Iran’s right to defend itself

Its become fashionable to mock and disparage Iran’s and Venezuela’s leaders and any other country that defies US hegemony. Iran has every right to defend itself against US and Israeli aggression. Iran has never invaded another country. The US on the other hand, well, we lost count. As for Israel, the US is intent on propping it up despite its extremist and racialist policies.

Yes, Ahmadinajad’s rhetoric is not always to my liking, but hey rhetoric is just that. And, yes, Iran has done things that I do not support such as support Hezbollah. But on that, Hezbollah would not exactly cease to exist; it is an organization that enjoys tremendous support among a segment of the Lebanese.

It is US policy that does more to breed support for Hezbollah and other extremist groups in the region. The media should stop accepting as given that US has a tendency to be fair in its treatment of political issues in the region. It does not. It has supported an apartheid regime, Israel, for decades without any regard to the basic rights of the indigenous people who have been decisively erased from Palestine.

As for the excuse that Iran has disputes with neighboring Arab states; well, there is no country in the region that does not have land ongoing land disputes with its neighbors. What is unique in this case is that the US has pressured its Arab gulf allies not to negotiate with the Iranians; the spot needs to remain hot.

I remember just a few years ago the gulf countries were eager to talk to Iran and iron out issues; yes, Iran was not an easy nut to crack, but then they need to look out for their interests; and that includes, sadly, protecting itself from US and Israeli evil intent.

Jumblatt: we should not think about revenge

In an interview on Al-Arabiya yesterday, Jumblatt talked about the Hariri murder and the international tribunal. While he tried to convince us that Israel is the likely murderer and that he was wrong before when he accused Syria, he said some things that made it clear that he did not really believe what he was saying.

He said that we should not be thinking about revenge in the Hariri murder and that we should instead be forgiving the murderer. If indeed he believed Israel was behind the killings of Hariri and others, why would he not be calling for revenge against Israel? It sounds to me like he still believes Syria killed Hariri and that we should not be insisting on revenge against Syria!

In another part of the interview, when asked how we can ensure justice in the murder of Hariri and others, he questioned whether justice was possible. Again, he used his own father’s murder in the 1970s as an example, stating that when he tried to obtain justice against Syria then, the result was sectarian violence. So, if we try again, Syria and Hezbollah will just use sectarian violence again to burn Lebanon and block justice.

I believe that Jumblatt has been blackmailed into his current political position in support of Hezbollah and Syria by the threat of sectarian violence against the Druze minority.

The court and Mar 8 “principles”

The March 8 camp led by Hezbollah has declared all out war on the international tribunal. The Syrians have now weighed in with their two bits by issuing arrest warrants (??) for 33 Lebanese and other nationals. Aoun and Hezbollah and their supporters have all nodded their heads in approval; now it seems they all believe that Syrian justice is above Lebanese justice and fairer to boot! This is play acting if ever there was play acting. The thing is, Hezbollah and all of March 8 only believe in justice when it serves their purpose; as they believe in the Lebanese state and its institutions so long as it serves their ends; as they believe in the Lebanese constitution or even the Lebanese people so long as they get what they want.

So, when we and everyone else knew that the Syrians partook of crimes galore in Lebanon, we had no right to try a single one of them and bring them to justice either here or in Syria. But, now, based on some idea that some people have (allegedly) made false accusations to investigators and in the press, people should be dragged to Syria, famous for its justice, to undergo trials? Please, spare us.

Another thing is that all those in March 8 today, except Aoun, making claims that the Lebanese justice system is no good, were fine with it when they were using it to take people to court before 2005.

Still, I think we are getting a little carried away with what has really been happening here. I should point out that Hezbollah has been warning everyone that a verdict against it by the international tribunal will not be acceptable by them (and we expected otherwise?); but who was it that suggested that such a verdict is even imminent? I suspect that Hezbollah has just invented all this to take away the attention placed on Syria. Anyway, we will find out soon whether Hezbollah really is the prime suspect in the killing of Hariri.

Answering Zionism

I recently read an excellent comment made by “Tinelva” on the Economist.com which I want to quote here:

… it is unfortunately you who has little knowledge of the facts, although you hide behind blind ideology and extremism.

Your first point on there never existing an independent Arab entity in the West Bank as some sort of argument to justify the occupation is nonsensical. First you assume that ethnocentric nationalism is a legitimate, and more than that, the only legitimate form with which political state entities should exist. Not only is ethnocentric nationalism immoral however, it is also a modern creation, which would have been unknown to most of humanity before the very late 18th century. Your assertion that there has never existed an ‘Arab entity’ in the West Bank is meaningless as the very notion of ethnic nation-states is a modern one. You probably of course believe in perennial ethnic groups existing since time immemorial, each with a unique organic character, historical continuity, shared characteristics and historical experiences amongst its members, and historical motherlands over which the group should have power of to promote its ‘national character’; the usual romantic 19th century ahistorical garbage and myths that all modern extremist nationalisms are based on.

Here is the reality for you; most modern civilised people believe that all human individuals have equal rights cannot be discriminated against because of their race, religion or ethnicity – that human individuals have the right to control their own affairs and not to be subject to the arbitrary oppression and control of some other agency which does not represent them – regardless of identity. Most civilised people believe that a state which has sovereign power over a piece of land should only represent and exercise that power for the benefit of the individuals directly affected by it; that is the people who live inside that piece of land, regardless of the identity of each individual, his religion, ethnicity, and race – and that it must treat all those individuals as equals. A state which defines itself as serving the interests of only one specific ethnic or religious group violates the very principles of equal human rights which we uphold, and is by definition a racist state – ever so much a state which claims sovereign power over a piece of land, yet claims to exercise that power not for the benefit of the individuals living there, regardless of identity, but for a foreign ethnic group the world over that does not live on the land, and yet is to be subsidized for its colonization despite the wishes of the natives. The typical racist nationalist nonsense of ‘motherland’, ‘blood and soil’ and the like are just rubbish to justify the basic racist tendencies of humankind to promote that which is like it, and attack that which is different to it.

Your second point mainly regurgitates the typical Zionist narrative of 1948 and has nothing to do with reality. Of course the Palestinians, much like any group in the world refused to hand over more than half of the land to a group which owned less than 6% of it, a scheme which was ‘proposed’ (the 181 resolution being merely a resolution of the general assembly and not having passed from the security council having no legal power whasoever, a fact Zionist types are quick to point out as regards resolution 194 on the right of return of Palestinian refugees, but immediately forgotten when it comes to 181) under the shadiest of circumstances (when the amended majority proposal for partition was taken for a preliminary vote to see if it would pass for final vote to the GA, it managed to gain the majority needed to go to the final vote, but not the 2/3 majority that would be needed for the resolution to pass the next day in the final vote – knowing that this would mean the proposal would be defeated the Zionists lobbied the US team to postpone the final vote, and then the US team threatened other states with refusing to finance their post-war economies unless they were to vote for the final resolution). In any case, it is often said by Israel today that its policies will be decided by itself and not by any external agent – why should the Palestinian accept an agreement that robbed them of their property and the inalienable right for sovereignty over the land that they lived, reached by a group of foreign countries, into which they, the ones most concerned, did not even have a vote on!

Regardless of the legitimacy of the Palestinian decision not to accept the resolution, your claim that they answered with war is simply more historical propaganda. Ben Gurion had made it clear since 1936, when the Peel commission suggested partition and forced transfer of the Arabs, that he believed and supported ethnic cleansing:

“With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area …. I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see anything immoral in it“ (Ben Gurion, 1937 speech in Zionist assembly on the Peel report)

He also had made it perfectly clear that Zionist aspirations extended beyond a suggested partition:

“Just as I do not see the proposed Jewish state as a final solution to the problems of the Jewish people, so I do now see partition as the final solution of the Palestine question. Those who reject partition are right in their claim that this country cannot be partitioned because it constitute one unit, not only from a historical point of view but also from that of nature and economy…’’

‘‘…after the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the [Jewish] state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of the Palestine…”

“…The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan. One does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today–but the boundaries of the Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them…’’

(Ben Gurion, parts from 1937 speech to Zionist executive)

The Zionists had been amassing weapons and formed a special intelligence program to gather intel on how to best attack Arab villages since 1936. The notion that the Palestinians started the war is historical propaganda at its worse. After the announcement of the 181 resolution vote, the Palestinians entered a 3 day strike, which did turn violent at some minor circumstances, but then died down soon afterwards. This was known to the Zionist leaders – when Palti Selta, a member of the Zionist intelligence units was assigned to report on the mood amongst the general Palestinian populace, he reported back that normalcy was the order of the day, the Palestinians were continuing life as usual, and even welcomed him to their villages for trade. This was not good for the Zionist leaders – Ben Gurion had already explained that the demographic makeup of the country that was to be Israel was not good enough:

“There are 40% non-Jews in the areas allocated to the Jewish state. This composition is not a solid basis for a Jewish state. And we gave to face the new reality with all its severity and distinctness. Such a demographic balance questions our ability to maintain Jewish sovereignty… Only a state with at least 80% Jews is a viable and stable state”

Palestinian resistance was then minimal, numbering no more than 3000 men divided into disorganised groups (from a population of more than a million), attacking mainly caravans and not settlements. Ben Gurion in his public propaganda painted a picture of a Jewish population facing a second holocaust, but in his private letters to Sharett makes it clear that he believed they were strong enough to crush all the Arab states combined, a conclusion he claims to be based on cold and rational calculations. What Ben Gurion and the Zionist leaders required was an escalation of the conflict and an excuse to carry out the ethnic cleansing of the country. It was the Zionist which first attacked settlements, with the December 1947 attacks on Deir Ayyub and Beit Affa, then the attack on Khisas, which ended in the slaughter of 15 civilians, including 5 chidlren. It was to be the start of a long line of attacks on unprotected villages, and of tens of full-scale massacres against unprotected populations. The Palestinian groups had not on the contrary attacked any settlements by that time, and small scale, and largely inefficient attacks on settlements began only in January 1947. The intentions of the Palestinians did not change much. In the Long meeting of 19 February 1948, Josh Palmon and Ezra Danin reported that the Palestinian villagers were in no mood to fight, and that the guerrillas were confining their activities to areas allocated to the Arab state.

Regardless, the Zionist proceeded with a full scaled scheme of ethnic cleansing after the final formulation of plan D in April. Despite the Zionist myth of a peaceful Israel attacked by hostile Arabs once it declared its independence, by May 15th, the day Israel declared its independence, and BEFORE the Arab states declared war, more than 200 villages were ethnically cleansed, all Arab urban centres in what is now Israel other than Nazareth had been depopulated (Nazareth being a famous biblical city which housed Palestinians Christians was spared as the eyes of the world would be quicker to take notice of it), and the Zionist armies were already well inside the lands allocated to the Arab state. Let’s remind ourselves that the often mentioned Deir Yassin massacre was carried out on a village inside the area allocated to the Arab state, before May 15th, and before a declaration of war by the Arab states, and on a village which had signed a non-aggression pact with the Hagannah. Tell me, in what reality and in which world would all of these not constitute legitimate grounds for declaring war?

And what a war the Arab states waged! The Jordanians had already colluded with Israel and had reached secret agreements on the partition of the country, leading to themselves never entering the lands claimed by Israel and taking a purely defensive stance. Egypt had no intention of going on an extensive war, started mobilizing its army only 3 days before it declared war, and largely kept to the south of the country – Syria and Lebanon, only recently granted independence after a disastrous occupation by the Vichy French had no army to speak of, and the Iraqi troops were ordered to stay in the areas allocated to Jordan and not to attack – an order which the troops violated, instead choosing to fight. Regarldess, they were crushed by the more numerous, more organised, and better armed and supplied Zionist forces.

As for your final point, it doesn’t even warrant a response. Israel has initiated more wars than any other country in the 20th century. All to support your racist 19th century extremist nationalist delusions and an ethnically pure state over another people’s land.

You will find the original article being commented on here.

Lebanon’s highest principle

We often hear that the greatest “value of Lebanon is in being the land of coexistence of Muslims and Christians”. This time the words were spoken by the Maronite cleric Boulos Matar. Though I am sure his intentions are the best, I have to object to this position. I personally find the greatest value of Lebanon should be as the country of its people; the protector of their lifestyle and a haven for them to live as they see fit. I advise for the best of everyone that we stop justifying everything in terms of religion and that we stop making Lebanon seem like something more than it needs to be. Yes, religious tolerance should be upheld without compromise, but not for some ideal of coexistence, but rather to ensure people’s freedoms are respected; regardless whether they be Christian, Muslim, or Druze; whether they believe or not; however they interpret the religion they believe in; regardless of their lifestyle. We need a state that can protect us regardless of how we choose to live our lives, so long of course we do not infringe on others’ freedoms.

UN investigation is not a family affair

There is a lot of talk at present about the investigation into the killing of Rafic Hariri and as usual Syria and its allies are always calling for halting its work in the name of “national unity” and to avoid civil war. Well, there more of this kind of attitude we get there more we know that Syria is involved and that Hezbollah either knows something or is involved as well. What they and everyone else should know is that the investigation into the killing of Hariri and other Lebanese politicians will not stop even if Hariri’s son himself were to wish it. The investigation is a international fact and the Lebanese people require that it complete its work. Hezbollah, live with that! There comes a time when acquiescing to black mail and threats of civil war no longer make sense; you know that if you do they will only come back again and make the same threat the moment they want something else; the next thing you know you have no rights left; what you gained from acquiescing and preserving the peace you lose sooner or later by giving in.

Nipping Israel in the bud

Lebanon’s recent reaction to the border intrusion, while it seems non-sensical, may actually have had some logic besides pure evil as some would have it. This particular part of the border is in dispute, meaning that while the UN demarcated it as on “Israel’s side” this was not a recognition of its permanent status but only a temporary tactical line that should be respected by both sides until they sign a formal peace deal. However, in “cutting a tree” Israel was doing more than respecting the line, but actually taking action to change the nature of the territory under dispute. Israel has a long history of testing international law in this way and encroaching on territory not internationally recognised as its own. They claim that it was “within Israeli territory” when in fact Israel does not recognise a formal border. It only recognises its presence in a place and then starts building “facts on the ground”. So, the Lebanese action can be seen as an attempt at nipping Israel’s encroaching in the bud, so to speak.

Hezbollah’s “proof”

Today we heard about Hezbollah’s presentation of supposed evidence that would prove that Israel assassinated Hariri in 2005. The material presented seemed overwhelming to interpret for most of us. Though I suspected there would not be anything very convincing in the evidence, I was open to being shown otherwise.

According to Time, the the main gist of the material hoped to show that Israel was expending much time and effort spying on Hariri and his allies in Lebanon. Nasrallah was suggesting that this can only mean one thing, that Israel was targeting this group. It was supposedly also proof that Israel was planning to murder Hariri. The verdict here was that the evidence was far too weak to be convincing.

The Daily Star also indicated there was not much evidence pinning the crime on Israel. The same paper also indicated that the main aim of Hezbollah was to “sow doubt” and provide a case if not a strong one to those who were already prone to believe the line that Israel was the perpetrator.

The Christian Science Monitor also weighed in with very similar conclusions. According to ABC News, Nasrallah to his credit admitted the evidence he was presenting was not absolute, though I heard the usual unequivocal attitude towards the conclusion he wished us to believe.

The New York Times reported that the motive for Israel in killing Hariri was to sow division in Lebanon and sectarian division in the hopes that it would weaken the supporting environment Hezbollah benefits from in its fight against Israel.

Of course, as the Washington Post points out, we all know that Nasrallah’s new found eagerness to provide evidence on the killing of Hariri is because of suspicion that he will be named in an imminent indictment. Hezbollah was not a serious suspect in 2005 and only in the last two years has this been the case. More recently, Hezbollah has indicated an intense feeling that they are on the verge of being named as the primary suspects.

In short, I do not see anything much in the way of serious evidence here. Had there been, this material would have made it to the UN long ago. Instead, Hezbollah appears to be piecing some material together to create something of a “case” in order to provide some material to sow doubt and to support those who already want to believe Hezbollah.

Speaking Lebanese

Interesting article on preserving our mother tongue in Lebanon. I am not very optimistic about the government’s campaign to preserve the language. So long there is a perception of prestige to speak English or French there is no hope. Its in the home things need to change and nowhere else.

Limits to US respect for democracy

When it comes to democratic global governance, voicing your opinion and voting in contradiction to US interests is a red line (article). In the recent UN Security Council vote by Brazil and Turkey against UN sanctions being imposed on Iran meant that they were, according to the US, "outside of the body of the international community", even though their vote had no impact on the result. Anything less than 100% acquiescence to US demands would not be tolerated. This is the world of the single superpower.

The US has interpreted Turkey’s vote against sanctions as a sign that Turkey was being alienated from the west by Europe. It was somehow unimaginable that Turkey would have its own independent policies in regards to its own neighbor Iran. Instead, those policies must be dictated by the US thousands of miles away.

I am glad to see this playing out. Maybe US hegemony is beginning to unravel and with it the impression that US policy knows best, while we in the rest of the world, including in Europe, are somehow unable to make decisions on our own best interest. Is Papa US on the way out?