing the khanzeer Samir Quntar, a crazed child murderer from Arafat’s thawra hata’l nasr days.

Congratulations on your Divine Victory!

Posted by Vulcan | January 23, 2014, 6:07 pm
Whats wong about having cavier and wine AND supporting the fight against Israel? The very fact that Epok has written up his opinion here is enough to show others there is a support base, extendindg to individuals who are liberal minded, non religious, belong to other confessional backgrounds and so on. In fact, the fact that there are many people sipping wine AND supportsing HA (not necessarily simultaneously) is proof that the issue extends far beyond the strict confessionalism of the group and furthder of a cross-confessional consensus on the right to defend ourselves against Israel by the means made available to us.
If anything, Vulcan, you revert to mocking on the basis of the old lebanese sconfessionally and regionally isolationist system. You yourself are regressing. Epok’s observation is far more progressive and sffords a general humane basis and a nationalist conscious. Not a group of ghettoized tribes in the manner of the civil war. You present an old decaying and useless model. Its time for Lebanon to grow a national and a moral conscious, not foster confessional hatreds, hurt hegemonies and jealousies (a large part of which channels itself in the form of anti-HA.)

Posted by Trinkets | January 23, 2014, 7:11 pm
Hezbollah is terrorist because of the many acts of terrorism it committed and continues to commit since it was created and its creation and continued nurturing was and still is effected by none other than Iran, have no doubts about any of the above.

It is also Fascist because its leader, and by extension his blind followers, insist on being infallible and above criticism, particularly when it comes to ascribing to himself and his herd the obfuscation of being the most honorable of all men – most ridiculous form of Fascism ever manifested created by an ignorant and illiterate turbaned nonentity born in the obscure town of Bazourieh.

Hezbollah was created by Iranian mercenaries sent by Khomeini in the early eighties to Lebanon. About 500 such mercenaries occupied a historic hotel located in the outskirts of Baalbek. They then began organizing and proselytizing the local population t in order to become blind followers of the so-called S. Leader of the Iranian theocracy. For those who don’t know its history, Abbas Moussawi and Sobhi Tufeili were the leaders at the time with the latter being the first Sec. G. before Nasrallah took over. On more than one occasion Nasrallah declared in the clearest terms possible his total obedience and allegiance to a foreign entity and person, namely Iran and its so-called S. Leader, another illiterate turbaned non-essential usurper of absolute power who will settle for nothing less than to lead a herd of blind followers. Iran supplies Hezbollah with funds and weapons that overshadow even what is available to the Lebanese government itself. Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy organization operating on a presumably sovereign land called Lebanon. If you do not understand this simple fact, then there is no need to even engage in a rational discussion with anyone here or anywhere else for that matter.

The claim to being a resistance movement is as preposterous as any other claim made by this organization that relies on nothing but phantom and falsehoods to propagate its image of so-called most honorableness among others as an organization as well as its blind herd of directionless and lost followers, a task made easy after the herd is conditioned to follow blindly edicts and pronouncements of a illiterate nonentity, which brings to mind images of fascism and Nazism from bygone era. The most preposterous of these claims is in fact the claim to having achieved any victory in battle or otherwise, a claim which becomes obviously and absolutely clearly built on falsehoods to any rational person when he or she cares to utilize scrutinizing reasoning. Needless to say such scrutinizing is mostly nonexistent among the Lebanese as well as among their Arab neighbors, leading to the misconceived perceptions that were entertained by few Lebanese and some Arabs at one time which led them to believe that such claims to victory are in fact real.

Hezbollah began as a terrorist organization from the outset. Beirut marine bombing and the Khobar towers bombing are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to this practice of terrorism by this organization whose first Sec. G. boasts of well documented footages recorded by major news media of leading parades in his hometown of Baalbek proudly declaring himself while leading the processions of the ‘faithful’ herd as terrorist, chanting thus: terrorist, terrorist… I am a terrorist.

Later on the organization adopted the well-known tactics of political assassination in Lebanon in order to complete the subjugation of a sovereign country to foreign entity and its so-called infallible S. Leader. And if that is not terrorism pure and simple, then I do not know what is. It is currently engaged in the worst kind of terrorism against the civilian population of neighboring Syria, a population which clearly rejects and despises the herd ideology of this most despicable of human aberrations. Again, if that is not terrorism, in addition to being in support of the worst mass murderer the region knew in at least 500 years of its recent history, then I do not know what is

Posted by mustap | January 23, 2014, 7:20 pm
mustap’s is of course defamatory propoganda. Neither true nor realisticl. I can understand a nuanced criticism but this individual obviously has an agenda by repeating these misrepresentations and lies. There is no proof that the assassinations are whatsoever linked to HA. Israel is much more likely a suspect as it is officially the only enemy Lebanon has. The Hariri trial hasn’t ended yet and…the evidence provided so far is not only circumstantial, it is- according to technical experts easy to forge (telecom case of collocationality) and Israel has previously tampered with our telecom before and keeping in mind the Israeli devices inserted and installed in our networks by spies subcotracted by Israel. NNaturally enough, the Prosecution cares not for looking into this – so it fabricates a less likey narrative to target the resistance. Similarly discarded was that Israel had been sending its drones to spy in the very vicinity of the forthcoming harriri assassination leading up to the event. Israel had

So, no, I dont believe they did it. It certainly would involve Wissam Al Hassan with all the suspicious antics of his around that period …and probably Israel. What of the enriched uranium found on Bassel Flayhat. No way does HA that sort of whatever it was.
This court promises to be as biased, as much a political theatre calculated to defame abd falsely accuse HA as its Hague predecessor was, the trial against Milosěvić.

Posted by Trinkets | January 23, 2014, 8:28 pm
How can it be defamatory propaganda when most of what Mustap lists are facts? These are not hearsay. These are facts known to everyone and proclaimed high and low by HA themselves.
Mutap could have avoided certain part of his statement that may be speculatory (let’s say we don’t know who is behind the assassinations in Lebanon) and still been correct.

I don’t get how you can possibly argue that HA was not started by Iran.
Or how can you possibly argue that HA did not perform terrorist acts when they themselves celebrate the bombings at the marine barracks in the 80s and many such similar events.

It’s one thing to criticize (as you said so yourself), but it’s another altogether to deny actual proven and documented facts. Next you’ll be arguing that the earth is not, in fact, round, and that it does not revolve around the sun? There are some facts that are proven beyond the reasonable doubt. We can argue about who was behind the Hariri assassination or whathaveyou, that’s fine. But arguing over proven facts is entirely useless and a waste of time.

Posted by Bad Vilbel | January 23, 2014, 8:39 pm
QN, I hope you now see how your page attracts and retains a resident core of pro-israelis and the anti-resistance – as noted before. More interested in defaming, mocking and creating anti-resistance bytes than in engaging with others. It is actually not HA who are regressive, who extended their hand to others. It is people with petty complexes who regress to the traditional lebanese ghetto mentality. You mention dialogue; I dont see it. There is no talk of how, for instance, the resistance were to be dismantled, we could truly afford to protect our land and people. Sure, I dont mind…is it possible? Israel’s might a given. The talk with these people stops at expressing infesting hatreds and throwing vitriolic hyperboles and exagerrated accusations. You have provided them with a good home here. Herein also rears its head, that old decaying schizophrenic lebanese insularity, insulated from its own people and insulated from an ethical sense of right and wrong.

Posted by Trinkets | January 23, 2014, 9:18 pm
Seriously, though: I’m not sure if it’s an ESL issue or a case of an attempt at affected academic prose gone horribly wrong, but a significant proportion of your response is totally incomprehensible.

Posted by sean | January 23, 2014, 9:23 pm
In regards to the last couple, some phrases hadn’t been strung together properly, admittedly. Blame it on my thinking-through-the-phone skills (plus theathorrid autocorrect) – or not; I could care less. Now get over it and rise above the petty and snide remarks – unless you’re deliberately employing them subversively, which I expect you are. When I need to affix a pedantic english-language tutor as a derrière appendage, I’ll give you a holler. Now, find another. Thanks

Posted by Trinkets | January 23, 2014, 9:45 pm
Pro-Israelis. Anti-Resistance. Good ones, man!

No offense. And I’m not sure who you were addressing that comment to in particular. But one does not have to define themselves as being pro-Israeli or pro-Resistance exclusively.
The fact that you seem to want to put everyone in one of those 2 buckets (and forgive me if I am misunderstanding you here, if I am, please explain) is indicative of your thought process.
While there are indeed some pro-Israelis here (Akbar and AIG who is actually Israeli, so it makes sense for him to be pro-Israeli). And there are some pro-Resistance people here (yourself included, I presume). There are some of us (at least here, I’ll speak only for myself) who do not define themselves as belonging in either one of those buckets.
I am pro-Lebanon. My vision of Lebanon is that of a democratic, secular, state.
I am anti-reliigion and anti-sectarian. I am not a fan of HA. I am also not a fan of M14. I think both these sides need to go rot in hell, as they are both equally sectarian. I would like to see a true representative government and parliament, elected freely (hey, look! That’s a point M8 people like to usually make, no?).
I think the president should be elected by popular vote.(Again, an M8 leaning here).
I want religion and sect abolished from all politics.
I want Lebanon to be an independent nation. I do not want to be subservient to KSA or to Iran or to the USA.
I believe the Lebanese army should be the only army. I believe all militias and armed groups should be disarmed. Be they takfiris, Palestinians in their camps, HA or residents of Bab-Al-Tabbaneh. (on the disarming, I guess I fall in the M14 line).
I believe we need a strong and truly independent judiciary. Not the corrupt joke of a system we have now.
I believe everyone should be accountable for their crimes. I believe all warlords should be tried (screw this amnesty crap). And yes, this should include Jumbaltt, Berri, Gemayel, Aoun and Nassrallah (and any other I’m forgetting).
Where I stand on the Israel issue is VERY secondary to all of this, so labeling me as pro-Israeli or pro-Resistance is completely missing the point (at least as far as I go). I do not view Lebanon through the prism of Resistance or Israel. This obsession and fixation a lot of Lebanese have on that topic has gotten old. We need to move on and talk about productive things, such as how to reform our system (see all of my points above). That is far more important to me as a Lebanese than Syria, Palestine, Jerusalem or what the takfiris and Iranians want.
With a strong, reformed and unified state, we can deal with all those issues in a proper fashion.
However, as long as we remain divided (basically, along sectarian lines, like it or not), then Lebanon remains a cesspool of idiocy and ignorance. And that makes me sad.

Posted by Bad Vilbel | January 24, 2014, 12:47 am
Qifa, I do support resistance to the Zionist/Imperialist agenda in the region, and presently, Hezbollah is a large part of that resistance….it doesn’t mean that I agree with everything Hezbollah does or represents… for me, true resistance does not include terrorism such as CIA created Al Qaeda terrorism…. and yes, I don’t believe that Hezbollah has been committing the acts of terrorism it is being accused of….I believe that because Hezbollah’s resistance has been directed towards the Zionist /Imperialist agenda in the region, and because it became a very popular resistance group due to its resistance to Israel, the terrorist label was applied from the Zionist-imperialist camp..and presently it is being applied from within, by the Al Qaeda supporting allies of the Zionist/ imperialist camp…And I believe that the Sunni/Shia sectarianism being promoted in the region is an attempt weaken the resistance camp and undermine it’s unity and to put doubts in the minds of the people of the region.. And there was nothing disingenious about what I said earlier….what these young Sunni men, who are blowing themselves up to kill their fellow Lebanese and Muslims based on a Takfiri ideology that has links to US ally Saudi Arabia Wahabiism , don’t seem to understand, is that they are dying on behalf of the Zionist-Imperialist agenda in the region …the disingenuous are the ones who speak in two tongues, I do not speak in two tongues…and what I have noticed is that when someone from the resistance axis participates here, they are automatically attacked by you and your groupies and labeled….clear enough?

Posted by Marion | January 24, 2014, 1:18 am
Marion,

A question. Honestly.

You say that the terrorism label was applied to HA because they are a very popular resistance group to Israel.
I ask honestly. Were you around in the 1980s, when HA first emerged? Do you recall them being a “popular group” at the time? Yet, they were accused (and mostly admitted to) various acts one would describe as terrorist in nature, at the time, right off the bat.
Or are you looking at this through the prism of the 2006 “popularity” of HA? Or even in 2000, when they were championed for having liberated the south? (I’ll grant you, HA was in large part responsible for that by being a constant thorn in the side of the IDF and SLA).
I am just wondering, because I read the way you wrote this last comment, and it makes me wonder if you choose to ignore or forget certain aspects of HA and glorify other aspects.
Were you around in the days of the HA-Amal war in Beirut and its suburbs? Was that “popular”? Was that “Resistance”? Or was that a localized turf war, which was attributed at the time, to a struggle between Syria and Iran over control of a certain consituency?
I use that as but one example.
The point I am getting at is that I feel people tend to want to put everything and everyone in a “with us” or “against us” camp. Black and white. And when they do that, they seem to conveniently forget a lot of actual facts (or are you gonna tell me there never was an Amal-HA war? I must have imagined that) to suit their narrative.

Posted by Bad Vilbel | January 24, 2014, 1:40 am
Bad Vilbel;

I’m appreciative you took your time to explain and I concur with many many of your points. Yes, absolutely, the country should not be held hostage by either this side or that. And please understand – as an equally secular, liberal, so on and so forth, individual- my belief in maintaining a resistance is neither ideological, not kamikaze.

Lik, either you have a self respecting country and nation that can keep its enemies at bay or you don’t. Unfortunately, we can’t afford to be stretches of beaches and ski slopes divorced from the regional complexities (assuming that we can imagine ourselves forgoing our inherent, peculair and dysfunctional fuckedup-ness). And I seriously can’t believe that the lebanese army has been left inept simply out of default. Now, either you view Israel as a threat or not. In my estimation, one judges a person or entity by its track record. Stolen lands, dispossessed and displaced people (with the incurred and persisting imbalancing effects on Lebanon), continual violation of our integrity, expropriation of our sources…and who knows what they have up their sleeve. And if othe state cant protect its people, in the south, beirut, bekaa…then how dare it chastise them over forming their own devices against an external threat.

We’re stuck in a rut, truth be told. We were not allowed to equip your army to counter Israel (and unless its a strong enough army, a conventional setup won’t do). We, as a country, have to continually negotiate the regional disruptive dynamics. We are in no position to ignore this or to play little prissy missy. You get with the program and align yourself suitably – yes its not clean work, there will be compromises and all that ( although while noting that i am equally in agreement with you,x- warlords on the side of M8 are as contemptible as those on the M14 side) But we maintain the internal defensive strength we, as a country, have.

This is my point of view on the resistance. In terms of the disgustingly flagrant state failure on nearly all fronts internally, rife corruption, embezzlement, incompetent security forces, epic failures in upholding the rights of its citizens and residents and the fair application of law, abuse of the law on the part of religious authorities and institutions. …all our political leaders are to blame. Its really quite disgusting. The lebanese citizen is a persona non grata in her or his own country. And we have a long way to go in terms of better treating each other and others less fortunate (law obiding palestinan and syrian refugees, maids, foreign labourers…etc) The state should not subcontract this to NGOs and the like. It should step up ..but most of them are bloody thiefs who get continually renewable and automatic clemency. The lebanese state is deeply flawed and rotting inside out.

But the defensive capacity against the external threat and the internal shortcmings should not be conflated, using one to argue the other down.

Posted by Trinkets | January 24, 2014, 1:59 am
Trinkets, your 9:18 post is crystal clear and on the point. Nice summation.
This blog is anti-resistance for the most part and new posters suspected of holding divergent views are subjected to a hazing of sorts. The hyperbole above is the lingua franca of the would-be enforcers who would brook no dialogue or discussion of the truths they hold to be self-evident. They are self-appointed and oldschool.

Posted by lally | January 24, 2014, 2:22 am
Bad Vilbel;

If I may apropos your post to Mariob: I remember the HA and Amal fights…and let me tell you, however one views HA, I view Amal – especially back then- as thugs. So, its not surprising that there would be – at least from the side of Amal both, a tendency and a reason to keep their monopoly over their cconsistencies (effectively, many if not most of the most resistance-dedicated elements in Amal migrated to HA). Also, that period was one of extreme chaos and everyones worldview was warped at the time. I prefer to see what theyve become than what their birth pangs were like (and I believe they were far less detrimental to fellow lebanese than most other engaged groups)

Secondly, support of HA need not be blind to these past events. I am perfectly aware of the events youre referring to and still, with that knowledge, I have no moral issue with my position. One should also not dismiss that HA has hanged radically in its mannerisms, in its communication and propoganda department, in following live and let live policy, of lessening its religious rigour on its comunity (they would have long been fragmented otherwise) the freedom to in its standing as a very successful model spanning the familial, social, institutional and military. It is, without this being a compliment, the most successful singular institution Lebanon now has. Yes, there is support from Iran, but this quite is another issue. In its corpus, it is veritabley lebanese.

Again, pragmatics and priorities: wwhom do you define as an enemy, in a real sense. Theyre, HA, not my enemies (nor are Amal thugs for that matter – they should go to jail, but theyre not enemies ie state enemies).

Posted by Trinkets | January 24, 2014, 2:27 am
A few corrections :
1. monopoly over consistuencies, not consistencies
2. HA has changed radically, not hanged

Thanks Lally, appreciated by the way, I dont think we read the same timing of posts. 9.18 might be something else here. Anyway…im peering into the small screen of a phone)

Posted by Trinkets | January 24, 2014, 2:36 am
Ooops, sorry Lally, I see it now (and apologies for triple posting consecutively).

Posted by Trinkets | January 24, 2014, 2:40 am
Typical isn’t it. Any sort of criticism directed toward Hizballah supporters for their hypocrisy and you get barked at for bieng pro this and anti that. That’s the problem with Fascism , it cannot tolerate other viewpoints.

Posted by Maverick | January 24, 2014, 3:31 am
Vulcan, I believe trinkets already answered on my behalf. Let’s say that I admire the Resistance for what they did. I may have a large collection of wine, I may not be Shiite, I may not even be all that Lebanese, but I know a hero when I see one. As an American (my other half) I don’t need to have crawled into the twin towers on 9/11 to admire the heroism of a firefighter, I don’t need to even share a nationality with Nelson Mandela to admire his fight. Obviously the white south africans do not see Mandela as a hero (the white establishment he was fighting) but that is a fault in their point of view. Heroism is human, all the better that my Lebanese side can be nationalistically proud (for once) of Hezballah in 2006.

Trinkets, I love watching the faces of people who come into my apartment in Achrafiyeh and notice my little photo of Hassan Nasrallah (given to me by a friend as a kind of joke, I now keep it there to make exactly the point you are making that wealthy, no shia form part of their support base). And as an added bonus almost every person who comes to do any work (painters, a/c repair whatever) is either Shia or Aouni, they feel so happy.

As for the my ‘cohort’ of wealthy christians, well, let’s just say I am an enigma to them. On the other hand, they are enigma to me, supporting Saad of Jeddah and Geagea while prattling on about western values. They all claim to identify Israel as an enemy state, but the terror of 2006 is now forgotten and their claims do not ring true.

To my final point…assertions that Hezballah is terrorist are common, and yet to those of us who live with real terrorism (unfortunately all Lebanese-chatah was killed close enough that my windows shook), those of us who worry, rationally or not, about the safety of their kids in school here, it is abundantly clear what exactly terrorism is (random targeting of civilian populations) and what it is not (forceful acts of self defines against enemies. I may have missed it, but no one has mentioned which populations are actually being terrorised by Hezballah?

And as for the fact that they are ‘fascist’. Well within their own organisation, yes, it is a militarised, highly disciplined non-democratic entity. But so is every every corporation (except zappos shoes now). Outside their organisation they hav many imitators but they do not enforce any particular code. I have a teacher here whose sister is married to a hezballah cadre. Her sister is the only one of 4 sisters who covers her hair with a scarf. There is a lot of debate in her family about this, but the Hezballah man himself sits out of it, does not object when he comes into their families cafe which serves alcohol (which is in a christian area).

The real damage is not that people criticise the resistance. They don’t really care. I admire them, and don’t like seeing them criticised, but it does;’t make a big difference. They real issue is that anyone who would like peace in the region will have to deal with the strong parties and this constant mis-information and fear mongering retard any effort among populations to understand what is happening and therefore stop pressure forming on the political actors. (This is exactly why those political actors use propaganda).

So I restate the question. Which population is being terrorised by HEzballah.

Posted by Epok | January 24, 2014, 3:56 am
BTW, Trinkets, I reread a couple of your posts and I think I can safely leave this forum to you…exactly right on one major point that I rarely hear discussed by the ‘disarm hezballah’ crowd. Who would defend Lebanon? The idea that Lebanon should be ‘neutral’ and like switzerland, weak, and then people will leave us alone, is patently false. Any reading of history of any period I have come across clearly shows that peace is the result of institutional control of violence. Violence, the threat of violence, are what keep the peace at the level of the street and between nations. Weakness engenders opportunism by enemies. And I am not talking about the middle east, check out europe for the last 3000 years. Switzerland has mountains and a huge citizen army.

Until someone can show me who will keep the IDF at bay, I will not accept a single bullet being removed from HA armoury. But what I want is irrelevant. You’d have to pry that bullet out of their cold, dead hands, and that ain;t on the cards…

Posted by Epok | January 24, 2014, 4:20 am
The war in syria was stoked in Lebanon from 2006 until 2010. It was Hezballah’s strength and discipline that prevented it from igniting here. Lebanon, for once, is stronger than its neighbours, or, at least, strong enough to not get dragged into war.

Posted by Epok | January 24, 2014, 4:21 am
New names same old regurgitated crap. Thanks BV for taking the time AGAIN; to put our thoughts (most of us) into the right perspective. However; these “resistance” crowd is more under the influence then Hendrix was at his peak. 😀

Posted by danny | January 24, 2014, 8:01 am
Danny, if you need to firmly believe in the fact that we are “under the influence” or blindly following, then I would suggest you have lost the argument, you have shutdown, and you will miss the changes that are happening.

Personally I find that quite an insulting attitude. I would like to simply tell you that I have lived in 7 countries on three continents for more than 3 years each, graduated with honours from an Ivy league University made a small fortune in finance and another in Real Estate having invested in Europe and the Middle East. In short, I don’t have the self-confidence issue that would prevent me listening to another persons pov and rationally thinking about it, discussing it and potentially changing my own opinion.

In my personal journey I at some point rejected religion, having been brought up Catholic. I was a fairly militant atheist. Listening to intelligent people counter me though, has led me to change my views again, to appreciate the wisdom religions can contain and to admire the lives of men like Jesus, Buddha and others. At no point have I ever thought I was in possession of the truth, but I always think that my current views are more nuanced and intelligent that my previous views.

I live in a nest of March 14 people. A very, very few have valid points that I can agree with, and then we can disagree on how to achieve basically common goals, but most are like you, accusing me of stupidity despite the ample evidence to the contrary.

Your comment is, again, insulting to me. But it is to your own credibility that do the most damage.

Posted by Epok | January 24, 2014, 8:41 am
And putting a smiley face at the end of an insult does not in any way make you polite.

Posted by Epok | January 24, 2014, 8:43 am
Regugirating does not make your point, and neither does it qualify you for extra effort and time on our part to repeat well known facts.

Lastly regurirating does not make you a participant in a rational discussion. It does make you, however, a participant in the herd behavior of propagating phantoms and falsehoods of that which you admire.

Posted by Mustap | January 24, 2014, 8:46 am
Oh, and Danny, by the way, the Resistance axis has been winning for about 15 years now. And given US realignment in the mid east, it doesn’t look too good for their enemies. You may have great hopes for the future, but as we say in trading, the trend is your friend.

Posted by Epok | January 24, 2014, 8:52 am
Mustap. If you are accusing my of regurgitating, as in spitting out unthinkingly what has been fed to me, then you are insulting as Danny. In any car, you are also wrong because Regurgutating a good argument does not change it into a bad one.

I started by asking a simple question. Which population is Hezballah terrorising. Well, I was met with no answers but a lot of boilerplate.

C’mon pro-saad of jeddah, pro-zionist, left behind by changing american policy, anti Iranians, a bit of thought, a bit of intellect applied…please. Answer the question…

Posted by Epok | January 24, 2014, 8:56 am
Thanks to everyone for keeping it civil. Will try to weigh in, for what it’s worth, this afternoon.

Posted by Qifa Nabki | January 24, 2014, 9:07 am
An already answered question does not warrant another answer.

Regurgiration is not spitting out to the open. Regurgiration used in the context of making comments and/or speeches is simply an act of engaging in a monologue for such does not qualify the regurgitator as another pole in a bipolar or multipolar discussion.

As a biological function, regurgiration is the well known behaviour of certain animals of redigesting the same food previously fed and stored in the belly. The similitude is of course startling when the term is used in the context commenting and talking.

Posted by Mustap | January 24, 2014, 9:11 am
“Oh, and Danny, by the way, the Resistance axis has been winning for about 15 years now.”

Epok, too bad you feel insulted. I don’t although you heap loads of propaganda and stale rhetoric. See your ridiculous comment above. Do tell. How is winning defined in a divine mind? Destruction of Lebanon to save a child killer? Terrorizing Lebanese and burning TV stations? Having your divine party’s leaders on trial for assassination of Hariri and others? Syria in devastation? Iran begging for mercy so that sanctions are removed? You do have a very low definition for “winning”. I am happy for your Ivy league…fortune…etc. Too bad education does not equate with intelligence or common sense.

Posted by danny | January 24, 2014, 10:23 am
Still no answers to the simple question. The question is not already answered Mustap. I know what regurgitation is…whether we are referring to an ornithological context or it’s application in dialogue. Seems like a digression though.

Danny, I have read a few Israeli accounts of the aftermath of the 2006 war. Israel was founded by idealists, Europeans and still retains many of the basic qualities that those founders stirred into the mix. While far from a perfect place (and, unfortunately getting less perfect as time proceeds) they had a very open discussion of that war. No matter which (Israeli) political current one refers or defers to, you can not find someone who thinks that Israel won in 2006. The outcome goes from ‘fought us to a standstill’ to ‘defeated the IDF’. Only among the Lebanese will people, with a straight face, say that Hezballah lost.

As for Syria, well, it is ongoing, but given the imminent departure of assad 3 years ago, given that they just took back aleppo airport (ok it’s not the downtown, but hey), and especially given the awesome sight of Saudi sponsored Qaeda fighting Qatari sponsored Qaeda…well, the odds are not 50/50.

Iran, hmmm…30 years of refusing to buckle, looks like they are getting a seat at the table.

Bahrain…yeah, that’s gonna remain stable.

Saudi…a senile king (which is too bad, I think he was relatively decent) presiding over an increasingly chaotic royal family, 25m people which are too many to feed on the teat of oil, an elite groupings of families who have not stomached, until today, that their country is named after the Saud family. (Ok, the US is named after a an Italian explorer, but i am not sure that offends anyone anymore). hmmm…one could have his doubts.

And behind the scenes those two countries who do not count as part of the international community in the western press, China and Russia, who have shown great foresight in the construction of their strategy and brat discipline and tactical brilliance in executing it.

But yes, they are clearly losing.

just as an aside, the only other modern arab leader, that I really think was awesome was Faisal of Saudi Arabia. Just amazing to have the balls to stand up for his beliefs. Apologies is this is not the correct verbatim statement, but it’s close:

King Faisal was a great monarch, who stood by Egypt in the 1973 war, and was one of the principal reasons for Israel’s defeat. He said [to the West]: “We are used to desert life. We have no problem living in tents, drinking goat milk, and eating dates. We don’t want anything from you. Don’t want anything from you. Don’t take our oil. Goodbye.”

And therein lies true strength…we don’t want anything from you. And that is why Hezballah can not be defeated. That is why the Vietnamese won.

Posted by Epok | January 24, 2014, 11:03 am
btw Danny, you don;t feel insulted because I did not insult you.

Posted by Epok | January 24, 2014, 11:05 am
Danny…it is not my divine party. Not that it is relevant. However, the leaders of HA are not on trial. The guys on trial, about whom I have to admit knowing nothing, seem, at best, to be a bunch of pretty minor operators.

Posted by Epok | January 24, 2014, 11:06 am
Once again, thanks to Epok and Trinkets for their contributions. I have several notes for a response to both… in a few hours.

Posted by Qifa Nabki | January 24, 2014, 11:15 am
Epok,

Before you comment…Do your research. Baddredine is NOT a minor operator (I will let you try to find out…). You still are going in a circuitous lumping and dumping. Stay close to Lebanon. Again; you think that your resistance axis has won? You and I have different measures of what constitutes winning. FYI; you are insulting our collective intelligence with your recycled cliches and endless regurgitation of old propaganda…But we are inoculated against the yellow fever.

Try to articulate what is good for Lebanese (“Only among the Lebanese will people, with a straight face, say that Hezballah lost.)…that’s your true way of thinking. The rest of Lebanese should suffer for the terrorist entity’s misadventures to save child killers!.

“As for Syria, well, it is ongoing, but given the imminent departure of assad 3 years ago, given that they just took back aleppo airport (ok it’s not the downtown, but hey), and especially given the awesome sight of Saudi sponsored Qaeda fighting Qatari sponsored Qaeda…well, the odds are not 50/50.”

I guess that is considered a win for the convoluted minds. Here is what separates Hizbi crowd from the level headed clear thinking ones. As far as I am concerned all those Muslim fanatics; Shiaa(HA) or Sunna(Qaeda types) are murderers irrespective of how they trim their beards (before you jump again…All extremists of all religions are the same.).

What about the 200,000 dead and tortured?

Winner par excellance.

Stop the childish comparisons. Seriously!

Posted by danny | January 24, 2014, 11:23 am
Let us examine or scrutinize, if the herd of the proxies is capable of such, a term that has been floating around for quite sometime and taken for granted as something everyone needs to champion the false cause of its eradication, and even engage under such pretense in terrorism in neighboring Syria by the herd superiors, more falsehoods and phantoms promoted by the ever-winning-no-matter-what turbaned illiterates.

The term in question is the much celebrated term of ‘takfirism’ – a so-called plague according to the Sec. G. of the Iranian proxies in Lebanon, who presumably won the 2006 showdown after destroying much of the south and many parts of Lebanon, and later admitting that had he known the consequences he would never have ventured into kidnapping the Israeli soldiers. Yet, he still insists that he won the ‘war’ in a form of contradictory illusory logic in the same vein as he denies the legitimacy of the STL while the ‘faithful’ herd is instructed to come here and elsewhere, and never to shy of making use of such an ‘illegitimacy’ to ‘prove’ to us in the most crude form of convoluted argumentation and illogic that the continued proceedings of this ‘illegitimacy’ prove the innocence of their superiors, and that it is our duty to withhold judgement until the same ‘illegitimate’ court makes its decisions known to us for facts that have become clearer than the sun when it shines in the sky on a cloudless day. For normal people, it is either legitimate and you take ALL it has to offer, or illegitimate and you never take ANYTHING from it. But that is for normal people ONLY.

What is ‘takfir’ in Arabic? If I say someone is a ‘kafir’, then this is an incomplete sentence. I need to say what is it that the person is ‘kafir’ with. Because the verb of ‘takfir’ simply means disbelieve as opposed to believe in something. So exactly what is the Sec. G. telling us to do about these phantom ‘takfiris’? Is he telling us that we should shut them up and prevent them from expressing an opinion. This is clearly against the very principle of free speech. I may say that I am ‘kafir’ with George Washington, which means I do not believe in what George Washington did, said or stood for. If I say that in English, then no eye brows will be raised whatsoever, except that I may be described as eccentric or in urgent need for a dose of common sense. But according to Hassan of Bazourieh, I cannot say ‘ana akfuru’ with what George Washington did, said or stood for and such exercise of free speech would qualify the herd leader of the proxies to wage terrorism against the civilian population of neighboring Syria!

The question then becomes what about those who describe others as ‘kafir’? This is where the issue of free speech comes into play, and which is deliberately sidelined by Nasrallah and distorted into a plague that needs to be fought and liquidated, and it is the duty of the herd to follow blindly the edicts of the turbaned illiterate. If I truly do not believe in something (i.e. ‘kafir’ in that thing), then by what reasoning should others refrain from calling me as such, much less justify acts of mass terrorism against the whole civilian population of neighboring Syria? This is all based on the assumption that such ‘takfiris’ are indeed the problem in neighboring Syria, and NOT the mass murderer Nasrallah rushed to support against the will of the Syrian people.

Posted by Mustap | January 24, 2014, 12:22 pm
So many comments to respond to. I’ll try to be brief so as to tackle each one of them. Apologies if I forget someone. Multitasking doesn’t always allow for the best discussions.

1) Trinkets:
I agree with the essence of your comment in response to mine (sadly, comments aren’t numbered anymore, so I can’t point to the one exactly). Your basic point is that the Lebanese state has failed to protect its citizens (no argument there) and that you therefore cannot blame a group from wanting to defend itself from an aggressor (Israel) based on its track record. Your argument is fine (to a point, and I’m playing devil’s advocate here), but if you want it to stick, you have to be willing to apply it equally to everyone. I quote you “Now, either you view Israel as a threat or not. In my estimation, one judges a person or entity by its track record.”
Hence: Will you deny that Syria’s track record in Lebanon has been equally threatening (maybe more, maybe less, depending on who you are)? I think it’s hard to deny that. Now by extending your logic there, the LF types had every right to form a militia (which they ironically called “Resistance”) back in the 80s.
And I imagine the “Sunnis” (I’m gonna use that term loosely here, since most things are sectarian nowadays) would have every right to have formed a militia after the events of 2008 (if not before). Considering they clearly feel threatened by Syria and by HA.
I’m not trying to say those things are fine. They are not. But the way I see it, while your argument starts off on sound footing (the lack of strength of the Lebanese state and Leb. Army), it quickly ends up justifying exactly the crap we’ve had since before 1975: Everyone using that as an excuse to arm themselves and defend themselves from whatever perceived threat they may feel (said threats differ based on your sect, clearly. To some it’s Israel, to some its Syria or the PLO, to some it’s the Shia HA, and so on). That logic will never “fix” anything. 1975-1990 is proof of that. As are countless other civil wars in other countries over the years.
Secondly, I want to address the question of arming the Leb. Army. Let’s say it’s true that the West did not want to provide the LAF with weapons and training, to keep it weak. Fine. Shameful of them, pro-Israel lobbies, etc. etc.
Why didn’t Iran or Syria, our so-called “brother and sister” equip our army? If they meant so well and were only looking out for our well being, against the Israeli threat, why not help the official govt be stronger? Can you deny that both Iran and Syria preferred to strengthen their proxies, forces they can better control more directly (not that I blame them, such is the reality of international politics)? And therefore, and going back to the first point: Doesn’t this once again lead to the vicious cycle of each group in Lebanon looking for foreign sponsors, leading us once again down the path of everyone and their sister wanting their own militia?
Again, there was never a good reason to not have the Lebanese state strengthened to address your fears of Israel. If the West didn’t want to help us, the so-called “resistance axis” could have. But they didn’t. They instead chose to have their own proxies answerable to them.

I’ll tackle the next comments in a separate post.

Posted by Bad Vilbel | January 24, 2014, 1:17 pm
again, Mustap is ready to use -no, actually, to now create- any tool, irrespective of how evidently warped and twisted, de-contextualized, feebly construed, far fetched and -quite simply- calculated to do nothing but justify itself apropos an attack on the resistance : in short, a ridiculous attempt at using obfuscation to reach his or her desired end, and an irrational hate-laden one at that. there is neither intelligence nor wisdom in his words – in his or her case, we are no longer talking about criticism of the HA, we`re talking blind and irrational hatred. Unfortunately, there are many such voices in our region and they contribute to the increasing fragmentation.

Takfiris is now, a technically definite term applied to a definite group with a defined set of beliefs, a term that even the West has adopted. We`re talking about a specific strain of religious fundamentalism that does not tolerate other religions and actively stifles them, killing and persecuting their members. They show up, self evidently, in such factions as the ISIL (Da7ish), Al Nusrah, in the guise of the the Islamic coaltition and its member groups. We are not talking about the semantic origins of the word, the word Takfiri implies equally that :

1- whether you are a Muslim or not, if you’re not our kind of Moslem, you’re an infidel
2- that you are an infidel, we have the divine right to persecute you and kill you if you don’t convert to our perception of the religion (and not just to the religion)

It is hilariously desperate that an individual like Mustap should be describing Hezbollah -who’s confessional and, more widely, national support base exist with all other factions without the last indication of takfirism- as facist and yet, here s/he is ready to dissipate the real mortal-social-cultural threat of takfirists. Its the equivalent of Samir Geagea, an old master at twisted, ridiculous and immoral harvesting of blood, telling us that us that the stories about Maaloula and the persecution, murder and banishment of its Christian residents is nothiing but “hype” and pro-Bashar and pro-Resistance propoganda.

If I may quote from http://mondediplo.com/2007/07/03takfirism

” Takfirism is a centuries-old belief that suddenly revived among Islamic militants in Egypt after the Israeli victory in 1967. It claims that the Muslim ummah (the community of believers) has been weakened by deviation in the practice of Islam. Takfirism classifies all non-practising Muslims as kafirs (infidels) and calls upon its adherents to abandon existing Muslim societies, settle in isolated communities and fight all Muslim infidels.

…The Takfirists focused on the enemy within. The lesson they learned after 9/11 was simple: they had been ransomed for US dollars and bombed by both western and Pakistani infidels. Henceforth, they would make no distinction between Muslims and Christians or between presidents Musharraf and Bush. The elimination of the enemy within was a necessary preliminary to any showdown with outsiders.

…They must continue their war against western armies, but meanwhile will lay down the basis for a conformist Islamic state to keep dissenting brethren in line. As well as raising the standard of rebellion against Muslim states, they have attacked moderate pro-Islamic reformists inside resistance groups based in the Waziristans. Takfirists abhor Shiism, which they regard as an unacceptable deviation from Islam. Sectarian warfare has assumed a partnership with jihad, over which it often takes precedence. Takfirism is messianic – the sole leadership of Muslims against apostates and the infidel West.”

Posted by Trinkets | January 24, 2014, 1:25 pm
2) Epok:

You state: “So I restate the question. Which population is being terrorised by HEzballah.”

Just off the top of my head:
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1181667/thumbs/r-ANTIHEZBOLLAH-PROTESTER-KILLED-large570.jpg?6

I link to that particular image because it’s a bit hard to deny that one (although I am sure some of you pro-HA types who refuse reality will tell me that was photo-shopped or somesuch).
And that is but one example of people being terrorized by HA. Maybe you’ve already forgotten the events of May 2008? That wasn’t people being terrorized? (And please don’t tell me that was just the SSNP and Amal thugs. It may have been them on the ground, but those events wouldn’t have happened without HA’s approval). Burning down opponents’ TV stations or newspapers is not “terrorizing”? It’s the very definition of the word.

Now you may admire the aspect of HA that resulted in freeing the South in 2000. Hard to argue that one. To you, that may qualify someone as a hero. I get that logic. I truly do. But it is hard for me to look at the “firefighter” you mention in your analogy (which I find rather way off, personally) as a hero when I know that these firefighters have a habit of raping and abusing their wives (I say that as an example, I have no evidence that firefighters do any such thing). This is a perfect example of what I meant in an earlier post about selective choosing of what to remember about these groups that many here tend to want to admire. They pick one “accomplishment” and suddenly, convenientily forget everything else.
To me, the aura of “hero” and “liberator of the South” goes out the door the moment those same people plant bombs, or beat protesters, or burn down TV buildings.
Similarly, the most heroic firefighter in the entire world will have no admiration from me the moment he beats his wife or rapes his daughter. Sorry.

Posted by Bad Vilbel | January 24, 2014, 1:29 pm
I like the way Hezbollah is protecting ~~Syrians~~ Assad from Zionism. So far it’s working well.

Posted by Akbar Palace | January 24, 2014, 1:58 pm
Assuming that the representative of the herd proxies is correct in stating that ‘takfirism’ is messianic, which is a big assumption to which he/she provided no proof whatsoever, then what is the difference between this so-called ‘messianic takfirism’ which will presumably seek to liquidate ‘ALL’ its opponents and the so-called ‘messianic Mahdism’ in which the so-called Mahdi will also seek to liquidate ‘ALL’ his opponents?

Not withstanding the big assumption, why should I, as an individual, be forced to make a choice between two ridiculous options?

There is no need to respond to obfuscations of so-called resistance demagoguery, as it has been clearly disproven by recent Syrian events.

I would rather stick to the linguistic meanings of ‘takfirism’ than having to deal with phantom concepts built on sheer assumptions.

Posted by mustap | January 24, 2014, 2:21 pm
Bad Vilbel,

Hashem Salmein?

م تكتشف الأجهزة اللبنانية المعنيّة حتى اللحظة الجهة التي أطلقت النار على هاشم سلمان قرب السفارة الإيرانية في بيروت أول من أمس، على الرغم من تحديدها مشتبهاً فيه وتعمل على ملاحقته. لكنّ ما حصل مع سلمان، رئيس الهيئة الطلابيّة في تيار الانتماء اللبناني، يشبه إلى حدٍّ بعيد ما حصل مع الشاب أحمد محمود قبل سنوات في منطقة قصقص، إذ قضى محمود برصاص مسلّحين مجهولين قيل إنهم ينتمون إلى تيّار المستقبل، خلال وجوده في موكب لقوى 8 آذار مع بداية التحركات السلمية ضدّ حكومة الرئيس فؤاد السنيورة الأولى from http://al-akhbar.com/node/184787

It was never determined where the shot came from and questions were not answered. Furthermore, a few singular incidents, couched in mystery and possibilites -in a country rife with such mystery and duplicities from an inordinate number of actors, and riddled with intelligence agents, arab and israeli- does not go the distance in providing a reason to demonize HA.

You may assume all you wish, but equally, how can you prove the car bombs were HA’s doing? The one’s in dahye included? HA have, if anything, proven to be strategically intelligent; even if you imagine them to be this evil (which is a streth of imagination in itself – someone is not guilty unless proven). The farcical presentation of the Prosecution team ( i had delved a bit into that somewhere above)? Moreso, the Hague court itself is genetically, a political tool, again Milosevic and the farcical trial against him, a political shadowplay in reality to end the Serbian non-acquiesence by pseudo-legalistic means. This trial promises to be as much of a farce and I have great doubt that it will – contrary to the wishes of the Lebanese who kiss the proverbial white man’s ass thinking that its a de facto shrine of honesty, professionalism and universal justice- disclose the truth to us.

Unfortunately, neither you nor I can truly truly verify beyond a shadow of a doubt our own stance. But as mentioned earlier, its all a matter of priorities and identifying who your real enemy is – things then get denominated by that, not just paying lip service as many anti-HA purportedly anti-Israel people do (who then, in secret talks with US embassies, edge the US to let ISrael carry on its murder of Lebanese to appease their hatred of HA).

I will get back to the Syria issue later (if I’m able, a bit busy), but you can imagine that the reply centers on defining that priority. I personally – like many others- do not like the Syrian regime and corruption across the board and had, before all this nonesense blew up in their face and ours, never voiced agreement, liking, or condoning of the regime. No way. But this is not a reason to commit suicide by inviting these cannibals, who have forfeited all their humanity to screw a dozen or so virgins in their imagined paradise, into our homes. We have clear choices – we are a small country that MUST pick and choose its partners; yes, we have to be sullied unfortunately. Again, I am in total accord with your endsight of Lebanon -one which most, if not all, would love to be established-and some of us deceive themselves into thinking it is – but it is a dream.

Posted by Trinkets | January 24, 2014, 3:21 pm
I mean, so far, it is a dream. One we are completely incapacitated to realize to date and which we cannot sacrifice the country for an ideal that wont be realized, not now and not in this manner – as do and did the anti-regime Syrians (i preclude the religious nuts and the common thugs) supporting the military option. Yes, delusion has its price.

I suggest that the day the anti-resistance lebanese turn on HA and its base, whether through -for instance- asking for foreign intervention apropos a future tribunal indictment. ..or any such scenario….will be the day you can kiss lebanon goodbye…for years and decades if not forever.

Reality is HA are not going away. We are forced to live with each other and compromise…and reality is HA will not compromise on viewing Israel as an enemy and will want to retain its power in the absence of other competent tools. This is not even me voicing my own beliefs – this is an objective observation as you would agree.

Realistically, given the above, how in the heck are you supposed to retain a cemented-together Lebanon without working either along with, or with HA rather than against them? The profusion of wild attacks against them -many subsidized by saudi and foreign funds calculated with a greater geopolitical purpose (iran)- is creating schisms within the lebanese that may turn fatal. Do you addbalm or do you help cut deeper?

Posted by Trinkets | January 24, 2014, 3:52 pm
Trinkets,

You kind of went off on tangents there.
1) I listed more than just the incident Hashem Salman. What about May 2008? That’s not terrorizing people?
2) You did not respond to my comments about support for the Lebanese Army, and how only reforming the state would prevent these cycles of everyone wanting to defend their “community” against the perceived enemy. As i said, to some it’s Israel, to some it’s Syria and to some it’s the Shia or the Sunnis. The point is everyone has a perceived enemy, right or wrong. That should not be an excuse to arm oneself. That goes just as much for the takfiris as it does for HA. This logic only begets a vicious cycle of violence, IMHO.
3) I specifically did not mention Hariri or the current spate of bombings because, much like you, I would prefer to see evidence. Innocent until proven guitly (which is more than I can say for how most Lebanese think). I listed enough evidence of past events, to support my points, without having to bring in the STL or the current assassinations.
4) Do not assume for one moment that I have any love for “those cannibals” as you call them. To me, they are a different side of the same coin (if not as well organized, yet…). Everything I said goes doubly so for the takfiris. The only reason I haven’t mentioned them yet is because you and I actually agree on them, I presume.
5) Do not fall into the pitfall that many on this blog often do: Two wrongs do not make a right. If I criticize HA, it does not mean I support M14, or takfiris. I hate those guys just as much. I have made that clear in previous postings. It simply wasn’t the topic at hand here, except in saying that the takfiris are simply another (if more barbaric) manifestation of the same vicious cycle I alluded to before: In the absence of a strong state, everyone arms themselves to defend their community against who they think is the enemy (rightly or wrongly). The Christians did it in the 1970s because they feared the PLO. The Shia did it in the 1980s to fight Israel. The sunnis are doing it now because they fear the Shia, and so on. Don’t get mired in the details of who is more cruel, or more barbaric. That is immaterial. Just because your neighbor is a rapist doesn’t mean you’re excused to be a wife beater. They are both equally reprehensible.
The REAL issue. The ONLY issue. That would address ALL of the above, I think you and I agree on: A stronger state. That means reform (systemic): Abolish sectarianism completely. Not gradually. Full popular vote, demographics be damned. A truly independent judiciary. And as someone else mentioned above (I forget who): enforcing peace through the state’s monopoly over violence: ie: A strong army and police.
Until all of that is resolved, Lebanon will continue to be a cesspool. Violence will continue. Opposing sides will each justify their right to violence by pointing at how horrific the other side is (Cannibals or Terrorists or Car bombers or Foreign invaders or Wilayat Al Faqih, or whatever the boogeyman for that particular community happens to be).

Posted by Bad Vilbel | January 24, 2014, 4:00 pm
Sorry, they’re obviously already fatal with the carbombs and takfiri circles having gained a foothold – but I mean fatal on a mass scale. Lets talk sectarianism. What you may or may not realize Iis that one of the advantages of HA is that they act as an organizing tool and oulet for the Shia community. The day you take that away from them is the day you open up the Shia community to options that will truly reap the harvest of these efforts at inciting cross-confessional hatreds. In other words, if HA explode, expect the shards go shatter Lebanon.

Posted by Trinkets | January 24, 2014, 4:05 pm
I think the Shia are already subject to the incited cross-confessional hatreds, as much as the Sunnis. Don’t for one second think otherwise.

Posted by Bad Vilbel | January 24, 2014, 4:09 pm
Im not thinking otherwise. Im saying HA plays the role of an organized controlling, cathartic outlet device. It has steered clear of waging a sectarian war so far. Shattered, expect the worse. Itll turn far uglier than Syria. But my estmation is that this wouldnt happen. Im only delving into the improbable scenario that HA gets eliminated from the equation.

Will try to get to your above post Bad Vilbel If im able. Itz the time…not my desire to ignore.bbtw, im glad we’re having a civil discussion. I really don’t see the benefit of the hate mongering drivel and hyperbole im seeing quite a lot of here.

Posted by Trinkets | January 24, 2014, 4:21 pm
Montreuex (Geneva) has so far resulted in almost universal unanimity among its participants for the absolute need for the Syrian regime to be destroyed. Only Lebanese Mansour, and Russian Lavrov flew (or fell) outside the flock. And by the way, for the presumably Christian Lebanese drum beaters here of presumed Iranian ‘supremacy’ (i.e. Aoun hopefuls of climbing on a foreign ladder to bygone privilages), your Iranian friends were not to be seen anywhere on the table. If you do not recall, they were dis-invited.

The Syrians are more determined than ever to rid themselves of this abomination of criminal murderers once and for all, and will settle for nothing less than total eradication of this fascist regime of criminals.

Hezbollah will collapse on day 1.0001 of the above outcome. Shiite will have to learn to live with no Hezbollah whether they like it or not. After all, Shiite in Syria and Lebanon make up less than 10% of the oveall population of both countries combined, and that includes the Alawites who are less Shiite even in Shiite’s eyes. Shiite proper would count for less than 5%.

That is why Hassan of Bazourieh went to Syria and NOT because of some illusive so-called ‘takfiris.

It is time for the proxies of the so-called resistance herd to learn to respect our collective intelligence, and stop attempting to market absurd notions!

Posted by Mustap | January 24, 2014, 5:31 pm
BV, You make some good points. How the twists and turns of the Lebanese civil war led Iran to build Hezballah and ignore the army (I suppose the disintegration of the army and its tenuous relation to an almost non-existent state has a lot to do with it) are worth looking into. I think we can all agree that there are basically no nice people at the table. But why should we expect there to be. The only really intelligent thing to hope for is that leaders have vision and discipline. Vision to see the long term interests, discipline to enforce strategy against emotional pull. The last time the US showed that kind of vision was after WW2 when they rebuilt Europe and Japan. I think the EU project is a European attempt at building a bulwark against war.

Hezballah has done a few things differently than other militias in Lebanon.

1) In 2000, the traitorous filth of the SLA, whose executions I personally would have cheered-I have visited Khiam prison-were handed over by HA to the Lebanese state. Recall that for almost 20 years these people imprisoned tortured and killed shia all over south lebanon as servants of the IDF. I doubt anyone would have batted an eyelid at, and no one would have been able to stop, the wholesale massacre of those people by HA. However Hezballah, showing typical for them, atypical for the region, wisdom, took a long view, realising that they had to live with the families of these people for the next infinity generations.

2) I imagine clearly remembered by Amal, that Amal was let loose on HA by Hafez al Assad when he saw them getting to strong. HA reaction at the time which was to embrace Amal after the defeat and learn how to coexist with them because, let’s be honest, anyone who has been to Mar Elias or any other Amal neighbourhoods can tell that Amal and Hezballah have more differences than commonalities culture wise.

3) HA has not responded to provocation emotionally. Think back to the Qana massacre in 2006. When every Lebanese I know was baying for Israeli blood, HA stopped shooting missiles. Why? Because they said if Israel stops we will stop. Also, it showed the IDF that command and control was totally intact.

I have to say though that I am unconvinced by your answer to my question. The bottom line is that individually attributed acts even if true, do not constitute an effective terror campaign, and second do not fit the HA mold. I have no proof one way or the other on individual accusations, but they don’t seem like the acts of HA. As for May 2008….well that’s a long one, an act that I am sure HA regretted but consider the alternative: do nothing, let the cabinet make your cables illegal, let the cabinet order the army to destroy them…voila HA vs the Lebanese army and the end of Lebanon. This was the Neocon/Saudi plan. I don’t think there was another option. And while the campaign was terrifying, and there were some teenage amal boys manning checkpoints, it lasted a week, it was clearly under command…It did not frighten me.

It amazes me that people don;t realise all the things that HA could do but does not. They could have a coup d’etat tonight. They could shutdown any part of the country, assassinate or murder any politician, destroy the real estate assets of enemy states or enemies within Lebanon. They could shred the entire legal basis for this country on a whim. They have more power today than they have ever had and orders of magnitude more than any other militia ever had, even including foreign backers. So one must conclude that what they are doing is by calculated choice. They act as if they are going to have to live here when all is said and done. Saad of Jeddah (who I will rename when he moves ‘home’) and his acolytes are happy to burn the place if they don’t get their way.

It seems clear to me that HA realises they can never run Lebanon alone, that it will always be a multi-partite effort (it should not be hard for them, they have seen the marronites and sunni try to dictate to Lebanon and fail).

Now, clearly having an armed non-state actor is not a viable long term solution. But if that is true, why will no one sit at the table and discuss the national defines strategy? It seems to me that the more someone hates HA, the more they fear HA, the more eager they should be to bear hug them close. ‘keep your friends close and your enemies closer’. But we are now 7 years into the post war paradigm and no one wants to discuss.

Is it not totally obvious that this is SA fighting Iran (as if that is even worthwhile? either the US backs you or they don;t, the rat is immaterial to Saudi). And they are doing this here and in Syria…

Posted by Epok | January 24, 2014, 6:22 pm
As to the point about shia hatreds…HA gives the Shia community a sense of power and justice. As such, the emotion and hatred is bled. It’s much the same as the way a state justice system bleeds the hatred out of citizens’ conflicts by providing some form of resolution. Justice is important. The need for it drives a lot of human activity.

Posted by Epok | January 24, 2014, 6:26 pm
Again, I’ll attempt to reply specifically and in order:

Epok: “As for May 2008….well that’s a long one, an act that I am sure HA regretted but consider the alternative: do nothing, let the cabinet make your cables illegal, let the cabinet order the army to destroy them…voila HA vs the Lebanese army and the end of Lebanon. This was the Neocon/Saudi plan. I don’t think there was another option. And while the campaign was terrifying, and there were some teenage amal boys manning checkpoints, it lasted a week, it was clearly under command…It did not frighten me.”

It may not frighten you. It may have been the only option for HA and from an HA point of view. That does not change the definition of what it was: Terrorism.
Let’s not play semantics here. Just because something is justified in the eyes of a few as necessary (believe me, not everyone agrees even on that) does not make it excusable to burn TV stations and intimidate opponents. That is the very definition of intimidation and terrorism.
This was not an isolated incident either: The blackshirts have been used repeatedly when HA deemed it necessary to intimidate the opponent (you may argue intimidation was their only option, but that doesn’t make it right, nor does it change the definition of terror or intimidation as defined in the dictionary).

You go on to list all the ways HA has been controlled in the aftermath of the year 2000. I never argued that HA is very controlled. Everyone knows they are and are very well disciplined. Unlike most of the other armed gangs and militias that have infested Lebanon. And maybe that is why many in that camp see HA as very different from the Salafis, or the thugs, or whoever else. And thus you tend to put HA on a different pedestal and judge them by a different standard. I get that. But being disciplined and well calculated does not in and of itself make one worthy of admiration (at least, IMHO). The IDF is well organized and disciplined. The Nazis were too. Just because we’re used to undisciplined thugs in our country does not mean we need to put the first “well organized” gang that we see up on a pedestal. I maintain that HA has bullied and intimidated and obstructed both at the political level and at the military level, the rise of the Lebanese state and its institutions.
Don’t get me wrong. They are not the only ones guilty of that. And I am by no means giving the others a free pass. HA is merely the latest in a string of bullies. The PLO did it in the 70s, the LF did it in the 80s. The Syrians did it in the 90s, and so on…

One more point: HA’s behavior around 2000 was very different than it was after the Syrian withdrawal. I don’t doubt that, as you put it, they’ve had the long view, probably ever since their inception. But they also have to adapt to the situation on the ground around them.
In 2000, it was easy for HA to play noble and self-righteous. They were popular for liberating the south. Lebanon was firmly under Syrian control and no one was questioning anything being done. There really was no need for HA to show its ugly side or bully anyone, because, well the Syrians did it for them (bullying the extension to Lahoud, etc.)
it’s only after the Syrians left that HA found it had to take on the role of bully and intimidator, because, while it was unopposed in its project prior to that point, all of a sudden, certain voices were starting to question and complain (Jumblatt, Hariri, Geagea, etc.) And lo and behold, suddenly, HA goes from “liberators” to blackshirts and May 08 and government obstructions and so on.

Posted by Bad Vilbel | January 24, 2014, 6:43 pm
Epok: “It amazes me that people don;t realise all the things that HA could do but does not. They could have a coup d’etat tonight. They could shutdown any part of the country, assassinate or murder any politician, destroy the real estate assets of enemy states or enemies within Lebanon. They could shred the entire legal basis for this country on a whim.”

Some would argue that HA has already done all of those things, give or take…

Posted by Bad Vilbel | January 24, 2014, 6:45 pm
Shouldn’t the discussion veer towards a more important topic than listening to the nonsense of the proxies of the herd resistance?

While Lebanon is a small speck in the region and what is going on around it, it has been occupied for almost a year trying to form a government. There have been some developments recently that may indicate some easing of the dilema of such formation. However, the developments are in fact negative in the sense that a fascist and tertorist organization will continue to be represented in this government. It would be even worse if the platitde of resistance, people and army continue to be part of the government’s statement. How long will Saad Hariri be able to short sell Lebanon and his constituency and allies without a price to pay? While we may undrstand his reasons for living outside the country and pretending to be a leader, but it is about time to call a spade a spade and describe him for what he is: an undecisive, uninspiring and ineffective politician. He is best leaving politics and allow those who are more capable to do the job.

But, I do wish him justice at the STL.

Posted by Mustap | January 24, 2014, 7:33 pm
This is my long-overdue attempt to join this very interesting conversation. Let me just say, first of all, thank you to Trinkets, Epok, and Bad Vilbel for discoursing with each other in an intelligent manner. I have benefited from reading your interchange.

Rather than try to respond to everything that has been said, I’ll start by replying to Trinkets’s long comment to me above, which I found to be very helpful. Maybe we can then proceed from there.

Trinkets said: “Your linked Al Akhbar article, in my estimation, undermines the intelligence and knowledge of people who support the Syrian regime as a proxy to supporting the resistance axis.”

It may not have been clear to you that the article I wrote was not composed in a vacuum. I wrote it directly in response to a series of articles for Al-Akhbar by Amal Saad-Ghorayeb (see here for the links), who argued that the only principled position for leftists on the situation in Syria was to support Assad. I found this argument untenable and offensive, as did As`ad Abu-Khalil and others, and so my article was meant to point out some of its weaknesses. (I also try to avoid mentioning Gramsci if I have to; the line about a “war of position” was a direct reference to Amal’s own article.)

Trinkets said:“This was not because HA or Iran (keeping in mind the multiconfessional and nonconfessional support base they pulled) brainwashed them – which is an assumption many critics hold . I see that as a nihilistic assumption that stunts any substance based understanding and can be wielded against any which side really…

Yes, I agree with you. And I have never used the word “brainwashed” on this blog to characterize anyone’s political beliefs. (Actually, that’s not true: I’ve used it only twice, both in the context of satire) . It’s an uninteresting excuse to not take realities seriously, so you and I are in strong agreement about owing it to people “to respect their tangible concerns and not assume idiocy or delusion.” That is, I would humbly submit, a core principle of this blog that I try to adhere to.

Trinkets said: “Nor is it because, as you portray them and their support base, they constitute vestiges of a form of radical leftism – be they religious shias, members of other sects, or secular.”

Again, I was not arguing that Hizbullah are leftists or even left-leaning. I was responding directly to a critic who argued that Hizbullah and Syria were playing a vanguard role in an anti-imperialist struggle. This is simply wrong, in my view, and we can debate it if you like. I agree with your very nice summation of all the reasons for which Hizbullah is not a leftist organization, so we can leave it at that.

Trinkets said: “You err by committing associative thinking; perhaps with this colouring, one would hope to render oneself an astute academic and a sharp critic by bridging literary and (perhaps more pertinently) critical theory to an idiosyncratic case of middle eastern politics with its density, peculiarity and complexity beyond such forced, formulaic and implanted readings.”

Let’s make a deal. I will assume that you are an intelligent and well-meaning observer of the politics of our region, and you will do the same for me. I will assume that you are not posturing or arguing in bad faith, and you will do the same. I have been writing regularly about Lebanese politics now for almost a decade, devoting a great deal of time, thought, and energy to trying to educate myself about the complexities of our country. I do not earn a living from this activity; it is a labor of love. So please give me the benefit of the doubt, and I will happily do the same.

Trinkets said: “…it is in fact your own social and cultural dissociation from the resistance faction in the country (ie resistance proper and its supporters irrespective of confession and belief) that, for you, renders their struggle against Israel somewhat of a ghostly specter. Thus you insidiously dismiss it by rendering it intangible, a struggle against virtuality and thereafter, more ominously, you don on it a masi7-dajjel aspect, an anti-christ of a specter, namely that it masks itself as a resistance to elicit acquiescence.”

No, I disagree with you. This is too easy an assumption on your part. You are suggesting that I must be a metropolitan elitist out of touch with the grim realities of Israeli predation, if I can afford to sniff at Hizbullah’s resistance. Let’s assume you’re right about me. What of all the other Lebanese who have suffered directly from the wars with Israel and still want to see the resistance project set aside? I don’t want to caricature your position, but I’m frequently struck by how quickly supporters of the resistance revert to the sociological argument to explain Lebanese attitudes critical of Hizbullah. What they seem to be implying is that opposition to Hizbullah is purely ideological, paradigmatic, and frequently confessional, while support for Hizbullah is purely historical, necessary, conditioned by facts on the ground.

Isn’t it possible that both sides are arguing from a mixture of ideology, sectarianism, and history? In other words, isn’t it understandable to you that a guy who lost his house or his livelihood after the 2006 war might come to one of three conclusions: (1) Israel is to blame; (2) Hizbullah is to blame; or (3) Both are to blame? Whether anyone likes it or not, each one of those conclusions has hundreds of thousands of supporters, if not millions.

Trinkets said: “I certainly see the threat in the neighbouring kleptoparasitical racist and exclusionist ideology that, to date, continues to geographically expand (this farce about illegal settlements being frowned upon by ‘parts’ of the Israeli government is a farce; it is an unwritten law dictated by their tradition). It is an active and primary threat, a first tier enemy that, to a necessary extent for us as a national unity, dictates, and should dictate our political alliances. Israel’s CV is not merely sufficient grounds for isolating and despising it but also must be seen as a blueprint of its modus operandi.”

The question of whether a certain country bordering Lebanon — which has one of the most sophisticated militaries in the world as well as a history of invading us — should be considered a threat is not up for discussion here. What is up for discussion is how Lebanon should respond to this threat. In my view, the best way to respond to threats is to consider all the possibilities on the table, weigh the cons and benefits of different strategies, try to bear in mind the influence upon the deliberative process of external parties who may not have our best interests at heart, and proceed from there. In such a process, a document like the one you cited (“The Zionist Plan for the Middle East,” dated 1982) might be relevant, but I’d like to believe that a reasonable military strategist would also take into account the developments of the past 32 years before committing the country to a policy that exacerbates rather than mitigates the threat on our borders.

After all, if I based my understanding of Hizbullah purely on what Hassan Nasrallah was saying publicly in 1982, I think you’d have a problem with that. His rhetoric was not different from the takfiri elements you are right to fear today.

My position on Hizbullah is quite straightforward. I, like many, admire the populist credentials of their politicians and the efficiency of their patronage networks. I can even respect the formidable fighting skills of their militants (though, in general, I don’t much go in for the pathos of camouflage and anasheed). I have a much stronger allergy to their religiosity than you do, as I feel that it has helped fuel the takfiri backlash we’ve seen. And I also believe that their military operations since 2000 should tell us something important about what role they are playing in regional geopolitics at the expense of Lebanon’s fragile stability. If we are to believe the worst accusations about Hizbullah’s dealings since the Israeli withdrawal in 2000, they assassinated the most important Sunni political figure in the country along with perhaps several other public figures; provoked a devastating war with Israel in order to forestall an international pressure campaign against Syria’s government; and sent thousands of its fighters into Syria to support Bashar al-Assad’s regime at the behest of Iran’s government.

Now, if none of that were true, I would agree with you that all the fuss about Hizbullah was drastically overblown and misinformed. But what if at least some of it were true? What if we were to apply the same cynicism we are accustomed to attributing to American, Israeli, Saudi, etc. foreign policy to Iran, Syria, and Hizbullah? Surely there’s a line that cannot be crossed before one’s political commitments must be reconsidered. That line has been crossed many times for me, with the result that I apparently come across as possessed of a “politesse anglo-saxonne [that] seems to find no enemy.” In fact, it is quite the opposite. I see only “enemies” in the political landscape around us, with precious few who deserve full-throated support.

Khalas; shbi3na 7akeh.

Posted by Qifa Nabki | January 24, 2014, 9:49 pm
Speaking of books and bookshops…has anyone read Hussein Mroué?

Posted by melmakko | January 24, 2014, 11:49 pm
Bad Vilbel;

I would like to respond now to your previous post directed at me, but I will dedicate this post to the May 2008 events

While I accept that these events are seen to have helped fuel a paradigmatic shift in the point of view of a segment of the sunni community and inadvertently aided its extremist figureheads in capitalizing on it as one of the casus belli (while I believe that the subvention and financial-theological leashing by Saudi Arabia and Qatar to these figureheads offered the real motive and the rest pretext), before divorcing the event from the events leading up to it, decontextualizing it, offering its up as a packaged denunciation, I think it’s better to recall the context.

Firstly, let’s not even start with the reasons; let’s start with the instigation that set it off. Yes, I understand that you view everyone as equally rotten (a position I am not convinced off ) but what I would like to establish is that the deliberate instigation-below- discloses instuctions, on the part of the Hariri- in and tandem with Jumblatt and co- to take advantage of the opposition protests to initiate an attack on HA. What some people forget in the sensationalist account they circulate amongst themselves is the dirty politicking going on at the level of the anti-resistance government at that time, not just with the telecom issue.

Its well-known that at that first day, the opposition started a protest over the government’s plan to remove HA’s telecommunication network (in its own word, one –if not THE- primary weapons it has, allowing it to coordinate, mobilize and so on). On that day, I remember very well that members of the mostaqbal militia –the now failed Saad Hariri militia that started with his Security Plus company- were the ones who threw grenades and shot at opposition protestors who had –up to that moment of being attacked- not had it in mind to confront or attack.

شرارة الصدامات المسلحة انطلقت من تقاطع جامع عبد الناصر ـ بربور حيث يتقابل انصار «تيار المستقبل» في الطريق الجديدة مع
انصار المعارضة في احياء المزرعة. وذكرت المعلومات ان مجهولا القى قنبلة يدوية في اتجاه مجموعة من انصار المعارضة كانوا يتجمهرون في المنطقة، ما تسبب بجرح جنديين وثلاثة مدنيين. وأثار الحادث توتراً شديداً. وحصلت عمليات كر وفر ومواجهات بين الجانبين بالحجارة والعصي. وظل الجيش، الذي حشد قوة كبيرة في مناطق المواجهة، يعمل لساعات على ضبط الوضع والفصل بين انصار الفريقين. from http://www.aawsat.com/details.asp?section=4&article=469844&issueno=10754#.UuND_hBfrIU

And now, a well balanced account of the story from http://www.globalresearch.ca/what-really-happened-in-beirut/9340 (you could read the account of the events that follow as well) :

……………………………………………..
“In his speech, Hasan Nasrallah considered the government’s decisions a “declaration of war” against the Opposition and an attempt to “strip the Resistance of its arms.” Later on, he said that “any hand that will touch the arms of Resistance will be cut off”. A decision was taken to close down the Beirut airport and the road leading to it, as well as some other key roads to and from Beirut, until the government has backed down. A few “protest camps” were also set up, similar to the one that had been going on in the city centre for over a year and a half.

…Some minor clashes erupted between Loyalist and Opposition supporters in west Beirut, with insults exchanged and stones thrown at each other. A few hours later, a few hand grenades were thrown at various Oppositions areas and at the central protest camp, while also threatening to shoot protesters if they passed through the Mazra’a corniche. The use of weapons by Loyalists was seen by the Opposition as a “golden opportunity” to “move.”
………………………………………………
And now for the reasons (I won’t bother paraphrase, I’ll quote from the above global research site – they did their homework well). Actually, I recommend you read the whole article:
……………………………………………..

“What sparked the May events in Lebanon was a surprising speech by the Progressive Socialist Party (PSP) leader Walid Jumblat MP on May 5th, in which he revealed that Hizbullah was operating a “secret, illegitimate telecommunication network”, including “hidden cameras” at the Hariri international airport in southern Beirut. Backed by other pro-government leaders, he considered this a “violation of the country’s sovereignty” and demanded that the network is dismantled. The following day, the Ministerial Council opened an investigation into the issue and immediately took two decisions: to dismiss the airport’s security chief, General Wafiq Shqeir, who belongs to opposition Shiite group Amal and is said to be close to Hizbullah, and to dismantle Hizbullah’s “illegal” telecommunication network.

… There is a lot of speculation as to why Jumblat and the Loyalists triggered their “bomb” now. Some said it was merely a “retaliation” for the detention of French Socialist Party spokesman Karim Pakzad, who was held and questioned by Hizbullah members for over 5 hours on April 27th, as he was caught driving through the southern suburb of Beirut and taking pictures. Others went that the aim was to “clear” the airport’s security staff from “Opposition eyes”, so that Loyalist forces could smuggle in American and Israeli weapons through Jordan and Saudi Arabia, similar to what was allegedly happening after the Summer War with Israel under the cover of humanitarian aid. In this context, General Michel Aoun warned, as the escalations started, that “strange planes” were landing at night at the abandoned Ba’dran airport in the mainly Durzi area of Shouf.

Others went further and talked about a wider American-Israeli-Saudi plot to drag Hizbullah, and behind it Syria and Iran, into a bloody conflict, using Hizbullah’s ‘illegitimate’ arms and the sectarian tensions as a pretext. In this context, Hizbullah-owned al-Manar TV exposed, quoting American diplomatic sources, an “American-Saudi plan” that Sa’d al-Hariri allegedly came back with after he was “summoned” to Washington. The report claimed that the procedures included electing Michel Suleiman as president, “whether the opposition agreed or not”, coinciding with massing American troops at the Syrian-Iraqi border and accelerating the international tribunal into the assassination of Rafiq al-Hariri in order to “frighten” the Syrian regime and prevent it from any unwanted reactions, as well as issuing “strong statements” about the Syrian nuclear programme. These would finally culminate, as the report had it, in “ground operations” by loyal security forces, supported by al-Hariri’s and Jumblat’s militias, against opposition positions and institutions that the government deems illegitimate, such as Hizbullah’s telecommunication network [2].

Reports further claimed that the plan was coordinated by a former American diplomat in Beirut, who had reportedly supervised, along with Saudi and Jordanian intelligence services, the training of Lebanese militias in Jordan and other Arab countries [3].

It is also worth mentioning that both the American and Saudi governments had warned their citizens in Lebanon, prior to the events, to “be careful” and “leave the country”. Besides, the deployment of US warships near the Lebanese coast since late February made the Opposition suspect that something serious was being planned (guided missile destroyer USS Cole took station off Lebanon’s coast on 28 February, 2008, as the first of an anticipated three-ship flotilla).

French website Geopolitique.com has since published a map supposedly showing the Hizbullah telecom network, which not only connects South Lebanon to South Beirut (the Suburb, as it is called, which is a Hizbullah stronghold) but also extends to the eastern and northern parts of the country [4]. The map was allegedly prepared by Telecommunication Minister Marwan Hammadeh, who is a member of Jumblat’s party, with the help of Lebanese intelligence services. The website editor, Guillaume Dasquié, said the map was obtained from “sources close to Jumblat” and added that it had already been circulating among international capitals, such as Paris and Washington, since March 2008.

Another news site, run by Syrian dissident journalist Nizar Nayouf, also published a copy of the map, dated 17 January 2008 and addressed, in Hebrew, to the Israeli Foreign Ministry and marked in red with a “top secret” stamp [5]. The Hebrew version had 7 pages, of which the website only obtained the first two, and presumed that the missing pages contained further information and maps/pictures of the Hizbullah telecom network.

According to Hizbullah, however, its telecom network had existed before 2000, but was enhanced afterwards and played a crucial role in defeating Israel in the July 2006 war. It further insists that the Lebanese government has been aware of it, so bringing it up now must have been “politically motivated”.
In any case, legal commentators have wondered why “supposedly secret documents” would reach the hands of politicians who would “exploit them for media and political gains”, instead of carrying out a “real investigation” supervised by the concerned judicial and security bodies. “Even if the information Jumblat exposed were true,” they added, “leaking it to the media and the public would surely affect the investigation and legal process” and “as a member of parliament, Jumblat should be aware of that.”
I think the article explains the events and the background well enough and explains the larger picture.
……………………………………………..

So, to summarize that bit:

a- The circumstances leading up to the May 2008 events and the extortion by principally Harriri and Jumblatt led to the opposition protests – a completely understanble position and a right.

b- the instigation of violence by Mostaqbal – which must have been ok’ed from the very top and could well have fitted a plan to embroil HA & allies in a quandary whereby the anti-resistance government cries wolf (as it did, unsuccessfully) to the international community so that they step in – backfired, literally, and warranted, justifiably, the self-defense of the other side. (Perhaps we should at least thank HA for disarming the Mosta’bal thugs if anything – they were overbearing and overt bullies who had started created their own areas of influence in Beirut (I know, I lived there when they were at their peak) and I bet you, by now, Beirut would have had its own “princes of alleyways” to contend with, Tripoli-like had they been given a chance to develop any further)

And now, those sleazy politicians and community leading bastards trying to sell their twisted version of the story to the impoverished elements of the sunni community as a sign of the sect’s humiliation. How cynical, disgusting and very much in the tradition Lebanese vein of capitalizing on the blood of the poor and the misled.

In my estimation, these events must be read as surface effects and not as they are conventionally read. And we must identify the root causes, what really is happening behind the scenes – we must not render one amputated account of the story to demonize the resistance because we are disposed to, allowing it to be mythologized to feed into the fury of a segment of supposedly be-trodden sect. There are lots of actors here, inside and outside Lebanon who want to get rid of HA. You really they’re clean cut people who play by the rules? So, please stop wielding that story when all you have are half truths. Had HA wanted, it could have eradicated half Beirut. Instead, it targeted the Mostaqba offices (and yes, there were accounts of tens to hundreds of Mostaqbal militiamen being harbored in Future Tv) and handed them over to the Army afterwards. And the government goons were lying about a coup d’état.

But thankfully HA turned out to be neither as stupid nor as miscalculating as they were and they, HA, clearly showed that it was a ‘quid pro quo’ that ended after the government retracted their decisions to dismantle their primary weapon, a private telecom network. Their precious lessons was not to leave the government post to a bunch of lowlifes who have no issues with aligning themselves with Israel against their own people (then further corroborated by the Wikileaks documents detailing discussions in the US Embassy during the 2006 war). Had they operated in the vein of traditional Lebanese militias – they would have set Beirut ablaze, raped, pillaged and slaughtered and killed apropos sectarian belonging. They didn’t do so (again, i agree with observations the abovementioned article makes). Because, for once and for all, HA are something else altogether and it is unjustified to cast them in that light. They have a singular purpose and that is NOT to overtake people’s lives and it is NOT to exist dis-harmoniously with their surroundings. Their sole purpose is to fight Israel and, for that purpose, an attempt at compromising their ability to fight will be rightfully read as hostile and validates, naturally, a serious and hostile response.

Posted by Trinkets | January 25, 2014, 2:15 am
Very interesting discussion, indeed! We need to keep into consideration our particular location or place! Expats have a very different perspective on Lebanese affairs than those of us who live in Lebanon. One can have different views on what political organizations mean, based on where one is living and how one is living.

Melmakko, Mroueh is one of my favorite arab-Islamic authors. I wish more people would read him to understand the genealogy of our “shared” cultural history. Some colleagues were interested in translating him into English, but i do not think that project was realized. The tragedy of his assassination (by the early components of what came to become HA) is so significant. Times change and so do institutions and we need to understand the dynamics of a grouo’s history rather than an essential or generalized point of view.

Posted by Parrhesia | January 25, 2014, 3:06 am
Again, Bad Vilbel, in response to:

2- Support for the Lebanese Army by the Iranian or Syrian Army

a. Firstly, that is a bit of a strange question to ask. The Lebanese Army barely existed at the time and had splintered into parts. More contemporaneously, Iran had actually proposed to arm the Lebanese Army and this was rejected by the 2010 government. Rejected by, of course, anti-resistance factions so as not to arouse the ire of the Saudis and the US.

b. That the Syrian Army didn’t arm the Lebanese Army firstly does not create yet another reason to consider it as an enemy (it is not obliged to do so). Secondly, consider that the Syrian Army has itself been amassing over the years – just throwing around questions in thin air does not raise an immediate suspicion. There might be many reasons: firstly, the Lebanese army has only started to get back in shape after the civil war. What with the Syrian Army inside, it, like many, sank in a quicksand of lebanese quicksand and like any true Syrian official institution wallowed in corruption. And that still does not make it an enemy. Anywho, this would need a researcher’s/expert’s input – the interaction between the Syrian army and the Lebanese army in that period….Also, I never suggested that Syrians and Iranians were perfect sweethearts to Lebanon and didn’t have their own agendas. But again (tiredly now), these are not enemies. It is pointless to put them on par with Israel (see point no.5)

b. Secondly, you need a very strong army.

c. it takes time to build the army. so, even if it happens (which is highly improbable as long as les grands puissances support Israel) you’ll have to have a thwarting force.

d. HA has stated many time that it is fully with the development of the Lebanese Army.

3- Takfiris’ bogeyman: HA

Firstly, in actuality and not in terms of imaginary relativism, should you deny the threat of Takfiris or equate them to HA in their actions, then I would doubt that you are a wo/man of reason. In plain arabic, it would be افتراء what you’d be doing, pure slander. Can you seriously tell me that this is like HA?
http://www.tayyar.org/Tayyar/News/PoliticalNews/ar-LB/nasira-takfirist-cg-316.htm
or this
http://www.christianpost.com/news/largest-massacre-of-christians-in-syria-ignored-109566/
or have they ever carried motos the like of “العلوي على التابوت والمسيحي على بيروت”

So, straight-up, I could care less for who the Takfiri’s bogeyman is; their perspective does not matter to me in the least bit and they should all be locked up or fought to extinction. I’m not ready to entertain their envisagement of the bogeyman.

4- (also QN) Others’ bogeyman: HA

Here, I would also like to respond to QN’s point about entertaining the possibility of HA being behind the assassination. There is no reason to entertain the possibility QN:

a- if you truly believe someone is innocent until proven guilty, then act that way. Insidiously, by placing yourself in a position that you do not have the right to or the technical knowledge for (to assign possibilities of homicide) you’re preemtively accusing them by possibly doing it. Please, I could do without that obsequious slip-in of an accusation.

b- I suggest that you, QN, and others entertain the probability that the Trial may well be a political trap and keep that in mind. There is not only a big section of the Lebanese who think so, there is a worldwide group of individuals who have the same thoughts, who compare this trial to the mock trial of Milosevic and to the fabrication of alibis to invade Iraq.

c- HA are, like others, my brethen in my country and there is not a shred of doubt in me that HA did it. Their CV doesn’t contain this sort of history. It is extremely unreasonable to think that they have either the mentality the lack of intelligence stupid to kill Harriri and the others. Their set of beliefs, religious, doesn’t make allowance for that sort of undertaking (whereas the beliefs of Takfiris certainly makes allowance for it – although Im not suggesting they were the ones behind the assassinations or all of them).

I am convinced that Hezbollah has been vellified by way of a portfolio of unjustified accusations because they have regional and global enemies with agencies in Lebanon. So, no, thank you but keep the entertainment of the possibility for yourself.

5- Syria: Lebanese Forces & OTher’s bogeyman

Again, bluntly, I have zero respect for the Lebanese Forces and neither do I care to entertain their bogeyman. Lets be reasonable here – you can’t be absolutely relative- you can’t qualify everyone as a monster and you can’t disqualify everyone. But, their history and CV is enough to condemn them. Killing on the basis of ID cards? No, sorry HA didn’t do that. Amal did, LF did, the Phalangists did…

And I find Aoun’s stance much more reasonable and realisitc. Against the syrians when they were in Lebanon and not against them when they were not. Its a pragmatic recognition that Syria is a neighbour with which we have a conjoined regional and familial connections. I have syrian family. Kazelian Lebanese, christians and moslems of all sects have Syrian family. So, in regards to Syria:

Do I personally believe Syria (regime) was a bogeyman – in lebanon? Yes I do (and, again, I don’t base this on the inherently warped and belligerent worldview of the Lebanese Forces who were bogeymen anyway)

But, I believe more strongly that many of our own politicians and figureheads were active participants in the creation of this golem, this bogeyman, to harness him against other Lebanese. In other words, it wasn’t just a Syria golem…it was a Syria-Lebanon golem. Syria-in-Lebanon was a warped Syria owing, at least to a considerable extent, to the Lebanese initiative and to their dirty politicking, shady business deals and sociopathic mindset that cared more to satiate its greed than to serve its country and people.

So, a big, the largest part of Lebanon took it upon itself to play the part of a corruption venus trap and so, when you want to accuse Syria, I equally accuse Lebanon. Just as there were Syrian rotten busybodies, so they were met with their Lebanese counterparts (and being rotten, they have no issues now claiming animosity towards Syria).

However, as stated before, we are bound to Syria – irrespective of Syria’s regime or ours- as people, as geography, as culture. The contingent temporariness of a regime – hate it or dislike it- does not precude the natural affiliation that binds us…and it is precisely this affiliation that, above all, distinguishes Syria from ISrael. It is completely ridiculous to equate Syria with Israel (a colonial regional implant that persecutes another of our familial neighbours).

So, to conclude the issue of bogeymen: not all bogeymen are born equal, and it is safe to assume that our national interests should point to a priority of bogeymen. Simply accepting that they are all bogeymen on par with each other is: (intellectually) lazy, immoral and counter-productive.

Posted by Trinkets | January 25, 2014, 3:45 am
A couple more things:

Bad Vilbel;

you say “The REAL issue. The ONLY issue. That would address ALL of the above, I think you and I agree on: A stronger state. That means reform (systemic): Abolish sectarianism completely. Not gradually. Full popular vote, demographics be damned. A truly independent judiciary. And as someone else mentioned above (I forget who): enforcing peace through the state’s monopoly over violence: ie: A strong army and police.”

I completely agree with you except for the “REAL” description. Unfortunately, it is not real, not for the present or the near future. I totally agree that it is vital – but in reality,sadly, it is UNREAL because the kernels for it have not been planted and the reality on ground holds no promises for its fruition. As such, it remains wishful thinking – and we cannot denominate our real choices and strategies- within the givens that are far from our wish and ideal- on the basis of wishful thinking. this is why my support of hezbollah is based on pragmatism, with the hope that someday we will reach a true self respecting state able to protect the citizens from its enemy and able to protect its citizens from itself!

Epok;

you say: “As to the point about shia hatreds…HA gives the Shia community a sense of power and justice. As such, the emotion and hatred is bled. It’s much the same as the way a state justice system bleeds the hatred out of citizens’ conflicts by providing some form of resolution. Justice is important. The need for it drives a lot of human activity.”

I agree and very much like your sentiment. And – as I was trying to say- even in functional terms, Hezbollah are a stabilizing medium for many Shia and I believe the anti-resistance troupe isn’t particularly savvy to the dangers of removing the stabilizing medium – it would be even stupid to do so (as it is stupid to continually blame HA over the assassination without evidence or motive) . At one point, Harriri senior was a stabilizing medium for the Sunni community. We realize it nowadays in his absence.

Posted by Trinkets | January 25, 2014, 4:11 am
How nice to go to sleep, wake up and find a series of interesting posts. I specifically have to say that Trinkets has done a better job of making my argument, a more detailed job, a more complete job than I could have imagined anyone having the patience to do. So I won’t add much. There is one point I would like to build on though. The wholesale rejection and tarring with the same brush of all political actors in the country is extremely damaging.

I happen to know (for 20 years, so prior to politics) one of the Aouni ministers who is regularly accused of stealing. I also know that he has, monthly, the opportunity to accept anywhere from 500k to several million of bribes for doing things that would probably make only a marginal difference to the outcomes [awarding a contract to co A in stead of co B]. I can not claim to have access to his bank accounts but I know that his wife has the same problems with her household budget that she always had, in fact worse, because being a politician in lebanon involves paying to help constituents.

So when I see that he is accused by ‘journalists’ and Mar 14 people I know of theft, I am sure of at least one thing, they don’t have a basis to make that accusation on other than to sink his image down to the level of the others.

HA is in the same boat in my opinion so, QN, while I think it is reasonable to look at the system here and wish it would all be flushed so we can start over, realistically we have what we have to work with here. IF you go to the supermarket and buy nothing because the choices are not good, eventually you starve.

So while I do not believe I would find myself supporting an armed militia in the US, and I can see the dangers of HA long term, today the choices are not great. I identify in HA and Aoun an important trait that I think the other politicians lack which is nationalism. Jumblat has an even better trait which is localism. If we were in a democracy here, Jumblat would be admirable because he takes care of constituency. But he is not really a nationalist.

Aoun is a compromised politician because he is over principled. Politics is not an arena for idealism on the personal and national levels, only the national one. One must be ready to stab in the back, personally, those who prevent your national ideals from blooming. Roosevelt (FDR) is the best example I know of of that dichotomy.

I really don’t believe in neutrality in this current situation. That would be like being neutral between Vichy and the Resistance. To me personally it is that clear cut.

Posted by Epok | January 25, 2014, 4:31 am
Epok,

My point was not that one should affect a neutrality of sorts, but rather that most reasonable individuals (and you seem very reasonable to me) would not come close to the heights of panegyric on display in Trinkets’s rhetoric when outlining their support for a political party in Lebanon.

I am not comfortable with some of the categories you use: HA and Aoun are nationalists? What does that mean, exactly? What a slippery concept. Who am I to say that Ibrahim Kanaan is more of a nationalist than Ziad Baroud, or Mohammad Chatah, etc. etc. etc.? If you mean that the former is less likely to take a bribe, then why not just say that he is less corrupt? And how do we know that exactly? I know several Aounist ministers and party officials as well, and have met the General on a couple occasions. They seem perfectly nice; some of them are quite intelligent and I think have proved competent. But I have also met many M14 politicians routinely accused of all kinds of crimes and misdemeanors (along with the systemic flaw of being associated with the US or Saudi Arabia or whatever), and to be perfectly honest: I can’t tell them apart from the FPM politicians. Let’s be real about this.

What about the description of Hizbullah as nationalistic? On a structural level at least, we witness the same conditions of “subvention and financial-theological leashing” that Trinkets attributed to the Saudi-sponsored Sunni parties in Lebanon. If people are uncomfortable with foreign intervention in Lebanon but look the other way when it comes to Hizbullah, what am I to make of this? Why is it that they remain possessed of “nationalism” despite their funding, their “theological leashing”, and the plain evidence on display today, namely their intervention in Syria on the side of one of the worst regimes in our region? Why is it that whenever Hariri opens his mouth (which is usually a bad sign in the first place), the muqawama crowd cry foul, saying that he is inciting sectarian tension. But when Hizbullah sends a couple battalions into Syria, this is a nationalistic duty, consequences be damned? Pure unreason, in my view.

And finally, to Trinkets:

You didn’t address the majority of my response to you, but I can appreciate that you’ve been busy. I am not persuaded by your response: “HA are, like others, my brethren in my country and there is not a shred of doubt in me that HA did it. Their CV doesn’t contain this sort of history. It is extremely unreasonable to think that they have either the mentality the lack of intelligence to kill Hariri and the others.

This, in my view, is naive. As we see in Syria, Hizbullah will act decisively when it believes that its core interests are at stake, never mind if innocent people might be killed as collateral damage, let alone the public relations damage to the party. As Nasrallah said himself, this is a question of existence. And if they killed Hariri, it would have been similarly a response to a grave threat, namely US-French initiative to push Syria out of Lebanon in 2004. Hariri was playing with fire; Bashar was not going to allow him to get away with it. If Hizbullah killed Hariri, they were entirely justified — within their own realist logic — to do so.

Posted by Qifa Nabki | January 25, 2014, 8:29 am
PS: To Epok: I have been accused in the past of being an unreconstructed FPMer. This has a grain of truth to it. I am largely in agreement with the positions and strategic orientation of the FPM prior to 2006 memorandum of understanding with Hizbullah. My opposition to the MOU was not because I was against its content, but saw it for what it has become.

Posted by Qifa Nabki | January 25, 2014, 10:55 am
We have seen goodbye messages from both sides. What is the difference between Shiaa condoned Suicide Bombers and Sunni condoned Suicide Bombers?

http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/115728-lebanese-suicide-bomber-s-goodbye-video-goes-viral

Posted by Vulcan | January 25, 2014, 1:02 pm
There isn’t any. Sunni suicide bombers simply happen to be in fashion this decade.

Posted by Bad Vilbel | January 25, 2014, 3:58 pm
QN;

I will not prolong this, especially given your slight of hand dismissal (panegyric – later on that). Suffice to say that if:

1- one accepts that a resistance-friendly Syria is imperative for the survival and development of the resistance (i have aready gone through the credible raison d’être of having one in place – so no need to justify that one)

2- one accepts that the radical militans in syria started conflating the resistance and the assad regime from
the get go – threatening to go into lebanon. at that time, HA had not played a role in Lebanon

3- if one accepts the threat of takfiris who know neither sovereignty of state nor boundaries and if one concedes that their hatred of shias, chrisitians and sunnis not of their ilk forms a mortal threat to the people and cultures of our countries. (again refer to the links in my previous post)

4- one recognizes that HA is not a takfiri group itself(no matter how much you dislike them) that accepts to live and let live … and is a potent force that can be used to prohibit the takfiris from forming a huge neighbouring encampment of takfiris that infiltrated lebanon through the north (and that is HA’s most involved participation)

Then yes, one is lead to support the Syrian regime. Enough said.

As for your trivial dismissal, which is akin to a man dismissing a woman’s arguments by portraying them as a fit of hysterics – in spite of my having really put in quite a bit of effort in order to explain the rationale behind support for the resistance – a support that I have explicitly stated was pragmatic (and not ideal, as i suggested many times) and not ideological, you resort to collapse this exercise at responding, rationally (and you many or may not agree with the reasons) and not on the basis of passion, by misrepresenting it as a panegyric one.

Perhaps it is the “brethen” reference that conflicted with your individualistic language inculcated within a clammy anglosaxonic environment. However, you (and indeed anyone else) maybe be able to afford that in that environment, but in Lebanon it is a mater of necessity to start seeing each other as brethen to forgo the collapse of the country. Unqualified chronic suspicion – on the basis of no evidence, alibi, motive- based on traditional lebanese isolationism is counter productive. Its about time we built a nation and this required we view each other as belonging to each other. We do not need to be running to Embassies here and there including Embassies that are naturally more inclined to favour Israel, taking down notes and applying it on each other.

Also, if Epok allows me, I find very little difference between what Epok says and what I say; in style, though, I differ. But in substance we share the same ideas more or less me thinks. Allow me to also point out that it was sleazy of you, QN, to try and be leveraging Epok as a counter-example to my approach: ie, in contrast, I am not reasonable, irrational and therefore my points are to be dismissed outright without being discussed. This is a cheap shot and I didn’t expect you would sink to that level. Again, I have spent quite a lot of time and energy and explicitly gone though reasons, events and incidents, given level headed explanations and situated them within my view of what makes a self binding nation …and I have done so on your website. In return, I get this distateful, non intellectual and condescending response from you, QN.

And, by contrast, when hateful memes who have no interest whatsoever to discuss the subjects – and instead litter your board and cyber space with their fanatical anti-resistance rhetoric – more or less Zionist/pro-zionist spam- you remain indifferent, you dont point to their zionist parygenics.

I see that you yourself are irrationally predisposed against the resistance owing to firstly, that lebanese sense of isolationism that refutes a clear recognition of national AND realistic exigencies. What you fail to see is that you yourself are not rational, your ‘criticism’ have indefinably associative roots (such as that inane suggestion of a possibility of committing a crime as sufficiency to demonize HA) – you give interpretations suited to that subliminal tendency in you to view the lebanese ‘other’ suspiciously as a tribe that threatens you. And you guise this under the appearance of a detached middle eastern ‘expert’ equipped with the language to present your inherently biased interpretation , in fact a misrepresentation, to the west, the world community. In fact, you have raised the immoral rhetoric of accusing others unjustifiably to the level of academic detachment. Yes, you work well in the american setup.

Finally, while criticism and even a diagnostic evaluation of posts is fair game, it would be wise to stop dismissing or belittling/condescending with others who give voice to their opinion (as you don’t do with the Zionists (Akbar and his ilk) and as you DID do with Lally, Marion and now me with that vacuous ‘panygeric’ accusation).

Posted by Trinkets | January 25, 2014, 5:23 pm
Correction: Then yes, one is lead to support the involvement of Hezbollah along the Syrian regime in fighting the takfiris over there. Enough said.

Posted by Trinkets | January 25, 2014, 5:25 pm
Rule of thumb for blog commentators.

If a commentator makes you scroll more than 3 light scrolls with your fore finger on an ipad in order to read through his or her first comment, then he or she follws that comment by several similarly scrolling-finger-straining comments in the same thread, then that commentator has nothing meaningful, thoughtful, or worth-reading to say.

Since, the volume of information exchange has skyrocketed and continues to do so, such commentators are a huge parasitic burden on media resources as well as on our time and efforts.

Posted by Mustap | January 25, 2014, 5:25 pm
Just amazing. I call Trinkets’ commentary on Hizbullah a “panegyric”, and this is how he responds…

As for your trivial dismissal… your individualistic language inculcated within a clammy anglosaxonic environment… it was sleazy of you, QN… This is a cheap shot and I didn’t expect you would sink to that level…this distasteful, non intellectual and condescending response from you… you remain indifferent… you yourself are irrationally predisposed against the resistance … you yourself are not rational, your ‘criticism’ have indefinably associative roots (such as that inane suggestion … you give interpretations suited to that subliminal tendency in you to view the lebanese ‘other’ suspiciously … you guise this under the appearance of a detached middle eastern ‘expert’ … your inherently biased interpretation, in fact a misrepresentation… you have raised the immoral rhetoric of accusing others unjustifiably to the level of academic detachment. Yes, you work well in the american setup…”

🙂

I suppose I’m going to be accused of being “sleazy” now for citing Trinkets’s words back to him. *sigh*

I’ll respond to the first half of your comment later.

Posted by Qifa Nabki | January 25, 2014, 6:28 pm
and an additional sign of the sleaze is that smiley face. typical passive agressive sleaze.

Posted by Trinkets | January 25, 2014, 6:35 pm
I also do not appreciate taking the comments out of context so as to present them as being baseless non-substantiated accusations. that is yet another sign of intellectual sleaze on the part of QN.

Posted by Trinkets | January 25, 2014, 6:40 pm
Fascinating. Your harping on the word “panegyric” does not qualify as “taking comments out of context so as to present them as being baseless non-substantiated accusations,” and yet my quoting a full paragraph of disparaging insults back at you is a sign of intellectual sleaze? Very puzzling.

I think you have been outmaneuvered in this debate and so you’re slinging mud as a last resort. No matter. I’m happy to continue the discussion, despite the fact that every one of your comments to me is accompanied by a lengthy psychological analysis of my irrationality, cultural baggage, insidious motives, etc. As I said before: I will assume that you are an intelligent and well-meaning observer of the politics of our region, and you will do the same for me. I will assume that you are not posturing or arguing in bad faith, and you will do the same.

Why not begin by responding to my comment above?

Posted by Qifa Nabki | January 25, 2014, 6:55 pm
PS: And let’s try to keep the comments short. Like no more than 200 words each. I’m a guilty party too, but I think the conversation will flow more easily.

Posted by Qifa Nabki | January 25, 2014, 6:59 pm
The reason Trinket’s comments are boring is not because they are long, by because it is the same kind of nonsense Arab intellectuals have been spewing for decades. Every generation thinks it is writing something new when in fact they are just filling the same template. It took decades for people to be convinced that communism does not work despite the clear evidence. Many intellectuals in the West were able to fool themselves and rationalize nonsense about how successful communism was relative to capitalism for 2 generations. This process but with the “resistance” ideology is still going on in the Arab world. I find this fascinating from an epistemology point of view. I have several theories about why and how this nonsense is sustained but I will not bore you with them.

Posted by AIG | January 25, 2014, 7:25 pm
QN “I think you have been outmaneuvered in this debate”

Early on, i realize, oh another typical… i’ll avoid inserting a real disparaging insult. i accepted to join the discussion and to present -not so much to you (because I’m not silly enough to consider that you are not acquainted with the arguments anyway)- my point of view generally because i sensed that your hawkish audience was being extremely unfair on the resistance and its supporters.

As evidence that my issue is not your position: I was able to have a very civil interaction with others critical of the resistance, i enjoyed Bad Vilbel’s provocations and they gave me food for fodder – especially that s/he gave me the opportunity to flesh out some of my ideas against his and indeed, to limit some of enthusiasm: HA is not an ideal solution even if it is one necessitated by circumstance. My point was never to outmaneuver or be outmaneuvered; my mind was not in that gutter. Grow up. There are more important things to pay attention to.

It is easy to sense when one is dealing with a serious and open desire to engage or….in your case….a desire to score points even by way of condescension and disingenuity. It is not surprise, then, that you’re conceptualizing this as an arena for outmanouevering others. It is no surprise that you’re so blatantly blind to the need to be judicial and fair rather than dilettantely use whatever means possible, including nihilistic relativism (comparing HA to Takfiris) – however far fetched -to reify even further your subliminal sense of tribalism. what the foreign reader does not pick up is that you ARE a product of that tribalism and this reflects in your negation of other (trying to misrepresent them, be unjustifiably suspicious of them…and so on)

I have responded where I felt a response was owed. I do not care to respond to your comment. Once I sense your purpose is not self-serving pretension (inflated by unrefined and unjustified dismissals and those sleazy cynical exclamations of a fake surprise and wonderment -again that inane anglosaxonia: “Just amazing.” “*sigh*” “Fascinating.” ), perhaps.

Posted by Trinkets | January 25, 2014, 7:36 pm
lets see you then, QN, counter AIG’s racist drivel.Or not?

Posted by Trinkets | January 25, 2014, 7:39 pm
Fodder for thought. Or food for thought. Bthough assuming we both benefited, might well have been an exchamge of food for fodder

Posted by Trinkets | January 25, 2014, 7:52 pm
Trinkets. In response to your longer comment from earlier today.
You go to great lengths to portray HA’s raison-d’etre from a very specific angle, that of the Takfiri threat.
I’d like to point out that some of us (myself included) had been railing against what we consider an illegal militia, bully and state within a state, long before there was a civil war in Syria and long before there were takfiris to contend with.
So while your argument may have the semblance of logic, I don’t agree with it one bit because you’re simply justifying (for lack of a better word, I know your argument is actually more complex than that, but I simplify for the sake of brevity) or defending HA by pointing at the Takfiris. That kind of logic has never agreed with me and probably never will. It’s exactly the “bogeyman” approach that I’ve explained yesterday, as leading to a vicious circle of violence. You say HA needs to stay because of the Takfiri threat (even though HA was around long before that threat existed) and they (the takfiris) will say they need to stick around because of the HA/Iran/Shia menace (which, while I disagree with, I also understand as THEIR worldview).
The bottom line is, everyone has a worldview in which they can justify their existence on account of “Well he’s doing it too”.
It goes back to the old saying most of our moms told us at some point or another during childhood “Well, if Joe/Hassan/Mustapha jumped out a window, would you do it too?”
That’s my worldview, and I am sure you disagree with it. Sadly, there isn’t much more I can say when you continue to simply reject what I consider to be sound logic, in favor of what probably makes sense in your head (I am not at all accusing you of arguing in bad faith) but is, in my opinion, simply excuses.
Pre-2000, HA’s excuse was “Weak state. Israeli occupation.”
2000-2006, HA didn’t need to make excuses because the Syrians maintained a status quo.
2006. Syria withdraws, we need an excuse: Shebaa, release of prisoners.
2006-2008: The STL is a conspiracy against us that the M14 camp wants to use to disarm us.
2011-Present day: The takfiris (which, I will note, did not exist in any kind of meaningful way prior to the Syrian civil war).
At what point do you run out of excuses?
I’m not saying the excuses themselves are invalid. From a HA point of view, they make sense. But it’s the mere fact of needing to make excuses that I’m against. At some point, you man up and say enough, let’s build a state. Or else, that Utopia we both agreed on yesterday will never come to pass, because HA will keep making excuses ad infinitum. And they won’t be alone. Their existence will be excuse for others to do the same thing, be them Sunnis or Christians or Druze…

Posted by Bad Vilbel | January 25, 2014, 8:21 pm
The comment definitely disappeared. Is this a recurring phenomenon here?

Before I repost, I’d like to say that there is NOTHING rascist whatsoever in what AIG said. All he said were facts known to anyone who looks at the Middle East from the outside and knows a little bit of world 20th century history. In case you are not aware, Middle Easterners: you are living in a warped time zone.

But I disagree about AIG’s observations with regards to some comments unreadability charachtersitics due to boredom and repitition as he said as opposed to the real reason being the length of such comments. The length of your comments is a precise index of how much thought and efforts you put into it, which would then eliminate the boring aspect of its repetitiveness. If you cannot say what you want to say in a one or two paragraphs comment, then you do not know what you are talking about. In short you’re blabbering.

This is a repost of the lost comment of as much as I can remember of it? I said:

I was going to copy and paste an article which will really make your fore finger sore from scrolling. But then I saw QN’s last comment and opted for a link instead.

The article which I will link shortly clearly proves the point I raised earlier. So-called ‘takfirism’ is a noexisting mirage created by the same perpetrators of terrorism since the current murdering regime in Syria took over, and since its protege, the foreign funded terrorists of Hezbollah came into being. This mirage is responsible for the misconception as manifested by Bad vilbell in ascribing terroism to Sunnis in a decade after decades of Hezbollah perpetrated terrorism. Hezbollah is still very much active in terrorism and will never cease. The actor(s) was(were) one and the same for some half century now, namely the above mentioned entities. The only difference in the different decades as opposed to what Bad Vilbell wrongly concluded is in the methods of outsourcing it. Currently, it is being outsourced under different manufactured names by the same actors of the last 40 years. Outsourcing it as such does not make it an associate of Sunnis whatsoever. It means it is elusive by design by the same one and only one terrorist in the room: Hezbollah and Syrian regime of murderers.

https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/commentaryanalysis/531937-assads-hypocrisy–and-americas

Posted by Mustap | January 25, 2014, 8:42 pm
I am not sure if you’re confusing me with someone else Mustap. I don’t recall where I ascribed terrorism to Sunnis specifically. (Although, obviously, there have been Sunni terrorists in the past and still are today, but that’s neither here nor there).
Could you clarify?

Posted by Bad Vilbel | January 25, 2014, 8:54 pm
Bad Vilbell, I was referring to you comment at 3:58PM. Since, takfirism was the topic, you seem to have conflated what I believe is a manufactured phantom as I described in my last comment with Sunnis.

You did say Sunnis at 3:58PM, didn’t you?

My point is what you see as Sunni suicide bombers are in fact the tools of outsourcing by the same Hezbollah and Syria apparatus of organized terrorism as Michael Weiss clearly explained.

Posted by Mustap | January 25, 2014, 9:11 pm
Bad Vilbel,

The raison d’être was and is Israel. I was responding to QN when he brought up the takfiri presence in Syria and threat to Lebanon. V quickly… Lebanon-HA is A, Syria regime is B, israel C, takfiris D.

B is a prerequisite for A in defense against C
D is against B and against A (enflamed by the gulf arabia and its takfiri clerics -harkening back to the usage of takfiris against the Soviet Union -such as 3ar3oor and qardawi – both and others being bankrolled paid by Qatar and Saudi – by comparison, i think no way can we compare this to Iran and its clerics. And HA has never but been cconciliatory with the sunnis – the Syrian affair…lets continue)
A helps in B against D.

So the takfiris are a dual threat:
1. For us all. I dont agree that the takfidi model can be deemed an equivalent to sectarian militias. They are trans-geographical, parasitic, not restricted to a locale, expansionary. I think it is highly dangerous to conflate it with the lebanese model -which is summarily defensive per the minority mindset of our multiconfessional communities within the marginal expanses of different communities. Takfirism, however, is imperial wanting to conquer and set up its own racist (religiously chauvinistic) empire It would be a stupid and fatal mistake to relativize the threat and to consider any of the other groups in Lebanon or Syria or elsewhere are prone to this. I actually agree that the roots of HA, muslim brotherhood meet at one point in history – the notion of political islam and ibin bannah and before the al Afghani (who funnily enlugh for the brotherhood was mozt likey shia). And I think at the onset, yes HA were like the Muslem brotherhood in wanting to extend their notion of religion. But they have grown out of this and to keep on digging it up in order to relativize the takfiri threat (which carries with it a melange of wahabism and muslim brotherhood. It is important to note that wahabism, by itself, is not necessarily expansionist in nature).
And finally, I dont believe HA is or sees themselves as fighting a sectarian war but I do accept that this narrative is being used, cynically, to radicalize sunni kids against HA. Its quite complex and im typing on my phone again. But I didnt say takfiris were THE raison.

Posted by Trinkets | January 25, 2014, 9:33 pm
Forgot 2. A threat to establish an anti-resistence condition (and they prove to not betray their allies – unusual in the per usual regional politics)

Posted by Trinkets | January 25, 2014, 10:05 pm
Trinkets,

I followed your logic the first time. I never disagreed that the Takfiris are a current threat.
Nor did I equate them with local sectarian militias. As you pointed out, it is indeed, a different phenomenon.

But that’s completely besides my point: Where you and I disagree is where you feel that HA is justified in carrying weapons (be it today, or be it in the past) because if the Israeli threat (and now the Takfiri threat).
As I stated in my previous comment, I feel like, as valid as those excuses may be, they are still excuses. Prior to 2000, it is was Israel, now it’s the takfiris. And if they were to vanish off the face of the earth, HA would find a new pretext.
Where you and I differ is that that you seem to think that this so-called Resistance is a noble and selfless endeavor, and therefore, justifiable.
Whereas I believe HA’s existence is not Israel, or the takfiris or anything else. It is one, and one thing only: A tool in the hands of the Iranian regime to further whatever the best interests of Iran are (and there is nothing wrong with that if you’re Iran).
If Iran were to be best friends with Israel tomorrow, HA would find a different excuse to stick around.
If Iran were to be best friends with KSA tomorrow, HA would find yet another excuse to stick around.
The point is, while many of us accept that both sides in Lebanon are selfish and working for others, rather than for Lebanon, the pro-Resistance crowd insists that everyone EXCEPT HA is selfish and working for others, while HA is, somehow, a noble and selfless entity.
I will say it one more time: Until we have a strong Lebanese state, everything else and everyone else will look to foreign patrons for self-preservation and self-advancement. And yes, that includes HA.

Simple exercise: Let’s go back to 2000. Israel withdrew. HA claimed to have driven the IDF and SLA out of the South. Fine. Great.
There were no takfiris at the time.
Syria still controlled Lebanon, for the most part.
Why not, at that point in time, disarm the resistance and integrate with the Lebanese Army (remember, the “state” was quite controlled by Syria, so there would have been no harm there. No Saad or whoever to hijack these weapons for anti-shia purposes, let’s say).
What would have been so hard about saying “We’re Lebanese patriots. Now that we drove the IDF out, we will integrate into the LAF and put our rescources towards building a state.”
Well, neither Syria nor Iran wanted that at the time. It behooved them to have a pawn to use on the Lebanese scene for their own purposes. And that had nothing to do with “resisting” anyone or anything.
It’s always ever been the same formula: Foreign powers playing various sects against each other in Lebanon to keep it weak and easy to use as a “mailbox”. Why would Assad endanger his regime by open warfare with Israel when he can instead move a pawn in Lebanon, or in Gaza? Why would the Iranians give up leverage in their then nascent negotiations with the West over the nuke program?
You have to put HA (as well as all the other players) in the context of regional politics, IMHO. These self-declared excuses and slogans are nothing but hot air: “Resistance” just like “Nasserism” or “Arabism” before it are all empty words. The facts on the ground, the actual actions of the various players (be it HA, or the M14s or whoeverelse) is never explained by these slogans. It’s however, very neatly explained, when you look at the regional actors (iran, Syria, Israel, KSA, etc.)

The “resistance” of HA is no different in my mind than the “resistance” of the LF in the 80s. Was there an Israeli occupation? Yes. Was there a Syrian occupation in the 80s? Yes.
Does that make the excuses of “resistance” valid? Sure. Absolutely.
Is that what HA or the LF REALLY cared about? IMHO, NO! The LF used “resistance against Syria” as an excuse to try for what they really wanted: A christian state. And they went to great lengths (including getting in bed with Israel) for it.
HA is using “Resitance” as an excuse for their program too. And they’ve got their foreign sponsor too.
(And of course, in the near future, at this rate, the Sunnis will sloganeer about “Resistance” as well, and use that as excuse for whatever their program may be).

And none of these programs are “Lebanon”.

Posted by Bad Vilbel | January 25, 2014, 10:32 pm
Bad Vilbel, will attemp to respond later but just to correct myself (again):

. I think it is highly dangerous to conflate it with the lebanese model -which is summarily defensive per the minority mindset of our multiconfessional communities within the marginal expanses of different historic empires (not communities).

Posted by Trinkets | January 25, 2014, 10:48 pm
Trinkets said: “It is no surprise that you’re so blatantly blind to the need to be judicial and fair rather than dilettantely use whatever means possible, including nihilistic relativism (comparing HA to Takfiris) – however far fetched -to reify even further your subliminal sense of tribalism. what the foreign reader does not pick up is that you ARE a product of that tribalism and this reflects in your negation of other (trying to misrepresent them, be unjustifiably suspicious of them…and so on)”

I would prefer not to engage on the level of discourse analysis, but I see that there is no way forward without addressing these strange accusations that are preventing you from discussing the real issues with me.

What is the definition of dilettantism? What makes someone a dilettante? Are you a dilettante? If not, what accounts for your seriousness of purpose and political commitment? I find it a rather cheap accusation, particularly coming from an anonymous reader engaged in a political discussion with someone whose identity is transparent and whose entire record of commentary is open for scrutiny. You don’t have to agree with me, but surely an accusation of dilettantism requires evidence beyond cryptic diagnoses of anglo-saxiana, whatever that means. (Tribalism, indeed…)

And speaking of tribalism, what is your evidence of that? Have you read anything else I’ve written besides this post? I have regularly criticized March 14 and the Mustaqbal party (e.g., here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and much more). Can you point to a similar record of holding March 8th’s feet to the fire? Please direct me to it.

Enough on discourse analysis. Let’s talk politics.

Posted by Qifa Nabki | January 25, 2014, 11:08 pm
Mustap

Your comment went to moderation, maybe because of a spelling mistake in the email address. I’ve released it now.

Trinkets,

You keep saying, over and over, that QN was the person who equated Hizbullah with takfiris. Where did I say this? I’ve done a search on this page, and the only time I used the word “takfiris” was in the following sentence:

[Nasrallah’s] rhetoric [in 1982] was not different from the takfiri elements you are right to fear today.”

This surely does not need to be proven. Do I really need to dig up that unfortunate clip showing a young SHN describing the project of Hizbullah circa 1982? I would prefer not to bother, as it makes no difference today, given that Hizbullah’s project has been transformed very significantly.

This was my basic point about your 1982 article detailing Israel’s strategic plan for the region. If we are going to establish our defense strategy on the basis of statements from 1982, we will be stumbling around in the dark.

Posted by Qifa Nabki | January 25, 2014, 11:23 pm
QN,

What is there for you to discuss with trinkets? He thinks that fighting Israel is the top priority above all else. All his logic follows from that axiom. He will rationalize and distort facts to support his axiom no matter what.

Posted by AIG | January 25, 2014, 11:24 pm
Re AIG’s comment: whether or not one considers it “drivel,” it surely is not “racist”. Let’s not cheapen the word “racist” by flinging it about however we like.

Plenty of Arabs make the same point about the prevalence and emptiness of the ideology of resistance. BV did so on this thread. Does that make him a racist?

If one were to criticize Zionism as a destructive ideology held by generations of Jewish intellectuals, or fascism as an ideology embraced by generations of German intellectuals, would that make one a racist?

Posted by Qifa Nabki | January 25, 2014, 11:32 pm
From an American “resistance” *nationalist perspective (it’s a part of our culture) there is more to like about HA than the domestic traitors collaborating with a foreign enemy. Israel has killed far more Lebanese and still threatens more (the destruction of 200 villages in southern Israel) and yet the amorphous “threat” of Iranian influence trumps the decades of actual lives lost to Israeli occupations and bombs?

*Note that I’m not referring to the American politicals who are just as craven and venal and often even more shamefully ridiculous that the Lebanese version. One finds that the most fiercely patriotic Amercians who have dedicated their lives to “serving” in defense of our security admire and respect Hezbollah. But those folks are from the ranks of professionals who are familiar with them from up close.

BV’s question:

“What would have been so hard about saying “We’re Lebanese patriots. Now that we drove the IDF out, we will integrate into the LAF and put our rescources towards building a state.”

Deserves a fact-based discussion starting with another question:

“Would they have been “allowed” to do so or would the current sectarian accusations that the LAF is in collusion with HA have been even worse than they are under todays dire circumstances?”

Any discussion involving the above cannot be separated from external factors/factions that severely constrain Lebanon’s ability to form an able defensive force. The deck stacked against such a prospect is massive and is maintained by both internal and external forces.

Related is this recent discussion (triggered by the KSA billions) by some Americans who have reason to speak with authority:

“The Twisted Genius said…
poul,

I agree there is a continuing risk of fragmentation in the Lebanese armed forces. We were well aware of that risk in 1983 when we began reorganizing, reequipping and training the army. That fragmentation occurred when the Israelis pulled out and the various factional militias made their moves. The 4th brigade was pushed by the Druze and Amal militias and disintegrated. The Druze half defected to Jumblatt and the Christian half retreated behind Israeli lines and was evacuated by sea to Christian sectors in the north. The primarily Christian 8th brigade under Michel fought well at Souk al Gharb against the Druze militia, who also fought well. However they probably wouldn’t have fought with much vigor against the Lebanese Forces (the Christian Phalangist militia). A primarily Shia brigade was kept out of the fighting against the Amal militia. The Lebanese know how to fight, but they have their own reasons for doing so. IMO, the primary loyalty of most Lebanese is to their coreligionists rather than to Lebanon. That will always leave questions about who will fight who. Modern equipment alone will not improve that army.

i also believe the Hizbollah forces have little reason to covet any newly equipped Lebanese army. They are already a superbly trained, motivated and disciplined force with equipment matched to their way of fighting.”
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2013/12/httpdailystarcomlbnewslebanon-news2013dec-29242579-sleiman-saudi-arabia-grants-lebanese-army-3-billionashxaxzz2ot.html

PS. I am a proud dilettante.

Posted by lally | January 25, 2014, 11:33 pm
Lally said: “PS: I am a proud dilettante”

And we love you for it. 🙂

Posted by Qifa Nabki | January 25, 2014, 11:38 pm
For the record, it may be considered racist by some, but – and i say this half-jokingly – there is a definite element of how “us middle easterners” think, talk and act. And it’s just as stereotypical as “Asians” or “Mexicans” or whatever have you. There’s always a nugget of truth on those kinds of stereotypes.
At the risk of exposing myself to being politically incorrect and being called a ‘racist’ by some, it really is the truth.

And for the record, I too have a theory about “how this nonsense is sustained”: Us Arabs are very repressed people. Basically, if we got laid more, there’d be a lot less need for this ridiculous machismo!

Posted by Bad Vilbel | January 25, 2014, 11:40 pm
I would rather you remove that comment QN if it has an error as the case seems to be.

I certainly do not want to receive spam e-mails from parasitic dilettantes!!

Besides no need for repetirive comments.

Posted by Mustap | January 26, 2014, 12:08 am
QN: “If one were to criticize Zionism as a destructive ideology held by generations of Jewish intellectuals, …would that make one a racist?”

No. That would make one an anti-semitic deligitimitizer soon out of a job.

Posted by lally | January 26, 2014, 12:46 am
AiG is cstating that Arab intellectuals, a general blanketing term, spew nonsense, and you tell me its not racist? I’m not talking pop sterotyping here…all arab intellectuals (ie by definition all arabs who write and think and share knowledge) are suddenly meant to be the same … as if we cannot but produce the same nonsensical type. as if s/he had delved into all their literature and come up with that denouncement.

Imagine if we said all afro american intellectuals or all feminist intellectuals were spewing nonsense about their rights as afroamericans and women.

you guys are ridiculous. educated and still beyond reading your inherent disrespect for the indigenous people of the region. no wonder you’re ready to bend over to the Israelis and and no wonder you’re against the one group, the only group, to have Israel running back to its drawing board with its tail between its legs. its the inherited lebanese colonial mentality.

Posted by Trinkets | January 26, 2014, 1:16 am
With regards to the herd followers of Hezbollah and their proxies on these pages who never tire from bombarding the readers with all sorts of propaganda and nonesense, in addition to levying preposterous claims that if we do not fall in ‘love’ with this ‘most glorified entity’ of most ‘honorable’ of the human breed according to their ‘infallible’ eyes, then we 1) have an agenda, 2) hate the group, or 3) are jealous for some perceived successes of this entity apparent only to the accuser’s ‘infallible’ eyes, we need to say few things to clarify and mispell these claims.

With regards to having an agenda, it is more likely the accuser has such an agenda as clearly manifested by the persistence of his/her/its presence here to deliver long speeches geered towards one and only end: to glorify the organization and market it to an audience that is clearly far above the level of gullibility to be so easily indoctrinated by such trivialities the organization has to offer.

With regards to the levied charge of hate, you should read the above again and satisfy yourself that such human emotion of hate will not be triggered for the obvious reasons outlined therein. In fact, if there is any human emotion to be detected in this scenario it will be more like derision or detestation or something like what you experience when you have to digest certain food which you abhor, and which may even cause you to vomit. So next time if you happen to experience vomiting examine deep within yourself if you are experiencing an emotion of hate while in that condition. I am sure you will convince yourself the emotion is of a very very diferrent kind. It is very unfortunate that such proof needs to be accompanied by physical pain. But, well we’re talking ‘resistance’ here.

Lastly, from a historical point of view, the Iranian has a well known stereotype among the Arabs ( including the Lebanese not counting Aoun and his herd for well known reasons. The General commands a flock by-in-large susceptible to be influenced by and to accept herd-like behaviour ideology, the reasons for which, we opt to withhold and leave them to your imagination). Excuse the apparent racist remarks here, for when you describe yourself as most honorable, you should allows us some leeway. It is not possible to render this stereotype into one English word. The best such rendering would be to say: a boastful being full of arrogance bordering on ignorance combined with mule-like stubbornness. Hassan of Bazourieh, being a faithful servant for his master to the full limits of his capacities, is the perfect embodiment for this stereotype whenever he appears from behind the plasma screen from deep within the tunnel he hides withim. Every Arab in this case will see the stereotype in full display courtesy of modern technology reaching deep underground. Derision has only one way to go:higher and higher.

Posted by Mustap | January 26, 2014, 1:40 am
Trinkets

Your whole analyses are based on generalizations–and binary thinking. Should we call all forms of generalizations and lumping people together as an essential entity (whether based on ethnicity, sect, etc.) “racism”? The usual designation for such a process is “ahistorical” at best or “ignorant” at worst.

Some statements that generalize could be used heuristically to convey a purpose, and are thus not supported by blind belief in truth. We have to use some of those mechanisms to communicate. I consider the blind belief in any one truth more dangerous that any ill informed occasional generalization. Closing venues of dialogue and focusing on a warlike attack on the differences of informed opinion is a sign of frustration and intellectual laziness.

Posted by Parrhesia | January 26, 2014, 1:40 am
You are grasping at straws trinkets. It is clear to any reasonable reader that I meant “some” Arab intellectuals, not all of them. QN is an Arab intellectual. Do you think I meant him also?

Go read some history. You will find that you are one of many deluded Arabs who can’t get their priorities straight. The aim of any successful state is to better the conditions of its citizens in what the UN calls “human development factors”. These include health, education, standard of living etc. They don’t give points for fighting any “entities”, Zionist or other. One day you will figure out that “resistance” is no substitute at all for building a more developed state. In fact, it is a big hindrance whether exploited by dictators to suppress their people or by believers to foment instability and to waste state resources.

Posted by AIG | January 26, 2014, 2:16 am
AiG,

That was exactly what you meant, a general disparagement (I don’t see where or how QN fits here). You didn’t specify or define. You were flippant and your flippancy in itself was enough to express your flippant antipathy to Arab intellectualism and Arabs generally. A self respecting European would never apply such a blanket term (European intellectuals spew nonsense) to suggest a particular group. And if a non-European person said this, it suggests nothing more than his prejudice and stupidity.

And who said that many Arab intellectuals are/were not for building up democratic states? Is it more important for you to deliver a denouncement on the basis of, say, their support of fighting the enemy? Your viewpoint is simplistic and iniquitous.

Perhaps if the corrupt Arab leaders- many of whom were propped up not by their own people, many who were maintained there against the desire of the people -had listened to their intellectuals, the Arab stated would have been in far better state. And here, by all means, Assad would have been n a far better position had he been consulting with these critics.

Your impossible conflation of Arab states/ regimes (ergo state heads) with Arab intellectuals, generally, shows that you are associating the failed application of Arab states with the untried ideas of anti-acquiescence intellectuals merely in order to belittle the latter. There is no clarity or reason in that association. You only prove that you yourself are spewing libelous nonsense.

Also, I have already mentioned that there is no contradiction between building up a state and retaining the capacity to be able to defend oneself. T

As for the UN: Article 51 provides for the right of countries to engage in self-defence, including collective self-defence, against an armed attack.
“ Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security”

In the absence of a strong Lebanese army (whose inability to cope with the fight against Israel is not to be blamed on HA), I see that resistance is a suitable facility to maintain until such a time when we do have an Army.
And, it is my belief that people who don’t want that resistance capacity fundamentally do not believe that Israel is a a threat and enemy – whether they pay lip service or not. On this issue only, AiG was partially correct – and I have stated it many times: if you view Israel suchlike – and in the absence of an army- you will naturally justify to yourself their relevance. As for sacrificing everything – of course not, that is histrionic misrepresentation on the part of AiG, not very surprising as well. in fact, the concern is that in the absence of such a powerful defensive facilitiy, we are vulnerable to all sorts of sacrifice.

What is rather repelling is that the anti-resistance individuals here come out in a pack and I have not yet heard them, Lebanese or otherwise, criticize any of their own , irrespective of needless expressions of racism (latent or overt) , vitriol and so on. Instead, they absolve each other (as QN does here) if only to continue as a pack.

Posted by Trinkets | January 26, 2014, 3:15 am
that is: In the absence of a strong Lebanese army (whose inability to cope with the fight against Israel is not to be blamed on HA), I see that resistance is a suitable facility to maintain until such a time when we do have an Army capable enough.

Posted by Trinkets | January 26, 2014, 3:35 am
Trinkets, in your mind, when would you foresee Lebanon not having an enemy to the south anymore? When will you say, ok now there is no more reason to have HA? I am asking because I know HA will never come to this juncture, their mission will be complete only once Israel ceases to exist. I would like to know where do you stand on this? which in my opinion is the basis of everything we are discussing that relates to HA in Lebanon.

Do you accept Israel’s right to exist?

Posted by Vulcan | January 26, 2014, 4:06 am
I’m guessing he/she doesn’t. That’s the very axiom on which this whole house of cards is built.
But I’ll wait for Trinkets to reply and speak for him/herself.

Posted by Bad Vilbel | January 26, 2014, 5:50 am
Hassan of Bazourieh! Holly crap that is funny. Does anyone know what village Naim Qassem is from?

Posted by Maverick | January 26, 2014, 6:18 am
He is from Tar Ziba, I think.

Posted by Vulcan | January 26, 2014, 7:33 am
Trinkets, a quick note about the reposes you are getting as Reggie Jackson once said “Nobodies don’t get booed.”

Posted by Epok | January 26, 2014, 8:12 am
As a general point about this discussion, I think a step back from the details might be useful. The first question is: What are you (each of you, myself) trying to accomplish in the discussion. Personally I don’t comment much in places like the NYT or Daily Star because I find the quality of dialogue very low. I also rarely discuss politics live because it is either violent agreement or disagreement which are equally useless. I see that this blog/chatroom has the potential to be a place where we can sharpen our views against other reasonable people of whom I believe there are at least three or four actively commenting. One thing I find amazing about politics everywhere is how little beyond emotion/identity there is to most discussions. But at some level politicians are supposed to guide our societies and so real policy type discussions based on logic to try to find the best way forward are essential.

Narratives are dangerous things. As someone who has read a lot of Israeli and Arab writing on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict I can see that each side has a narrative that, once one is ensconced in it, is convincing and appealing. It is clear that most people taking opposing views of uncertain subjects are involved in some kind of narrative that does not allow them to listen to or process the other sides POV. A Palestinian can say ‘they took my land and I will fight forever to get it back’ an Israeli can say ‘I was given this land by the UN in 1948, it may be wrong to take more and oppress the palestinians, but I will fight to the death to keep what is mine’. I don’t believe a real debate is even possible about which side you take on that issue.

We need to be aware that we are all drowning in our own narratives, this seems to be linked to how human beings understand the world (story telling). We need to be aware that our story is definitely partially right and partially wrong. Then we can discuss.

Posted by Epok | January 26, 2014, 8:24 am
QN, I take your point about what is nationalist about a party that clearly has outside support. And I will admit that there is no way I can prove what is essentially just my opinion. I’ll also concede that it is, like many words used in politics, slippery. I would note a couple of things. Israel is heavily dependent on US support but I do not think there has been a more nationalist succession of governments in the post war European sphere, so outside support does not preclude nationalism.

I am not sure what word I need to use, but the the traits I am referring to are related to concern for the group over the individual or the wider group over the smaller group. HA has built, in parallel to its military organisation, an enormous welfare apparatus that educates and provides medical care to people in its area of action. HA seems to me to understand that the long term interest of “its people” (“” because not sure they consider this shia, a sub set of shia, all lebanese, lebanese+ palestinians) is only going to be found in a partnership that includes all major lebanese populations. They seem willing to make short term sacrifices for the long term goals they have which, I believe, include building a strong Lebanese state.

HA, I think, has pretty consistently been open to accommodations with all other parties in Lebanon (pre-2006 with Hariri, Joumblat etc, post 2006 Aoun, Joumblat etc) the main deciding factor on who they are allied with is who is willing to be allied with them.

I think Aoun is a nationalist, flawed as he is as a leader, because in many ways he follows the same line…opposing those who threaten lebanon and open to join those who will join him. He personally described the origins of the MOU with HA to several of us as follows: he wanted to agree on a set of principles for post-syria Lebanon. He perceived the most likely problem would be getting HA to agree so he started with them. TO his surprise they agreed…no one else did. Forgetting about where we are today, at the time he explained this, pre-2006 war, the MOU was something I don’t see how any Lebanese could disagree with materially.

Joumblat I think is a communitarian. He is pursuing the druze interest as best he knows how which i think just involves trying to stick to the winning side.

As for the Hariri grouping, I think Rafik had a vision of how to build a nation that was flawed, but he was a nationalist in my view. Not a visionary, not a statesmen. He was not corrupt in the sense of being for sale but tolerated immense corruption around him because this was his pragmatic vision of how things could advance. I need something done, I pay. Once he died, however, the hangers on he left behind were corrupt. No need to mention Saad, we agree. A few examples of Hariri MO:

1) At al-hayat owned by Prince Khaled bin Sultan, Hariri paid a separate salary to every employee from editor to office boy. His involvement in the Lebanese press is well known.
2) Siniora as minister of finance awarded the Beirut Duty Free licence to a company in which he, via shell co, is a partner
3) The head of ogero was (I don;t think anymore) also paid a separate salary from his official one by Hariri.

These are all things I know first hand.

Posted by Epok | January 26, 2014, 8:57 am
The fact of the matter is the “resistance” has changed from fighting against Israel to fighting against arab freedom.

This is a bad “PR” move, and the resistance is losing supporters by the boat-load.

Posted by Akbar Palace | January 26, 2014, 9:10 am
(This comment is in response to Epok’s 8:24AM comment. I’ll get to the following one later.)

Thanks Epok. This blog has hosted some excellent discussions over the years, as well as some not so excellent ones. I have certainly benefited from hearing your perspective.

I’ve been meaning to respond to a comment you made earlier: “And, if today they are involved in a quagmire, and things are not black and white, well, so be it, that’s humanity for you, hero one day, screwing the pooch the next. But at least they’re not getting all emotional and killing civilians in their opponents “strongholds”.”

This kind of sober perspective is really necessary, I believe, for a productive discussion to take place about politics. Having moderated discussions for several years now, I generally find that they are corrupted by one of the two following factors:

1. Personal attacks (so silly, when you think about the fact that we don’t know each other personally);
2. Trading in absolutes;

The second factor is the more frustrating one, from my perspective. It is impossible to explore the potentially fruitful middle ground between two positions if one or both participants refuse to concede points to the other.

I agree with you that Hizbullah is screwing the pooch today in Syria, and yet the situation is not black or white. The conversations I’ve had with FPM officials and supporters since 2011 are suffused with angry comments about Hizbullah’s choices (not unlike what LFers have to say about Hariri’s neck-deep involvement on the Turkish border).

Posted by Qifa Nabki | January 26, 2014, 9:14 am
@ Epok (8:57)

I would like to respond in greater depth later, but this is a note to say that I agree with 98% of what you’ve written.

Posted by Qifa Nabki | January 26, 2014, 9:21 am
Quote of the day lol by BV.

“…Us Arabs are very repressed people. Basically, if we got laid more, there’d be a lot less need for this ridiculous machismo!”…

So having 25 kids per family and five wives…aren’t they getting laid? 😛

Posted by danny | January 26, 2014, 11:32 am
They seem willing to make short term sacrifices for the long term goals they have which, I believe, include building a strong Lebanese state.

Epok,

How does siding with Iran and Assad in the Syrian civil war build “a strong Lebanese state”?

To any outside observer, HA’s actions are purely sectarian in nature.

Posted by Akbar Palace | January 26, 2014, 11:38 am
To say that Aoun has nationalist is as preposterous as saying Hezbollah is after building a Lebanese state. But as I indicated earlier this is typical herd behaviour of the flock Aoun is capable of manipulating. Hence the MOU was possible because of the same herd-like behaviourial affinity of the audience it is meant to be consumed by of the two who signed it.

Aoun was kicked out in the nineties by the Syrians, and then brought back again by the Syrians in 2005 for a specific purpose: to play the role he has been playing ever since. He was meant to be the balancing lever when the Syrians realized that everything was about to fall apart for them in Lebanon. He followed the script written for him to the letter.

Others saw the MOU for what it is: an extension of Syrian hegemony by proxy. Therefore, anyone with any sense of decency , would reject it outright, and not even bother to listen for an explanation.

Besides, who is he to demand from or to ask others to accept or participate in any suspicious bilateral arrangements?

Nationalist my behind!

Posted by Mustap | January 26, 2014, 1:22 pm
And by the way just so you don’t think I am taking sides, Harriri senior was not visionary in my opinion. He had good intentions and the means to come close to being so. And that was his flaw, because he did not use the means available to him as they should have neen used.

In my opinion, he should have called it off prior to the first Gulf war (if you’re not aware what that was, it was when the Lebanese civil war ended as a quid pro quo for Hafiz to send Syrian troops to be with the coalition). He, Harriri, should have never agreed to the conditions imposed by Hafiz that Hezbollah should be treated differently and that it should keep its weapons unlike the other militias. Agreeing to that condition, in my opinion, disqualifies from the title of being visionary, and makes his Lebanese project a flawed one.

He was perhaps too eager to play a role he thought he was meant to play: by design, by destiny or otherwise.

Putting myself in his shoes, I would have told Hafiz at the time go rot in hell until it freezes, manage the hell you are entrusted with until it gets loose, and never set foot in a world you don’t belong to or qualify to be in, i.e. gaining undeserved legitimacy in the eyes of the world by sending few thousand troops we can do without.

Posted by Mustap | January 26, 2014, 1:37 pm
Epok,

I have to tip my hat to your comment about “narratives”. I agree with that 100% and it is a very sobering comment to read. Makes me step back and realize that we all end up falling into that narrative trap (look no further than my discussion with Trinkets of the past 2 days). It is very frustrating when you put 2 people with different narratives together, and watch them talk past each other over and over.

In any case, well said!

Posted by Bad Vilbel | January 26, 2014, 1:55 pm
Vulcan;

I cannot answer that question. The reciprocity between being pro-resistance (in its current form) and anti-Israel is not unconditional and not ideological – although I am adamant about viewing Israel – in its current form- as a perennial threat and enemy. And , accordingly, Lebanon should be consciously building itself up not only in terms of military abilities but also infra-structurally and politically (as HA does and as does Israel of course), to able to defend its integrity. In other words, had the Lebanese had an actual nationalist conscious and agreed – without hypocrisies, back stabbing, discreet or not-so-discreet collaborators- to act as a nation under threat, HA would have long been abrogated and we wouldn’t have been having this discussion.

However, the unfortunate reality is that Lebanon (or, at least, many if not most of our various factions) functions more realistically as a land of an alliance of tribes than a true nation-state and this model better explains the playing field to date – this also explains the outrage on the part of many over the ascendance of one contingent (shia/HA) in the guise of concerns over the national state sovereignty and so on when, in reality, each is answerable to their constituencies over and above overarching, cross-factional national concerns. This is guaranteed – at the representational and exucitive level- by our electoral system.

It just so happens that objective of HA to present itself as a deterrent to Israel and the clear fact that it -as Epok has mentioned- is willing to ally itself with all other Lebanese groups overlaps with my perception of Lebanon as having the capacity to be -at least- sovereign from its enemy (if not sovereign apropos other regional and global actors)

So, my perception is not determined by absolutes (whereas I find that the anti-resistance contingent here verges on the vehemently absolute and the unrealistic) but by circumstance (and hence my bulking at QN’s simplistic and unrepresentative description of my posts).

Once Lebanon proves itself as a successful national model, the ethical litmus test will be naturally calibrated otherwise. But so far, internally, ALL active and relevant political and communinatarian figureheads in Lebanon are not functioning within the model of a successful nation state.

So, to precise:

1. Is HA working outside the model of a nation-state?

This question is unanswerable as unfortunately we have proven that there is no tangible and successful model on all fronts, the defense of the country against Israel being merely one sector of national concern. From the governmental to the private, from the majority of political actors to our corporations and institutions, they largely exist operate outside the limits of law.

2. Do I believe that, in the evolution of such a model – at in terms of building up a national deterrence force AND infrastructure- HA (in its form) should be phased out in its form?

Absolutely (and there is an absolute). And I think for this to happen, the concerned must be working in tandem with (and not against) HA over an extended period of time. HA’s experience and knowledge is hard-won and very rich. They should be engaged in dialogue and we must bridge that phase wisely.

However, and this is significant so please note (if you want to): We are having this discussion largely because this issue has been provoked -roughly after Harriri’s assassination- by a number of actors, at different levels – national, regional and global and more so after the 2006 war. While we may assume that suddenly we are all concerned with the integrity and sovereignty of the Lebanese state, in reality these same actors have never genuinely cared for the sovereignty and integrity of the Lebanese state (and, granted, neither have others).

If we also look at the infeasibility of the requests and rhetoric, knowing certainly well that these are impractical and are at polar end relative to conflict resolution and, in face, have been calculated with political and propoganda ends in mind – not the eventual resolution of our endemic problems as a near-nation- and we realistically assess that neither HA nor its supporters are going to respond to these requests and rhetoric, we clearly see that this issue is being used for one party to score against another (see second paragraph herein).

Therefore, simply realistically, the issue of disarming the resistance has not – and never- been approached rationally, nationally and with seriously taking the valid concerns of the resistance and its supporters in the first place.

Again, this is because of the nature of our setup as it exists. HA is a natural consequence of the Lebanese condition, and- equally- the anti-HA factions are also a natural consequence of the Lebanese condition.

For my self, I am convinced, at least, of HA’s alibi apropos Israel. Does it have another agenda? I think its safe to say they gave up on Wileyel el Fakih and its just not doable in Lebanon – and thats whats important for me. Otherwise, some here keep on hinting about hidden agendas/ Do they work to bring Lebanon closer to Iran, politically? So what? Harriri senior worked to bring Lebanon closer to Saudi. They all have these agendas.

And, actually, what is being overlooked Lebanon’s survival (as well as its occasional embattlements) – in the absence of a true sovereign model- owes it to the fact that we have entities like HA, Harriri and this ensures – for the larger countries- that Lebanon, as a whole, is never an outright enemy (not an outright friend). Also, it is naive to assume that Iran does not take the resistance’s concerns into mind to effect a mutually beneficial arrangement.

So, whether they do or don’t have political motivations with Iran in hindsight does not detract from supporting the resistance axis. As such, its not that I find QN’s suspicions not in their place, I simply see them as redundant, decontextualized and trivial within the larger picture. Nearly all active actors in Lebanon have a non-national agenda and align themselves accordingly. I’ll align myself according to my own moral perception: with all the fucked-upness of the region and the petty politicking, I perceive the greater threat of Israel as the largest constant in the equation. Had Israel not been in the formula, I would prioritize otherwise.

Posted by Trinkets | January 26, 2014, 2:10 pm
Epok;

I’m afraid then I’m the one not agreeing with you on using that as a discursive tool. The only reason the others are agreeing with you is because you’re opening a venue of relativism that is nihilistic and renders any stance on the subject meaningless, rationality is rendered relative and human action is rendered amoral. As such, being pro-resistance is also rendered futile and its reasons are seen as an irrational tendency and passion given that its just a matter of perspective (and not actual spilled blood on ground, land theft, abductions and so on) . This is why they see you now as being reasonable. You’re giving voice to one of their fundamental beliefs. You will remember, perhaps, when I described QN as pocking the subject with a long detached stick? Well, you’ve just made it even longer.

To use an extreme example to prove the fallacy: Charles Manson had a narrative. Hitler had one…as did their victims. So?

I am all for finding common grounds somewhere…but I’m not for losing the very notion of ground ( iedirectionless relativism) simply to position tangible concerns in a space devoid of ethical judgements and fairness. Thats Lalaland there you traveled to, with all due respect.

Posted by Trinkets | January 26, 2014, 2:27 pm
the per usual corrections:

had the Lebanese had an actual nationalist conscience (post before the last)

Posted by Trinkets | January 26, 2014, 2:36 pm
Why does flexibility of thought, willingness to recognize the situatedness of values, and frankness about the cynicism of political actors amount to “relativism” and “nihilism”?

Sorry Trinkets, but you’re far too theological in my view. You encounter dissent and your instinct is to excommunicate. Why so uptight, man? Plus, do you think the hypocrisy of your self-righteous pronouncements about “blood on the ground” isn’t glaringly apparent given the legacy wrought by the Banu Assad next door?

Have some humility to accept that if your heroes are occasionally butchers, maybe there are no heroes in politics. This is what Epok is saying.

Posted by Qifa Nabki | January 26, 2014, 3:02 pm
“Have some humility to accept that if your heroes are occasionally butchers, maybe there are no heroes in politics. This is what Epok is saying”

Again, I did not mention who is my hero and who is not. Rather than misrepresent what I said, delve into the substance or don’t address me with that nonsense. And I do not see the hypocrisy of siding with the resistance whether or where it doesn’t go in Syria. My reasons are based on our existence within Lebanon. Again, in terms of defense, Israel is a priority, not Syria.

“Have some humility to accept that if your heroes are occasionally butchers, maybe there are no heroes in politics. This is what Epok is saying.”

If you could stop inserting words in people’s mouths, all in your tradition of intellectual sleaze, that would help.

I did not say Hebollah or Bashar are my heros.

If you read my posts without your inane assumptions, you’ll see that I don’t see the situation about heroism but about pragmatism denominated by what i perceive to be the biggest threat.

Posted by Trinkets | January 26, 2014, 3:18 pm
Hmmm, last I tried to engage you on substance, you sniffed and declined to respond. When I engage you on form, you revert to your favorite accusations of intellectual sleaze. So hard to please!

Tell me what to address and I’ll do that instead, tikram 3aynak.

Posted by Qifa Nabki | January 26, 2014, 3:40 pm
Trinkets,
You give a whole new meaning to pragmatism. also, weren’t you complaining because some were not discussing the issue but engaging in vitriol? look how you are throwing accusation at others ( Zionist, sleazy etc..) when you encounter opposition.
Anyways, let’s stick to the subject I am understanding better where you come from regarding your support for HA in their Lebanese context ie building a state. however, I think you are ignoring the main vehicle they are driving which is not building a state, but more a regional ideological crusade that has become their new Karbala struggle, their opposition to the existence of Israel on our southern border, that is what HA is, this is their core competency, fighting Israel, anything else is secondary to them, even their engagement in Syria they relate it to fighting the east north east Zionist conspiracy threatening them. I think you are idealist and over-optimistic in your assessment of HA, you need to spend time with them to understand them better.

Posted by Vulcan | January 26, 2014, 3:41 pm
Also, you have to excuse us here if we sound a bit sarcastic and throwing snide comments here and there. we have been at these discussions since 2005 ( all QN’s fault) and we get exacerbated sometimes due to repetition and to the fact that nothing meaningful is happening in Lebanon. To a newcomer, we look like we are a bunch of unwelcoming pricks, but in reality we enjoy differing opinions, besides, we need someone to help Lally keep us in check! So relax, stick around and read the Qnion pieces, it’ll help you chill a bit.

Posted by Vulcan | January 26, 2014, 4:03 pm
Allow me to explain the QN bit:

I only applied the term, persona–centrically, ‘ intellectual sleaze’ to QN; this is not based on what his position is with respect to the subject (you will agree that I have not resorted to such a measure with you or with Bad Vilbel) but on the underlying mindset that he has. I’ve pointed it out in what ways.

That individual has a knack of misrepresenting my statements, cares more about scoring points and thinking in terms of ‘outmaneuvering’ as he has previously revealed and -instead of maintaining a smooth flow of discussion- intermittently interjects with nonsense and assumptions – such as immediately deeming my posts excercises in lauding HA – something I specifically avoided doing as I am much more interested in the rationale (whether you agree with it nor not) – I have dedicated quite a bit of passionless effort to explain my viewpoint. I don’t expect to have my viewpoint accepted but I certainly don’t care for low life tactics either.

And whats odd – and further underlines that sleaze – he keeps on regurgitating the nonsense (to parahrase): “lets establish something here…I assume you’re rational and intelligent, you assume I’m rational and intelligent” and yet, he is blind to his hypocrisy when he trivializes contribution by calling them panegyrics (therefore passionate drivel), attempts to portray me as a selfrighteous hypocritical fanatic and so on. On the other hand, I have not called him a non-nationalist, a traitor, kheiyin, and so on. Because this is an opportunity to discuss rationally – or at least discursively- our beliefs, concerns and the reality as it is. So, my reaction to him is a reaction based on his own stepping out of lines.

I accept to discuss the matter with calm and considerate individuals (that apparently excludes Mustap, Akbar, and unfortunately the maestro of this site himself) and welcome it.

…………………………………

Vulcan, I’m glad you have a clearer picture. At present, as I said, my antipathy to Israel coincides with that of HA. Karbalaa and whatnot is the internal fuel of their engine – its not targeted against me, against the Lebanese or even against the Syrians (I don’t buy that HA-against-Syrian-Sunnis rhetoric. HA have proven over and over again that they wish to live in a multiconfessional region without internal conflict). Since its against Israel and now takfiris and not against others, I welcome it wholeheartedly. Until the point of establishing a nation that can defend itself.

Posted by Trinkets | January 26, 2014, 4:18 pm
Trinkets.

One needs a sense of humor and proportion here.

Both you and QN have taken personal offense at each other’s jibes and reacted in kind. Time for a truce.

Lally/blog nanny/Nurse Ratchet/etc

Posted by lally | January 26, 2014, 4:47 pm
Vulcan,

” I think you are ignoring the main vehicle they are driving which is not building a state, but more a regional ideological crusade that has become their new Karbala struggle, ”

The response in in my previous 2:10 pm. I am not ignoring – I am totally recognizing that HA, as well as all other dynamic (or allowably dynamic) factions are not building a state. The difference between us is that I realize that there is no way in hell Lebanon is going to build itself a successful respectable state, not now and not in the near future. Even if people do put their heads together – its gonna take a long time. But they don’t care to, all of them. I accept that – its the reality! Most anti-resistance people also don’t want to build a state … they have their businesses to take care of.

Indeed, many actors wave the banner of “nation state” very cynically. On both sides. So, I can’t really judge Lebanon on the basis of a successful nation state: “We use what we have” kind of logic.

You might say that my concession to this kind of non-ideal logic is in itself a deterrent to the establishment of a nation state and that I’m, therefore, working against such a national model…say?
I’d say, no, my point of view cannot eliminate the structural weaknesses of the Lebanese state and does not see it, realistically, heading towards that model – with or without the decision to to support a non-national-defense-body or with or without the resistance itself.

Do we really want a solution for the Lebanese? Forget the mokawama for now, they are the result of a the lack of an effective state to begin with. start with elections that are not based on confessional parititioning, the complete obliteration of confessionalism in all our non religious institutions. A body that sees over the confessional neutralization of the country. In the meantime, a clear strategy has to be drawnup – clear, honest, transparent- with regards to building up the Army. (all very unlikely though and especially in the very tense moment the region lives in now). only then do you argue the mokawama out.

This will ensure that the problem is approached from the roots. Confronting the problem aggressively suprastructurally will not lead except to the implosion of Lebanon. (2008 was an example. and the Takfiris are another example. Lets cross our fingers; we are in a critical situation.)

As such, I cannot demonize HA for their confessional idiosyncrasies because the resistance are a product of the Lebanese setup. Suffice to say that I agree with their diagnosis of the major threats and, as such, the rest falls into place

Posted by Trinkets | January 26, 2014, 4:56 pm
Trinkets,

I’m sorry. I’d buy your “blood on its hands, land theft, abductions, etc.” argument as a basis for the rationale that followed if it was applied equally and fairly. But you seem to be applying it to Israel, while refusing to apply the same metric to Syria or Iran.
That inherent hypocrisy renders the rest of your rationale unacceptable IMHO.
You can’t point fingers at one side as your reason for needing resistance while ignoring the same transgressions where it suits you.

Posted by Bad Vilbel | January 26, 2014, 5:05 pm
Having pointed out the rule of thumb for blog commentators, it would be hypocricrtical for me to demand from my forefinger to engage in the soring exercise of endless scrolling in order to engage with parasitic burdensome dilettantes.

Never assume that a dilettante would comprehend a rebuff even when made as bluntly as it has been made above.

Posted by Mustap | January 26, 2014, 5:09 pm
Bad Vilbel;

1- Neither Syria nor Iran did to the Lebanese or Syrians what the Israelis did to them
2- Neither Syria nor Iran are colonial outposts with a project to take over and expel indigenous people

Granted, Syria has a dark history in Lebanon, but again, I will reiterate the content of post JANUARY 25, 2014, 3:45 AM

As for HA in Syria and why i think HA support for Syria (and by extension us) is justified, please see JANUARY 25, 2014, 5:23 PM

There remains the matter of Syria (regime) in Syria which is a very matter that is being rendered too simplistically here. Syria -in this very short did not transition to the regime from being a democracy. I think the western world has sensationalized this subject (as they did with Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya and so on) for very cynical purposes. And we, their neighbours, must be much more cautious and have a more nuanced sensibility rather than fall prey to that simplification removed from context.

The country had a turbulent violent chaotic history prior to the regime and the regime was not a transition away from democracy. The country is being judged on dynamics inapplicable to the evolution of Syria. The moslem brotherhood in Syria was an extremely acerbic and disruptive element carrying out assassinations right and left. The ‘iron fist’ of Assad senior was therefore not out of the blue – and I would suggest, strongly, that had it not been for Assad (still talking senior), we -the minorities in the region- would have suffered the ascendancy of the moslem brotherhood.

It is true that the regime came with its cronyism and was not democratic and committed grave crimes against innocents, in Syria and in Lebanon. However, again, I cannot envisage an equivalence between Israel and Syria. Even in Dante’s hell, there are different circles of hell , to accommodate the degree of sinfulness. I agree with you that both are in Hell, since everyone is tarnished and tainted by one sin or the other. But even in hell, there are degrees and according to those, Israel is pretty much somewhere in the highest order of circles in proportion. And if all your partners are in Hell (and indeed, you yourself, a Lebanon with its own sins), you’re going to have to be discerning and not absolute.

So, as in Lebanon, Syria (and still to this date) does not have the luxury of being judged by the standards of modern democracy – it is indeed rather irrational to view it on that scale. And I would suggest that, like in Iraq, this scale is being used (at at least was before the new realignment) as a weapon of war against Syria. The topic of democracy (and the enforcing principle of ” the responsibility to protect”) has become a weapon of war used unjustly and cynically. But thats another subject I expect.

Posted by Trinkets | January 26, 2014, 5:38 pm
Trinkets,

I don’t think anyone here doesn’t agree with what you and BV earlier mentioned what needs to be done for Lebanon to get on the track to achieving a functioning state. In my opinion the Arab Israeli conflict has been for so long used as a guise for the various factions in Lebanon to avoid sitting together and working out the problems, sectarian politics, inequality etc etc
If you go back to the early seventies, the Southerners Shiaa mostly, carried the banner of leftism, communism and PLO-ism, mostly due to their disenfranchisement by the elite. Arab Nationalism and revolutionary movements provided the vehicle that they felt needed to change their lives. Similarly the Maronites used the right wing movements, holding the banner of fighting the “Palestinian Foreigners” to hold on to whatever entitlement they needed to keep. Fast forward to now, we are in the same predicament’ except now it’s between the Shiaa and Sunni. these regional conflicts are the same old excuses we are holding on to, for the sake of each bettering their odds at getting the bigger share. In my opinion the only way for the Lebanese tribes to try to build a state is to rob them of these excuses they are holding themselves hostage to, only then, they will maybe progress and try to build a country.

Posted by Vulcan | January 26, 2014, 5:40 pm
I agree with Lally. Time for a truce. I don’t like conflict, in keeping with my politesse anglo-saxonne.

Now that wasn’t very nice. I apologize again. Truce.

Posted by Qifa Nabki | January 26, 2014, 5:47 pm
QN,

It is a problem that you do not like conflict. You are too polite. You go round and round in circles with the supporters of the “resistance” but you can never pin down what you actually disagree about. What are the assumptions and axioms that lead you to different conclusions? It is of course not entirely your fault, as the other side has an interest in keeping everything vague and do not want to be pinned down.

I think the essence of the disagreement is that the “resistance” wants more to get rid of Israel than it wants to make the life of Lebanese better in the Western sense of “better” (human development factors) and you are willing to live side by side Israel, but maybe I am wrong. Wouldn’t it be nice to identify the core disagreements? What I am suggesting is that before you try to find common ground, why not identify where the core disagreements are? It will save a lot of time in future discussions.

Take for example HA weapons. If you want to get rid of Israel, and believe that is more important than a successful Lebanese state, your logic for not wanting HA to disarm is impeccable. After all, the aim of the Lebanese state will never be to annihilate Israel. So instead of discussing if HA should disarm, wouldn’t it make sense to discuss what exactly the weapons are for and what are the priorities of the “resistance” supporters?

Posted by AIG | January 26, 2014, 6:16 pm
AIG

It’s true that we are dancing around the core issues, which is understandable, as this is how difficult political discussions usually go. I suppose we’ve all been having “proximity talks”, postponing discussion of the real stumbling blocks until later down the line. This is typical in my experience.

Trinkets,

It is clear that we don’t agree on what the biggest threat facing Lebanon is. I have always felt that it is unglamorous things like poverty, infrastructural debilitation, political instability, govt paralysis and incompetence, poor education, confessional structures, etc. and have devoted most of my blogging and other writing to these subjects.

Israel is a threat, but one exacerbated by the present form of the resistance, not mitigated by it. This is my opinion. My basic sense is that, as Vulcan and BV and others have already said (and as Michel Aoun consistently argued pre-2005) Israel now generates more harm to Lebanon qua pretext for resistance than otherwise. This may sound heretical to you, but it’s not a rare perspective in Lebanon.

I don’t think “terrorist” or “fundamentalist” are useful terms to apply to Hizbullah. As I said earlier, I have no qualms with anyone’s admiration for the party and its relief work, etc. But at the same time, I can’t survey the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, especially over the past 30 years, and not see a cynical appropriation of the struggle against Israel as a mechanism to maintain authoritarian regimes in place and perpetuate the most corrupt and destructive regional politics.

I can appreciate that you may read this comment and feel we have nothing left to talk about. That’s fine. But if you think there’s something that might be worth discussing, please feel free to air it.

Posted by Qifa Nabki | January 26, 2014, 6:51 pm
I would appreciate if we could keep in mind the summation and development of arguments and points before regressing and resorting to previous assumptions about each others’ positions. That indeed would show good faith in this excercise. To clarify, when I said greatest threat, I meant greatest external threat (although now we have two, with the takfiris) – the context of my statement was Bad Vilbel’s concern with Syria and Iran. And if you keep in mind that my position, perviously stated, is that maintaining a self defense facility AND prioritizing the reform of our decadent and dysfunctional system are NOT mutually exclusive -then you will more correctly understand my position. The ‘something rotten in Lebanon’ goes far beyond whether there is or is not a mokawama. The discrete issues not to be resolved irrespective of Israel, Syria, takfiris and so on. I agree.

One more thing, we are observing what is happening or has already beset the Syrians in the form of the radical polarization of moderate Syrians over the occurences in Syria. I personally know syrians, sunnites specifically, who were on the verge of jumping at each other throats. And this is outside Syria.

I fear that the issue of mokawama, down the line, might well fuel such hatred – not simply a confessional one at that point.And this is yet another reason why we, so called moderates, all need to back off at this time. Im not saying that the issue should not be discussed, but the discussion should situate itself within the realm of the possible and the given, with the stability of lebanon in hindsight. I think the wellbeing of our people takes precedence over ideals that the country cannot, anyway, accomodate (just yet).

Posted by Trinkets | January 26, 2014, 8:29 pm
Or was it ‘something is rotten in the state of Lebanon’…yes thats it

Posted by Trinkets | January 26, 2014, 8:30 pm
Now we are getting somewhere.

I need to reflect a little on your comment before I respond. There are many things I agree with, and some things I would like to pursue. But I have children to put to bed.

Posted by Qifa Nabki | January 26, 2014, 8:40 pm
Excuse me. Yet another correction: The discrete issues NEED (and not not) to be resolved irrespective of Israel, Syria, takfiris and so on. I agree.

Posted by Trinkets | January 26, 2014, 8:49 pm
Trinkets said: To clarify, when I said greatest threat, I meant greatest external threat (although now we have two, with the takfiris)

Fair enough. Here, my inclination, still, is to regard other external forces as a greater threat. I am more concerned about radical Islamist groups than I am about Israel, and in this opinion I am in agreement with 100% of my pro-Baathist friends. In the same way that Israel ceased to represent a significant threat to Syria as long as the border was quiet and a de facto armistice had been established, I feel that Lebanon and Israel would remain in a form of cold peace along the same lines, were it not for the periodic efforts to heat up the border. (This is why BV, I suspect, argues that Syria and Iran are a greater external threat to Lebanese security, because of the role they have played in cultivating that hot border.)

The takfiris are a different story, much more difficult to manage, and I feel that the unprecedented coordination between Lebanon’s security agencies — ISF, Amn al-3am, Lebanese Army, and Hizbullah intelligence — suggests that the threat is being taken very seriously. This is my hope at least.

“One more thing, we are observing what is happening or has already beset the Syrians in the form of the radical polarization of moderate Syrians over the occurences in Syria. I personally know syrians, sunnites specifically, who were on the verge of jumping at each other throats. And this is outside Syria. I fear that the issue of mokawama, down the line, might well fuel such hatred – not simply a confessional one at that point.”

Yes, I am in agreement with you. But this is why many have been critical of Hizbullah for the past several years, precisely because of a perception that HA’s increasingly dominant posture (notwithstanding SHN’s efforts to pacify his opponents and build bridges, etc.) have contributed to a more radical polarization of the Sunni street in Lebanon, well before the uprising broke out in Syria. Now maybe this is wishful thinking on our part, to imagine that if Hizbullah had pursued a different course since 2005 we would not see the same sectarian tensions in Lebanon. But I don’t think it’s an unreasonable proposition.

I’ll leave it at that for now.

Posted by Qifa Nabki | January 26, 2014, 9:01 pm
Whilst not forgetting Saudi Arabia. I think its reasonable to now believe that Saudi Arabia forms the takfiri backbone. So transitively, Saudi Arabia forms – along with Israel (who – as our dear patriotic saudi bank rolled LBCI want to threaten us with – is preparing for the impending war on Lebanon)- forms a present enemy of Lebanon.

The Saudis put us in a dilemma. We don’t know whether to look forward to their (impending?) dissolution or to dread it.

Posted by Trinkets | January 26, 2014, 9:19 pm
In summary, the QN team believe Lebanon needs resistance of the electrical kind rather than the illusory kind. Giving to the citizens rather than taking from them.

Posted by Maverick | January 26, 2014, 11:08 pm
I was watching this today and thought it might be interesting for you people pursuant to our discussion here. Since I got asked about heros, within the context of Lebanon, Wakim is not at all far away. Here he addresses many of the points. I’m so glad he gave up puffing up smoke. We can actually see him now.

Posted by Trinkets | January 27, 2014, 2:20 am
Trinkets, First of all I totally understand what you are saying about nihilism and the middle ground. I find that there a lot of people who, realising they don’t understand events, that what they are believe is note tenable veer towards nihilism (this is, for example what a lot of 14 march Christians have done…i.e. ok, Saad IS an idiot, but Hezballah are also crap and I reject the entire Lebanese political class). I am not taking that position I think my views about Hezballah are pretty clear from my posts, but at the same time I am willing to accept that I am human (make mistakes, may need to repudiate past beliefs) and they are human, albeit an exceptional group led by an exceptional leadership. So I need to remain aware of my own narrative.

In fact, I don;t so much have a narrative as a model. I think most people go through life not understanding the nature of knowledge (and I don’t pretend to fully understand it) but I have thought about it a lot. We all have incomplete information even Bashar Al Assad, to Obama, to Putin, to the CIA have very incomplete information, though they all probably suffer from a high degree of overconfidence given what they THINK they know. Given that what we have are a series of information points we need to come up with a model to explain behaviour. Here is a brief synopsis of mine:

1) Hezballah play a long game with discipline, have figured out that they need Lebanon to succeed, have figured out they need partners in all the sects, have figured out that they will need to make many short term compromises for the long term good. They have also built a highly effective and impenetrable military organisation that is, with the IDF, the most important military force in the region. They have many sources of finance, including Iran, they have a close but not subservient alliance with Iran (qualitatively comparable to the US and Germany today).

2) Saad is not very smart but personable and willing to do the saudis bidding.

3) Jumblat is looking out for the druze by using his current leverage to be on the winning team (they need him). Basically a pragmatist sectarian, not much of a visionary…

4) Aoun is a fervent anti-sectarian nationalist. He has too much personal loyalty to his people to know when to jettison them in favour of his national project. He does not have the discipline to wait until his means match his vision and so often fails to triumph. In a way allying himself to Hezballah provides him with means that he personally does;t have to generate. He has a rift in his supporters, some rejecting his pro-christian sectarian speech others rejecting his hezballah alliance. His real leverage comes from large christian support.

5) Geagea is bitter and basically evil. He sits in his mountain seat knowing that if he makes a wrong move the army commandos will use the excuse to eliminate him and anyone who comes to his defense…they have been patiently waiting to avenge the events of 88 and 89. He is therefore an irrelevance in that he has no margin for manoeuvre and only a tiny amount of street support.

I could go on, but you kind of get the idea. Then like a good scientist, you test the models, make predictions and see if they hold true, revise the models.

That is what i mean by being careful of narratives. Models are better than narratives, and often they coexist.

Also, it’s pretty important to recall that politics is emotional as it links to identity.

Posted by Epok | January 27, 2014, 6:08 am
By the way, a guy who works for me, an Achrafieh Christian working class man told me that he envies the Shia because of the social support they get from HEzballah. He contrasts that with the completel lack of flexibility the jesuits who run his kids school show when it comes to tuition payment.

Which brings me to a point: in one of the wikileaks Mikati, about 2005 maybe, tells Sison that Hezballah is a state within a non-state. This is another part of my model.

Posted by Epok | January 27, 2014, 6:19 am
Finally, I worked for Joe Cassano at AIG for a long time (google him) his credit business lost about 80 BILLION dollars. Model error. 🙂

Posted by Epok | January 27, 2014, 6:21 am
I like Najah Wakim, and he’s even more entertaining in person than he is on camera. Lebanese political society needs people like him, but I think we need to take what he says with a grain of salt. Still, eminently worth watching (which I’ll try to do later).

Posted by Qifa Nabki | January 27, 2014, 10:27 am
Epok said: “Aoun is a fervent anti-sectarian nationalist. He has too much personal loyalty to his people to know when to jettison them in favour of his national project. He does not have the discipline to wait until his means match his vision and so often fails to triumph. In a way allying himself to Hezballah provides him with means that he personally does;t have to generate. He has a rift in his supporters, some rejecting his pro-christian sectarian speech others rejecting his hezballah alliance. His real leverage comes from large christian support.”

I frequently drop in on the Aounist forum and read some of discussions taking place. Generally the contributors are in lockstep with what the party leadership is saying, which is not unlike the forums of other political parties. But every now and then, one catches glimpses of the pre-2005 orientation. The FPM is fascinating to me for that reason. In addition to those who reject Christian sectarian speech and the alliance with Hizbullah, I think that there’s a sizable body of FPMers who accept that these stances are necessary means to an end. Pragmatism goes a long way in politics; most sins can be forgiven under its rubric.

The question is just how long these stances can be sustained. M14’s support among Sunnis took a big hit, I believe, when Saad embraced Bashar in Damascus in 2009. Did it make a difference on the ground? I think it did. But I can’t prove it.

Posted by Qifa Nabki | January 27, 2014, 10:40 am
A rubric which sucks: becoming a tool for Syrian hegemony by proxy??? And then justify it as pragmatism?? And worse supporters call him nationalist?? Where is the fascination in this?? It is sheer sectarianism no more no less.

Did Saad Hariri take a big hit in the Sunni street when he embraced Bashar? He certainly did and he continues to receive more hits. The recent flip flop on government made him look even more pathetic.

Saad should not have become a politician. He is not made for it. His assuming of a mantle he is incapable of filling was a bigger blow to the Sunnis than the assassination of his father, which prevented more capable leaders from assuming the role. Sunnis are undergoing a major revision and new leaders will emerge. I doubt Saad will have a future in Lebanese politics.

QN,
You are contradicting yourself: From one cheek you say: Hezbollah is screwing pooch in Syria. From the other cheek you agree with your ‘Baathist’ friends. So what is it exactly you want to say? Aren’t Baathists screwing pooch in Syria?

Posted by Mustap | January 27, 2014, 10:54 am
Mustap

I am in complete disagreement with the Baathist perspective on Syria. What we agree on is that takfiris are more of a threat to Syria (and Lebanon) than Israel is. This does not justify Assad’s response to the uprising, which has been barbaric.

Posted by Qifa Nabki | January 27, 2014, 10:59 am
Thanks for the clarification, QN.

However, for the record I disagree with you about so-called ‘takfiris’, and I made my point about this clear earlier.

‘Takfiris’ do NOT exist. Whatever we hear about under such or similar names is manufactured by your Baathist friends and propagated as such.

And by the way, you did not really clear your contradictions by holding on believing the perceived threat of phantom ‘takfiris’. Hezbollah claims to be fighting such phantoms in Syria. So, if you truly believe it is a real threat, why do you think Hezbollah is screwing pooch in Syria? Are you not falling, intentionally or un-intentionally, into their flawed narrative of sheer propaganda?

Posted by Mustap | January 27, 2014, 11:13 am
QN, can you precise what the pinch of salt is over (I suspect its over the Nasserite convictions?).
Not that I’m saying that there should or should not be – but being clearer about why the salt is needed would help clarify. Yes, do watch; its quite interesting. I’m not so much interested in entertainment – the guy has been working like an ox all these years and steered clear from the ‘ma7soubiyi’ cliques.

I think, from where I stand, the likes of him, Selim Hoss, Hussein El Husseini, Ziad Baroud offer us a civil society-centric alternative to the decadent feudal corruption that passes off as Lebanon’s ruling class. Epok, I also believe Aoun – whom I have a lot of respect for- has that in mind; still, I am one of those who are not too comfortable about slipping in too comfortably into an obsessive compulsive “us christians” rhetoric. I understand the regionalist phobia (the loss of ancestral home for christians – and vice versa, the departure of christians from their ancestral homes) but I think a non-sectarian rhetoric and politics should be practiced across the board. However, that he works in tandem with HA (not a circumstantial alignment in the Jumblatt vein) and others makes is clear to me that he does think on a nationalist wide scale.

There is more to be said about being driven into a christian-defensive stance apropos the cynical games being played by other actors – for instance, the Mostaqbal in relation to the so-called March 14 “christians” and the ‘independent’ christians – both of whom are neither independent nor do they ever voice dissent apropos the mostaqbal assignment of their roles. On the other hand, Aoun truly seems himself as an equal partner to HA and the others within the alignment and his is treated accordingly.

Still, more thoughts on Aoun?

Posted by Trinkets | January 27, 2014, 11:34 am
Mustap

I don’t think that the threat from religious extremists is a phantom one, whether these extremists are Sunnis, Shiites, or Christians. In the case of Syria, I see no problem referring to groups like ISIS and others as takfiris. Your philological analysis of the term is flawed, in my view. Takfīr is a verbal noun (maṣdar) of the Form II verb kaffara, which means, among other things, to charge someone with unbelief, to call them an unbeliever. Calling some a kāfir, in the context under discussion, means that you are making their blood licit, as there are several verses in the Qur’an that authorize the Muslims to fight the kāfirūn (in addition to other verses that promote a more accommodationist position).

It may be that the takfiri card has been used by Assad/HA to frighten minorities and the West into supporting the armed opposition, but that doesn’t mean that this opposition hasn’t been overrun by extremists.

That’s my opinion.

Posted by Qifa Nabki | January 27, 2014, 11:37 am
I hear M8 sent David Hill to Saudi Arabia to lobby on their behalf for more flexibility on the cabinet rotation issue! Well well well, times are a changin indeed 🙂

Posted by Vulcan | January 27, 2014, 11:46 am
” (in addition to other verses that promote a more accommodationist position)” spoken like a true politician there Dr. 🙂

The billion dollar question should be, who that matters these days is following up on these verses of tolerance?

Posted by Vulcan | January 27, 2014, 11:56 am
Trinkets, I think you are right that Aoun sees himself as an equal partner. I believe that prior to 2006, he was perhaps an item of interest to Hezballah, but I doubt they really trusted him. However 2006 was a test that he passed with flying colours. The inducements that were held in front of him (including the presidency) and that he refused out of loyalty (his loyalty, a double edged sword) marked him out as different from the other politicians in Lebanon and I think earned him a credibility that no other party will ever have in HEzballah’s books. He does, though, come awfully close to overplaying his hand…an Aoun speciality.

As for his christian rhetoric, I believe this is a combination of cynical-ish populism combined with a reasonable belief that Lebanon needs Christians to have a certain minimum power.

What I really believe is that Lebanon needs a strong Sunni leader. If the sunni’s and someone they felt confident in, I believe they would find it easier to compromise and share power. The Christians have Aoun, Gemayel. The druze have Walid and Talal, the Shia have Nasrallah, the Sunni seem unable to unite behind anyone serious. I don;t know why Mikati was not that guy. It would seem that among the big sunni families of Saida, Beirut and Tripoli there are many pretty impressive figures. What is it about Saad that they all seem to be able to get behind?

Posted by Epok | January 27, 2014, 12:01 pm
QN,

You responded to my philological analysis of ‘takfir’, but you failed to respond to Michael Weiss’ article about this same issue which I also linked earlier. Care to bring that article into your attention and response?

As to your charge that my philological analysis is flawed, need I remind you that the Qura’n has been around for over fourteen centuries with the same verses that you are alluding to unchanged? We know for sure that kuffar always lived among believers throughout the centuries without their blood becoming licit. the clear proof is the continued existence of you and your ancestors and others in the area who would definitely have been called kaffirun in those centuries as well as at the present time since they did not and still do not believe the Qura’n nor Muhammad.

So, what transpired in the 20/21st century except for the falsehoods propagated by your ‘Baathist friends’?

And I really don’t care about whether such propaganda is used to gain leverage with the west (America). I, for one, believe America is a hypocrite as does Weiss. Their support to the Syrian rebels or lack thereof will not make an iota of difference. And neither does their perceived opposition to the Baathist or going to bed with them will make any difference.

Posted by Mustap | January 27, 2014, 12:13 pm
Vulcan, I’m finishing an article on one of those verses (Q 9:6), but I doubt it will be making its way onto anyone’s bedside table anytime soon.

Mustap,

I haven’t read Weiss’s article. If I have time later, I’ll try to look at it.

As for your point about the Qur’an’s antiquity, I don’t understand what relevance it has to the broader topic under discussion. Yes, unbelievers have lived amongst believers for centuries. What does that have to do with the fact some extremist groups today are waging war on the basis of religious belief? I don’t care if someone begrudgingly admits that I am theoretically a kafir according to Islamic doctrine but that he’s happy to be my neighbor, send his kids to school with mine, etc. But if he thinks that I’m a kafir and that he needs to kill me on that basis, then I how is this a problem of Baathist propaganda exactly?

Posted by Qifa Nabki | January 27, 2014, 1:42 pm
Mustap

I just read the article and understand your point now. No need to clarify. I’ll try to respond later.

Posted by Qifa Nabki | January 27, 2014, 1:50 pm
I’ll be waiting.

But, the point about those verses being around for so long and bloods not made licit is very relevant from my of view. Perhaps, we should call those phantom groups something else other than ‘takfiris’ – How about Baathist proxies (my suggestion) in order to pre-empt confusion? specifically, because of the connotations the term may carry with theological issues as you pointed out.

Posted by Mustap | January 27, 2014, 1:59 pm
Michael Weiss is now counted as a reference? hah. Thats is the depths of lowliness some people are ready to sink out of hatred, blindness and stupidity. To be quoting pretend-experts with self serving agendas that entail the destruction of countries in our region.

Michael Weiss was a member in the ISraeli propoganda organisation called ‘Just Journalism’. He moved to the Henry Jackson Society at the time when the latter had degenerated and been taken over by rabid neoconservatives and self serving amateurs, according to one of its previous members, suchlike:
……………………………..

“I reluctantly had to face the fact that the HJS has degenerated to the point where it is a mere caricature of its former self. No longer is it a centrist, bipartisan think-tank seeking to promote democratic geopolitics through providing sober, objective and informed analysis to policy-makers. Instead, it has become an abrasively right-wing forum with an anti-Muslim tinge, churning out polemical and superficial pieces by aspiring journalists and pundits that pander to a narrow readership of extreme Europhobic British Tories, hardline US Republicans and Israeli Likudniks. The story of the HJS’s degeneration provides an insight into the obscure backstage world of Conservative politics.

…. The people who replaced the HJS founders at the head of the organisation were staff members of another think-tank: the Israel-advocacy organisation ‘Just Journalism’, of which Mendoza was a member of the Advisory Board and which shared the HJS’s London office. At the time of Just Journalism’s launch in March 2008, the Spectator columnist Melanie Phillips wrote of it that ‘A very welcome and desperately-needed initiative has just been launched to monitor distortions, bias and prejudice in British media coverage of the Middle East.’

…Just Journalism was forced to close in September 2011, only three and a half years after its launch, due to lack of funds, but not before this financially destitute outfit had taken over its financially thriving room-mate. Just Journalism’s Executive Director, Michael Weiss, joined the HJS staff in March 2010. His title has been redefined at least a couple of times and at one point he was ‘Acting Director of Research’, then as ‘Director of Communications and Public Relations’.

… Some months before Just Journalism closed, Weiss had ceased to be its Executive Director, serving for a while as its spokesman. He says he was taken by surprise by the news that the organisation was to be closed. However, by that time he was safely ensconced in the HJS.

from http://greatersurbiton.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/alan-mendozas-putsch-in-the-henry-jackson-society/
……………………………………….

“Michael Weiss, Research Director at the British-based Henry Jackson Society, a key Israeli and neoconservative foreign policy think tank. To understand who is really pulling Washington’s strings regarding military intervention in Syria, one only has to read the joint article written by Michael Weis and Elizabeth O’Bagy, published in The Atlantic on June 14,2013, entitled:

“Why Arming the Rebels Isn’t Enough: We need to dismantle Assad’s air capability to really give the opposition a leg up.”

When you combine their own analysis in this article along with who is paying for their foreign policy advocacy careers, it’s fairly easy to see what Israel’s motivation is in Syria: using the US to destroy Syria’s airforce and air defenses, leaving Israel as the sole military power in the region. Together, O’Bagy and Weis reveal the agenda here:” from http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/09/14/kerry-and-mccains-fake-phd-syria-expert-obagy-is-neocon-and-israeli-linked-operative/
………………………………………
Pro-Israel neocon hawk Michael Weiss brags, in a new piece in Foreign Affairs Magazine, that he has drafted a blueprint adopted by the Syrian opposition, which includes a call for foreign military intervention:

…The SNC [Syrian National Council] launched its official Web site [which], drawing on a blueprint I prepared…[made an] aggressive call for foreign military intervention…

Frankly, I find it astonishing that the Syrian resistance would allow such a Perle-Wolfowitz-type character to influence its strategic deliberations. In fact, if these people don’t realize, they’re giving pro-regime forces a perfect opportunity to smear them with the charge of being lackeys of the Israel lobby, which is clearly a role that Weiss plays and relishes doing so. In fact, one of the major themes of Assad’s most recent TV address to the nation was the foreign cabals conspiring to take him down and replace him with a foreign-friendly puppet regime. I hate to say this, but he may be right if Michael Weiss has anything to say about it.
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2012/01/12/michael-weiss-pro-israel-neocon-authors-blueprint-for-western-military-intervention-in-syria-approved-by-syrian-ex-pats/ (and this is from someone who views himself as a ‘critical zionist’ )
………………………………………

Under Weiss’s direction, the website has been not entirely ungenerous in providing space for the promotion of his own work: at the time this article was first drafted, no fewer than five of the ten ‘commentary’ articles and three of the ten ‘blog’ articles on the HJS website were by Weiss. And Weiss is not, be it remembered, an academic expert on Syria and the Middle East in the manner of someone like Daniel Pipes, but merely an activist with strong views who follows events there closely.

Recently, Weiss has reinvented himself also as an expert on Russia – about which he has no more academic expertise than he does about the Middle East – using as his launch-pad the HJS website. The latter now hosts a Potemkin-village ‘Russia Studies Centre’, which describes itself grandiloquently as a ‘research and advocacy centre’, but is really just a website where Weiss blogs about Russia. Such amateurism is now the norm: of the staff members listed for the London office, Mendoza alone appears to be educated to PhD level, while the average age for those working there is below 30. The website has even started to include anonymous blogger types among its authors, at one point including a certain ‘Brett’, whose surname wasn’t listed. http://greatersurbiton.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/alan-mendozas-putsch-in-the-henry-jackson-society/
………………………………………

Posted by Trinkets | January 27, 2014, 2:04 pm
Responding to some comments from yesterday. Forgive the tardiness.

“(This is why BV, I suspect, argues that Syria and Iran are a greater external threat to Lebanese security, because of the role they have played in cultivating that hot border.)” – QN

Correct. Although not the only reason. My point was a more general one. I feel all threats need to be considered and I get tired of what we’re now calling “pro-resistance” people turning a blind eye to all threats but Israel (and now the Takfiris). It’s selective (and therefore biased) logic. And nothing irritates me more.
I’ll add another point here: I do not make that distinction between internal and external threats that both you and Trinkets made. “Internal threats” are, by the very nature of Lebanese politics, merely extensions of “External threats”. The whole thing is one and the same. Which is why I don’t see the point of nitpicking on this distinction. And my answer to ALL these threats remains the same: A strong state, reformed institutions and the abolition of sectarianism.
As long as the Lebanese think in terms of tribes/sects, they will always look for foreign patrons (each based on his sect, and in order to advance his own agenda) and the foreign powers will more than gladly take this gift we present them on a platter, so they can play their much more important and bigger regional games.
The above statement applies exactly alike to: Israel, Syria, Iran, KSA, Qatar, Turkey, France, the UK and the USA (and a few others of lesser importance). THAT is the crux of the argument. These aimless discussions about “fending against external threats” are misguided in my opinion and a waste of time. The best defense against these external threats is for us to get our house in order and to stop looking to, you guessed it: The EXTERNAL PARTIES for support.

Posted by Bad Vilbel | January 27, 2014, 2:05 pm
I’m watching that Najah Wakim video now. Good stuff. I’ve always liked that guy. Too bad he’s got no real following…He seems to have started off (first answer he gives) right along the lines of what I just posted: EXTERNAL and INTERNAL are the same thing….LOL.

On a slightly off-topic note: When are Lebanese female TV anchors (and by extension many Lebanese women) gonna realize that too much makeup, fakely highlighted “blonde” hair, and dragonlady nail extensions do NOT look attractive to most of us modern men. Why does every single Lebanese female personality have to look like some painted plastic product that belongs on one of them “Persians of Beverly Hills” type reality shows?

Ok. Rant over. Back to Najah Wakim…

Posted by Bad Vilbel | January 27, 2014, 2:13 pm
Seriously loving this Wakim video…

– Parliamentary elections? There are no parliamentary elections!
– There is no Lebanese system anymore.

He’s absolutely right. I’ve been saying for some years now that Lebanon is a failed state. With every passing year, this is becoming more apparent. The reality is that even Taef is now dead in the sense that there is no more state institutions in a constitutional sense. Our last president was appointed unconstitutionally. He may get extended again (Much like the previous 2 presidents). Parliamentary elections, once touted as a first step towards Lebanon returning to civilized democracy after 15 years of civilwar and foreign occupations has already extended its own mandate for 2 years (and as Wakim predicts, may end up staying in place for some time)…
Gosh, this is like 1975 all over again….No?

Posted by Bad Vilbel | January 27, 2014, 2:21 pm
And his analogy of Lebanon being a “public” company, with the foreign powers being shareholders, with each sect being a set of shares belonging to a different shareholder. That’s pretty much dead on!

Posted by Bad Vilbel | January 27, 2014, 2:23 pm

	Mark Gailard on Slim Gaillard and his Mysterio…
	Rami on Aoun and the Future
	Sam Berlin on Slim Gaillard and his Mysterio…
	Jim Hamra on Slim Gaillard and his Mysterio…
	nickbiddlenoe on The Saga Continues: Nicholas N…

Qifa Nabki

Search

People of the Book

Discussion

425 thoughts on “People of the Book”

Browse archives

And the people say…

Top Posts

Follow via email

Qifa Nabki

Search

People of the Book

Rate this:

Share this:

Related

Discussion

425 thoughts on “People of the Book”

Browse archives

And the people say…

Top Posts

Follow via email