[LCM Articles] oops--forgot that last one....
Tzovig Ramian
tzovig at gmail.com
Thu May 15 05:10:23 EDT 2008
Peace Vs. Justice. That's the other thing. Which do you value more? Some
want peace and injustice. Others want justice forsaking peace. Galtung
talks about the violence when either is lacking, and it's a personal
preference. Would you rather live with direct violence of people killing
people if it'll eventually get you to social justice and equality (which
is what Islam values--social justice that is)? Or do you live with
indirect violence of racism, discrimination, and corruption if it means
at least no one's killing each other and you make nice with your
neighbor (which is what Christianity values--love they neighbor,
forgive, that is)?
Ok, it's generalizing a good deal, but think about it. Personally. Which
do you want? Peace or Justice. The Lebanese are unfortunately split on
this.
Hugs,
~Tzovig
Joe Khoury wrote:
> After reading all your thoughts, I thought I'd let you know what I think.
> Every Lebanese citizen grows in his specific community and thus has a
> biased way of thinking. It is of no coincidence that people of a
> particular sect most probably are "convinced" that their leader is the
> right one. This comes from being brainwashed for all the years that
> your leader is right, and the opposite sect is wrong. After years and
> years of growing up in such a community, it becomes very hard for the
> child to change his opinion when he grows up, and that is especially
> true to the uneducated citizens that can't think on their own. This is
> very unfortunate, but I fully understand when a person says he is
> "convinced" that his leader is right, and that his leader's choices
> are the only logical choices.
> I grew up in Lebanon, and I was lucky enough not to be brainwashed
> about neither politics nor hate against other religions. Therefore,
> being a very unbiased person, I was able to make up my mind.
> As an unbiased person currently studying in the US, my way of thinking
> has become even more liberal. The way I look at Lebanese politics
> overlooks small details, such as someone from this sect brutally
> killed another guy from this sect, or someone blew the other person's
> on fire and so on.
> I try to see the future of the country and my position in it. Looking
> at the bigger picture, I don't see the parties as Hezbollah or any
> specific March 14 group. I see about their principles and actions, and
> how these affect me. To me, I believe in peace, unity, prosperity, and
> a good life. Looking at the two parties, I noticed the following:
> Hezbollah: We don't care if peace is better economically for Lebanon,
> We don't care if other people believe Lebanon should be like other
> Arab countries. Israel has killed my family in 1982, and I will never
> give up even if we have to sacrifice ourselves for the cause. We will
> fight them no matter what.
> This reminds me of a Palestinian friend that I talked to last year. I
> asked him: No one denies that Israel had no right to come to your land
> in 1948, but no one denies that there is no way you can wipe it off
> the map. So, assume Israel told you now that they are willing to do a
> peaceful two-state solution, would you accept? He said: No, I prefer
> to keep fighting than accepting, because that is a "shitty" deal for
> us, as they still have half of our land. I replied: Yes, but right
> now, you are in a "shittier" position, with barely any land at all.
> Since you know you can't take them out, you have to choose the best
> solution available right now. What do you choose? Shit or Shittier? He
> said: I prefer to choose shittier, since at least I have my honor. I
> replied: Well, I definitely know now why a solution may never exist,
> but now, I am very surprised as to why you keep nagging about a better
> situation. Since you know that you can't take Israel out, and you
> insist that honor is of utmost importance, then the solution is
> impossible, and while you keep that way your thinking, don’t be
> surprised if your country's situation never ameliorates.
> This story is highly relevant to the current situation. When I hear
> Hezbollah say: I don't care about the well being of my country, they
> killed my family! They conquered us for many years! I will never
> accept a peace deal with these Zionists. I will keep fighting, even it
> means sacrificing myself in the name of the cause!
> After hearing Nasrallah's speeches, I can't help but notice the
> resemblance to my friend's case. The difference however is very
> important. In Palestine, the Palestinians agree on fighting Israel
> till death, but in Lebanon, only Hezbollah feels that way. We all see
> Israel as an enemy, but the majority would much prefer if we were in
> some sort of peace.
> I'll ask you a question: about 95% of Israel's borders are with Egypt
> and Jordan. After the 1967 war, they directly did peace deals with the
> Israelis, choosing peace and prosperity over honor, honor which leads
> them to poverty and fanaticism. I wonder why Lebanon, who shares only
> about 2% of its borders with Israel, and definitely the militarily
> weakest among all other Arab countries, should be the one to feel the
> lack of dignity when it comes to accepting Israel as a major force in
> the region.
> Even if people still believe that it's a worthy cause, what right do
> they have to impose their beliefs on the rest of the Lebanese people?
> I summarize March 8 and March 14 as two parties: Those who believe
> that Israel is an enemy worthy of indefinitely fighting for the sake
> of honor, ( I won't say security because look at Egypt and Jordan,
> they're perfectly secure since their peace deals in 1967). And those
> who acknowledges that Israel is an enemy, but believe that the cause
> is unworthy to sacrifice the peace and prosperity of a whole country.
> In other words, if you are a bear sharing a lion's cage, would you
> want to be his friend and live peacefully, or do you prefer fighting a
> guaranteed death in the name of honor? Of course this analogy is not
> perfect, but I see a very important point. The US, UN, Europe and
> almost everyone are the great powers of the world. We must accept
> that. It's a fact. Almost everyone acknowledges it and desides that
> it's of their best interest to be on their friendly side, for the sake
> of their economy as well as international standing. Are we really that
> powerful to be the exception?
> Therefore, I disagree with Hezebolla for many reasons:
> - I believe the cause is unworthy to live in poverty and be recognized
> as a terrorist organization by ALL countries except for Syria and Iran.
> - I also believe that even if they feel that way, they are allowed to
> do so, but in no way are they allowed to force that way of thinking on
> all Lebanese, thus forcing them into war whenever they please.
> - Having unbalanced arms creates threats and eliminates democracy, as
> was exactly proved in the past days. The only reason the Government
> backed up on its decision is because Hezebolla had his weapons in the
> middle of Beirut, threatening to attack the Government's Palace if
> they don't change their decision. If that is not using weapons to
> influence by threatening, then I don't know what is.
> I can go on talking about this forever, but to conclude, I will go
> into current small details to further fortify my point
> - Saying that Hezbolla's weapons can be removed through dialogue is
> impossible, as they already tried that many times before and always
> came out to no conclusion. Even a few days ago, we hear Nasrallah
> saying: " the one who touches our weapons will have his hands cut" is
> a big indication that this is impossible.
> - Saying that their weapons are only external is complete non-sense,
> as they will definitely use them in case of a war against fellow
> citizens, and that was proven in the last few days.
> In conclusion, I am in no way saying that March 14 is perfect, and
> even a bad choice by some, but when the option is between a bad choice
> and a much worse choice, I'll definitely be rational and choose the
> bad choice, instead of dying in the name of honor and dignity.
> Joe
> *From:* Mohamad El-Husseini <mailto:abitdodgy at hotmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 14, 2008 10:44 PM
> *To:* antonio tamer <mailto:antonio.tamer at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Dima Najjar <mailto:dimanajjar at gmail.com> ;
> lebanon-articles at mit.edu <mailto:lebanon-articles at mit.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [LCM Articles] Four Days that changed the Middle East
>
> I was not making a generalization. I stated a fact that both sides
> engaged and are engaging in warfare. Who "started it" is of no
> consequence. To portray one side as peaceful and the other as brute
> aggressors is misleading, and indeed for naive ears. The fact that one
> side was swiftly defeated does not mean it has preference for
> dialog--perhaps after the fact, as that is an easy choice to make. I
> highlighted this not to get a "faulty point" across, but to reinforce
> what I stated above.
>
> Also, I would like to remind you that I am not taking sides. I'm
> neutral and honest in saying neither March 8 or March 14 are capable
> of promoting good governance and nationhood. I would never vote for
> either block.
>
> In all of your critique of my friend's quote you make the assumption
> that March 14 are a government. March 14 are not a government; March
> 14 are sect leaders. Lebanon has no government and has no president.
> Lebanon has sect leaders.
>
> There are fundamental problems afflicting Lebanon that are far more
> pressing than HAs telecommunications network, and in their resolution
> an easier way may emerge to disarm HA and remove other obstacles to
> the state.
>
> March 14 are not the reason Syrian occupation ended. The people are.
> The politicians of March 14 do not own the events of the "Cedar
> Revolution ". In fact, if anything, they sold it during the first
> election post Syrian hegemony.
>
> And I disagree: Very little progress has been made. We still have
> corruption, poverty, economic crisis, no president, no electoral law,
> economic woes, etc... only now we are free to be corrupt without
> asking for permission first.
>
> Finally, yes, HA has a violent record. And so do the dinosaurs of
> March 14, even if they "love life."
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 22:05:54 -0400
> From: antonio.tamer at gmail.com
> To: abitdodgy at hotmail.com
> Subject: Re: [LCM Articles] Four Days that changed the Middle East
> CC: patrickz at mit.edu; dimanajjar at gmail.com; lebanon-articles at mit.edu
>
> Please allow me to remind you Mohamad that the actions of one
> handful of angry (and obviously enraged) people do not make for a
> generalization.
>
> This kind of reference to war atrocity does not necessarily grant
> you immediate access to one's ears - except maybe the naive and
> unexpecting. I've seen the videos and am appalled by them, but
> this tactic of yours is not very ethical - ie, to appeal to one's
> humane and sensible side in order to get an unrelated (or faulty)
> point across.
>
> Let's look at what you said:
>
> "a semi-government that lacks the representation of one of
> Lebanon's major sects, whose legitimacy and constitutionality
> are seriously questioned,
>
> As far as I remember, the opposition (HA) resigned from the
> government. Also, HA is disrupting llife in every single day. The
> government may not be the best one to have ever been around(trust
> me, I have concerns about where it is leading Lebanon), but it is
> definitely better than what Syria had in place at the time it
> retreated.instead of normal participation, we see this detachement
> and frustration at the increased political (oh and peaceful,
> despite that atrocious reference of yours) success of March 14 and
> the government. To be able to kick an occupying and terrorizing
> country (syria) out like that with just demonstrations and
> organizations, that is impressive.
>
> in the heat of daily Israeli threats of a new war on HA and
> Lebanon
>
> If I remember well, the provocations have been coming from HA's
> side, not Israel. The warmongering and drums of waar have been
> one-directional (until HA's provication of Israel in July 2006).
> In what could've been Lebanon's best chance of peace, the lebanese
> (in all arrogance) declared victory when Israel pulled out of most
> of Lebanon. And let's leave the shibaa farms out of this debate,
> there is no Shibaa farms until Syria - an ally of HA - decides so.
> Oh do you see here the sole justification for HA's persistance??
>
> weeks after the assassination of HA's military commander
>
> Let me remind you that this happened in Syria and the so-called
> commander is labelled terrorist elsewhere. I suggest you dig up
> some bio.
>
> against the advise of the army command
>
> Army command? What advice? The army is there to protect, not
> dictate. I surely hope you're not hinting at the idea of a
> military authority, and if you indeed are, could you remind me of
> the last military regime that YOU think was successful? In either
> case, the lebanese political system surely was not designed for
> this kind of army command nonsense. No thanks!
>
> in the absence of a president and in its final dying hours
>
> This, we all know, is due to the increasing irritation of HA and
> Aoun's bloc to achieve any single political victory. Instead, they
> refer to disruption of life, armed attacks and assaults as well as
> demanding to be given rights (no, it's VETO) beyond what is
> reasonable or acceptable.
>
> takes the unprecedented step of outlawing HA's communication
> network, fully aware of the sensitivity of the issue
>
> This, I may agree with you on except I never saw any governmental
> decree or national consensus (without "sisterly" pressure) that HA
> has been granted the right to establish a communication network.
> As far as HA's weapons, well this story is settled. at least for
> me. I'm sorry if I won't go in that dirty path of changing your
> perspective on what you should well be aware of at this point.
>
> So having chopped up your friend's brilliant quote, I ask you:
> What about it?
>
> Finally, at risk of offending people, none of Lebanon's
> traditional parties ever preferred dialog had they a to use
> violence. The illustrious history of our political class and
> 18 years of butchery by the same people who rule today speaks
> for itself...
>
> I completely agree with you on that one - those in power have a
> strong history of violence, that's true. But can you see some
> positive change at least? Can you see that the pro-gov camp is not
> willing to fight? granted, there are a couple of MK's in the
> mountains, but that is just tradition and/or dinosaurs from the
> civil war. Just to keep things in perspective: HA _*has*_ a
> history of violence, and persistence of violence, and has been
> exclusively targetting civilians in Israel, Lebanon, Germany and
> South America without one single _*noble *_military victory. This
> is disgusting.
>
> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 8:42 PM, Mohamad El-Husseini
> <abitdodgy at hotmail.com <mailto:abitdodgy at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Patrick,
>
> I would be remiss not to direct your attention to a graphic
> video the contents of which I advise against viewing. If you
> are not familiar, it captures the gruesome torture and murder
> of 10 SSNP members in Halba. In addition to being tortured as
> they took their dying breaths, their limbs were hacked and
> their bodies left to the disposal of their murderers, who
> wasted no time indulging in gratuitous gore. Not only is this
> reminiscent of what happened in Nahr El Bared, but it should
> cast a doubt on the theory that one side prefers dialog to the
> other.
>
> I condemn HA's actions, and their use of force was criminal
> and irresponsible. But it has not gone unanswered, even if the
> balance of power leans heavily to one side: the route of
> government partisans is not indicative of their preference for
> dialog. They were over-powered.
>
> To quote a friend, "a semi-government that lacks the
> representation of one of Lebanon's major sects, whose
> legitimacy and constitutionality are seriously questioned, in
> the midst of internal turmoil, in the heat of daily Israeli
> threats of a new war on HA and Lebanon, weeks after the
> assassination of HA's military commander, against the advise
> of the army command, in the absence of a president and in its
> final dying hours, takes the unprecedented step of outlawing
> HA's communication network, fully aware of the sensitivity of
> the issue."
>
>
>
> Finally, at risk of offending people, none of Lebanon's
> traditional parties ever preferred dialog had they a to use
> violence. The illustrious history of our political class and
> 18 years of butchery by the same people who rule today speaks
> for itself...
>
> The war never ended, it was just bandaged and the binds are
> loosening once more.
>
> > Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 15:26:44 -0400
> > From: patrickz at MIT.EDU <mailto:patrickz at MIT.EDU>
> > To: dimanajjar at gmail.com <mailto:dimanajjar at gmail.com>
> > CC: lebanon-articles at MIT.EDU <mailto:lebanon-articles at MIT.EDU>
> > Subject: Re: [LCM Articles] Four Days that changed the
> Middle East
>
> >
> > Rima,
> > A quick comment on the fresh view you mentioned.
> > First, I had a chance to listen to Rami Khoury talk at the
> Kennedy School of
> > Government at Harvard last year, and I have to say that Rami
> is very much a
> > Hizballah apologist. While he tried to portray himself as
> neutral and discuss
> > both sides of the conflict, it was very apparent what his
> political sentiments
> > were.
> > As such, I would very much take the article with a grain of
> salt. While
> > Hizballah did achieve a military victory of some sorts, I
> believe that it lost
> > something much more valuable, the respect of all non-shiite
> Lebanese who now
> > see it as an instrument of Iran, Syria, and Shiite dominance.
> > I believe the government made a key decision not to deploy
> its opwn gunmen or
> > the Internal Security Forces (ISF) who number in the 10,000
> and are
> > composed of
> > mainly Sunni and Christian. That would have put a strong
> counter attack to
> > Hizballah, at the expense of starting a new civil war.
> Fortunately some (i.e.
> > NOT March 8) are still committed to the principles of
> negotiation through
> > dialogue, not violence.
> > Where this will take us, I don't know. While this is part of
> a U.S. vs. Iran
> > power play (as the Hizballah likes to portray it), it is
> also an Iran
> > vs. Saudi
> > Arabia play (Shiite vs. Sunni) and another effort by Syria
> to remain relevant,
> > regain influence in Lebanon and retain its tool of applying
> pressure on Israel
> > to get the Golan's back.
> > Let's be realistic when we talk about this situation. It's
> about people with
> > guns who don't want to give up their guns, and want to be
> the big boys and the
> > bullies of the block.
> > I welcome your thoughts and opinions on the matter!
> > ciao
> > Patrick
> >
> >
> >
> > Quoting Dima Najjar <dimanajjar at gmail.com
> <mailto:dimanajjar at gmail.com>>:
> >
> > > A fresh view..
> > >
> > >
> > > Click the following to access the sent link:
> > >
> > > Four days that changed the Middle East
> > >
> <http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?article_ID=91914&categ_ID=5&edition_id=10
> <http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?article_ID=91914&categ_ID=5&edition_id=10>>
> > >
> > >
> > > Or copy and paste the following link in your browser
> address bar:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> <http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?article_ID=91914&categ_ID=5&edition_id=10
> <http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?article_ID=91914&categ_ID=5&edition_id=10>>
> > >
> > >
> http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?article_ID=91914&categ_ID=5&edition_id=10
> <http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?article_ID=91914&categ_ID=5&edition_id=10>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *
> > > *
> > >
> > > *Abstract:*
> > >
> > > Events in Beirut and other parts of Lebanon continue to
> move erratically,
> > > with simultaneous gestures of political compromise and
> armed clashes that
> > > have left 46 dead in the past week. The consequences of
> what has happened in
> > > the past week may portend an extraordinary but
> constructive new development:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dima Najjar
> > > +97150 413 4343
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lebanon-Articles mailing list
> > Lebanon-Articles at mit.edu <mailto:Lebanon-Articles at mit.edu>
> > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/lebanon-articles
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lebanon-Articles mailing list
> Lebanon-Articles at mit.edu <mailto:Lebanon-Articles at mit.edu>
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/lebanon-articles
>
>
>
>
> --
> Antonio Tamer.
> 508 361 5943
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Lebanon-Articles mailing list
> Lebanon-Articles at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/lebanon-articles
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lebanon-Articles mailing list
> Lebanon-Articles at mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/lebanon-articles
>
More information about the Lebanon-Articles
mailing list