Adonis Diaries

Archive for December 8th, 2011

Free Tribune for the Third Voice: In solidarity of civil neutrality?

Do you think there is a difference between State neutrality and citizen neutrality toward serious issues?  For example, if a State government decides to keep a neutral stand with respect to another State undergoing violent political or civil upheaval, is it the responsibility of the citizen to obey the State position and keep his mouth shut relative to the turmoil that the citizens in the other State are experiencing?

If the government decides to get engaged and meddle in another State affairs, on the grounds that the citizens are being humiliated and their human rights abridged or denied, do you think that the citizens should follow suit, on the assumption that the government knows better and have good, timely, and unbiased pieces of intelligence that the common citizen lack?

Should the government hide or tamper with accurate information and keep them out of reach of the common citizen, on the assumption that citizen would care less of being inundated with irrelevant information?

If citizen could not enjoy access to social platforms in order to form their own mind and sort out the lies from the genuine information, do you think that civil social performance in exercising democratic choices would be abridged and biased toward government overwhelming power in subordinating news to its favored positions?

I have no doubt that your response will be: “The citizen should reserve his right to express his opinion, in any way possible, if he feels strongly about an issue, particularly undignified human rights violations…”  And yet, most US citizens, are censured, implicitly and a few times explicitly, to making their opinion known by the vast majority of the people.  For example, when the major dailies and medias exercise self-censure in order not to anger the government, don’t you think that the citizen suffer from lack of timely and accurate information and important pieces of intelligence in order to form a correct opinion?

As you read “Free Tribune for the Third Voice” what does that imply?  That there is the voice of the power-to-be and the voice of the opposition movement, and the voice of those who prefer not to take a stand one way or another?  What if the third voice demand that it be dedicated “In solidarity of civil neutrality?”  What kind of neutrality?

And does civility means to be practically neutral by not voicing or expressing your opinion, one way or another, in order to keeping the peace in the community, in effect establishing a faked unity that could not withstand the storm of one member venting his outrage…?

If “In solidarity of civil neutrality” is explained as:

1.  “Placing the interest of a nation above all and not getting implicated in external political conflicts over which we have no control…”(Question: Who characterizes the interest of a nation? Are citizens involved in that process?…)

2.  “Civil neutrality is a personal choice relative to what I think is best for my country as a citizen…independently of whom we support…to leave our personal preferences and our religious affiliation aside for preserving the unity and peace in the common community…” (what that mean? Are you siding with the referee in every game, as if the referee is the game and you came to watch it, or as if a political referee is not biased, one way or another…)

3. ” Civil neutrality means to finding a way for communicating our engagement toward the other citizen, without endangering the social fabric: a way that would enhance communication that prevent armed confrontations among us…”  (Thus, the priority is to discovering and applying effective communication means and medium?)

4.  “Civil neutrality expresses a manner of exchanging ideas in respect and good civility…” (Like the aristocratic British in Victorian period?)

5.  “Civil neutrality means that the majority of the citizens desire peace, secure coexistence, and the realization of a better future…” (Nice rhetoric, especially when never forgetting to bring about this elusive “majority”)

6.  “Civil neutrality is to staying above the fray of the confrontation among the political movements that ruin the “integrity” of the nation…” (how integrity is explained? Any sensible examples?)

7.  “Civil neutrality is to resolve to find non-violent solutions to conflicts, in all matter of community differences…” (If government is a party then don’t hope for non-violent resolution…)

8.  “Civil neutrality means to refuse to fight other nations’ battles…” (Battles against what? and for what?)

9. ” Civil neutrality is to sustain the call for a national consensus of non-implication in other nations internal affairs…” (Even if repercussions will reach us inevitably?)

What if all these definitions of civil neutrality were meant to be “Truthful to our vision of a unified country, to maintaining a language of moderation and of inclusion…?” (What vision? inclusion of whom?)

What if all these definitions of civil neutrality had as incentive “Not to be influenced by political machinations of past upheavals, of past civil wars, of past government impasse to governing correctly a nation, of past allegiance to foreign interests and dictate…”

Should I go on? Don’t you already feel that these kind of civil neutralities are total crap, and are voiced by totally unengaged people, and who claim to be very much engaged for the benefit of society…? Don’t these civil neutrality smack of Law and Order positions?  Don’t you think those civil neutral will respond to any candidate who will promise the majority “to bringing back law and order”?

Lebanon  Unity (Alwahda Al-Loubnaniah) does not mean national solidarity (Al Tadamon Al Watani).

Civil Neutrality (Al-Hiyad Al-Madani) does not mean proper well-defined engagement purposes.

Time to eliminate the term “neutrality” in your publication because it means the contrary of engagement and of knowledge.

Let us be clear: We need a Third Voice, fully engaged with definite programs.  The Third Voice has to admit that the political and social structure in Lebanon is not valid for stability, sustainability, security, opportunities, and dignity.The Third Voice has to admit that all political parties and political alliances are still considering the Lebanese as chattels, and we need to work toward a “citizenship State” and abolish all forms of discriminations: Genders, religious affiliations, districts privileges, elite and feudal class privileges…and set up a fair and unbiased election laws…

Note:  This post was inspired by an article posted by the Lebanese web written in French La 3ème voix –

Playing with fire? Review of my story on Syria upheaval

Reluctantly, I have to review my story on Syria upheaval after the blatant interference of  US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf Arab Emirate States in Syria turmoil, and who refuse to seek any reforms: They want to install another regime with definite programs that satisfy the US  biased interests and obscurantist Saudi Wahhabi religious expansion in the region…

The sources of all extremist Islamic sects and political movements originated in the Arabic Peninsula, starting with the Khawarej in the early decades of the Arabic Empire and who assassinated Califs and Imams, to the Karamita in the 10th century, to the current Wahhabi sect in this absolute Saudi Monarchy…

Relying on historical facts and events, all the extremist Islamic sects have been militarily and politically defeated by the central Arabic/Islamic power residing in the Capitals of either Damascus, Baghdad, Cairo, or Istanbul…

The defeat of Islam extremist movement was mainly done with the total support of the Sunnis in Damascus, the revolving door and central city within the Arabic/Islamic Empire…See note

Bashar el Assad and his clan must know by now that the only alternative to maintaining the unity of Syria and blocking foreign interference for initiating a civil war is to let the Sunni merchants in Damascus and Aleppo ally with the internal opposition parties, and the secular political parties…

Only the Sunnis power in Damascus and Aleppo can lead a successful transitional power, and constitute a viable transitional government,  that can defeat foreign meddling in Syria’s internal affairs and oppose any extremist Wahhabi Islamic influence…

Borhan Galiun, the academic appointed by the US and Turkey to be president of the Syrian council, a movement formed of a few members who immigrated from Syria long time ago, declared the new regime will break links with Iran, the Lebanese Hezbollah resistance movement, and the Palestinian Hamas movement in Gaza…

Is that what this foreign council wants from changing a regime that has been sitting on the chest of the Syrian people for 40 years?

How much of a revolution is this foreign Syrian movement? See note 2

Actually, a Moslem Brotherhood leader in Syria went as far as proclaiming that the northern Lebanese districts, including the port of Tripoli, will be attached to the new Syria…

How much of a revolution can we expect from these haphazard movements?  The demand of the Syrian external movement of the  Moslem Brotherhood is in line with the historic refusal of the Sunnis to relinquish part of their territory in order to constitute the Greater Lebanon during the French mandated power after WWI.

This declaration comes after a Sunni political movement in Lebanon, the Future movement of Saad Hariri and his clan, has been demanding that the government of Lebanon meddle in Syria’s turmoil to the side of the Moslem Brotherhood insurgents…

The Mustaqbal movement wants that Lebanon officially send arms, ammunition, and install a safe heaven for the Syrian “renegades”, as if the non-State of Lebanon can assume its responsibilities toward its own citizens…

Maybe Lebanon is currently immune to a full-fledged civil war, because of the power of the Lebanese army and the resistance power of Hezbollah,  but all it takes are a few terrorist attempts to ignite a toxic sectarian smoke and a strong signal for the religious minorities in north Lebanon to start fleeing the district… Then what?  Lebanon is already divided in cantons due to 17 years of civil war, and with new transfer of citizens, how much of a central State can Lebanon expect to establish?

Would the north Lebanese canton demand that the Iraqi pipeline to the port city of Tripoli to be reopened?

Would the south Lebanese canton demand that the Iraqi pipeline into Zahrani be reopened?

Would Beirut and Mount Lebanon initiate a round of negotiation with Israel “to please divert part of legitimate oil in the Lebanese water to Beirut?”

Is that what the plan for Lebanon is being executed by the US administration and Saudi Arabia?

Note 1:  The Sunni Moslem sect always paid allegiance to the power-to-be, regardless of the location of the Capital of the Empire. Fact is, the Crusading campaigns lost their initial advantages when the Sunnis in Damascus and Aleppo refused to cooperate and became the cities from where the counter-offensive started in the 12th century.

Note 2:  In June, the foreign Syrian opposition individuals could barely manage to enlist 70 members.  They begged the Syrian Moslem Brotherhood in exile to join them, at the vigorous instigation of Turkey’s Moslem Brotherhood in power.

After this hapless external government in transition failed to impress the masses within Syria, they again asked the help of the Moslem Brotherhood inside Syria to post banners proclaiming their support for this external government.

The internal opposition groups were invited to Cairo to start dialogue with the external council.  The Galiun group assaulted the internal opposition groups and this academic of Borhan didn’t even condemn the assault and verbal abuse.  How can dialogue start if no educational process of proper communication are discussed within “opposition” movements?

Note 3: President Bashar gave an interview with Barbara Walter in Damascus yesterday.  Apparently, Bashar said that there will be municipal election this month, to be followed with parliamentary election, and a Presidential election in 2014.  Bashar said that serious reforms for the constitution and election laws are being studied.

I say to Bashar: “How about you publish the draft reforms and let the political parties and opposition movement start dialogue on pragmatic and practical papers for reforms and change? Isn’t dialogue based on submitted reform draft?




December 2011

Blog Stats

  • 1,515,971 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 822 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: