Adonis Diaries

Archive for the ‘Diaries’ Category

I don’t reflect: I am Haunted

Adult have no idea how they managed to learn anything in childhood.

And yet, they barely apply the best ways to learn and understand, the ways kids learn.

Fiction or the real false stories and events precedes our comprehension of reality: Fiction stories allow us to access reality.

Even the literary genres labelled “real stories” or autobiography are mostly fiction and the protagonists must have said: “What? In my wildest imagination I never contemplated that this will happen to me...”

Sleep dreams might have the job of “recomputing” the default values in your world vision.

Reading different literary genres preempt you to understand reality, and accept that you are a potential “Statistics”, a term that drives people to the wall and make them furious “What? Am I not that special?

But it is writing, drawing, painting, composing, playing musical instruments… that restructure and fine-tune your world view. 

Acts that don’t involve the fingers to record the acts are Not registered properly in the brain archives.

Children doodle and draw before they they learn to write.

They listen to stories, memorize stories and write characters before they learn to read.

The world vision of children is etched in graphics and colors before content in books are appreciated.

What we assimilated in artistic vision reflects the way we see nature. The more artistic our mind is developed the more structured and complex our vision of nature are.

Otherwise, nature and the environment are a bundle of colors and shapes left for the subconscious to navigate us through.

Art is never imitating nature: The artist is representing what he is looking at inside his world vision.

The mind first “see” before the eyes register what the mind has seen.

We see how our accumulated world view see the world, nature and reality  

And yet, we have no idea what is our world view. We might fathom what we “see” through observing and analyzing our actions and behaviors.

The content in articles, of political and scientific nature, is essential to get engaged with eyes wide open, assuming that the context has been clearly developed.

Without context, articles can be classified as “general”, regardless of how much you develop on the opinion and fake to provide details.

An opinion not backed by the context, even personal experience, is not worth publishing.

An opinion devoid of context smack of ignorance and the regurgitation of what the “common literature” is disseminated.

In all other topics, it is the form of the written style that grabs me most.

A single sentence can open up deeply hidden emotions that an entire volume will fail to do.

After all, everything has been said, if we can read in many languages (old and new) and read enough to last several life times.

I find myself furiously editing repost of articles so that the form matches my own style. I even edit “quotations” to suit my writing style. Why?

Eventually, I might have to re-read what I have posted, and I want to enjoy what I’m reading.

For example, I loath the journalistic style of splitting a quotation in order to insert “He said”, “sic”,”the author resumed”…

The sentence should flow smoothly to convey the emotion of the quoted person. Any insertion is a rational gimmick to preserve a semblance of objectivity, authenticity, neutrality…

I have no qualm in editing what the other have published, and the heck of what they say, and how their frustrated ego is mishandled… as long as the reader can access the original text and can do his due diligence

Very often I read “I don’t know”, “I’m not sure”… And I wonder: these expressions are excellent in verbal conversations, but they don’t fit in the written text.

Make sure you know before addressing your reader, otherwise, keep your opinions in your notebook until they germinate into a viable position

Send me a valid post within context in the preamble or in an after-note, and I’ll repost it: The audience of readers is varied and with multiple interests

Lebanon: An improbable Statehood in the making

Mind you this article was posted in February 20, 2008, 12 years before the total bankruptcy of the State of Lebanon, politically, economically and financially.  

Under the leadership of Hezbollah, the Shias in the south and the Bekaa Valley are basically and currently the main caste shouldering the heavy burden of defending Lebanon from the frequent aggressions of Israel. 

Before Hezbollah, Lebanon had many secular political parties confronting Israel aggressions (The Communists and the Syria National Social parties), especially during Israel invasion of Lebanon in 1982 until 1989, when mandated Syria gave Hezbollah the “monopoly to conduct the resistance.

Without the Shiaa, south Lebanon would have long been swallowed by Israel and Lebanon divided and scraped from the number of independent States. 

It is the Shiaa who forced Israel to withdraw unconditionally from the south in May 24, 2000. 

It is the Shiaa who foiled the strategy of Israel of reconquering the south of Lebanon in July 2006 and installing a Pax Americana in the Greater Middle East.  

Hezbollah split from the main “Amal” Shia movement (of Mousa sader) around 1983 and adopted an ideology tightly linked to the Khomeini hardliners in Iran and is made responsible for the suicide attacks against the US and French headquarters in Beirut. 

Hezbollah was the only resistance movement allowed by Syria to operate against Israel’s occupation in the south of Lebanon since 1989 when the US Administration permitted Syria mandate over Lebanon for over 15 years. 

Syria had prohibited all the other Lebanese nationalistic and progressive parties to resume their liberation resistance during its occupation of Lebanon. 

After the assassination of Rafic Hariri PM in 2005 and the withdrawal of the Syrian troops from Lebanon we have been experiencing a serious void in the legitimacy of the current government. 

The signed entente between the Tayyar political party of Michel Aoun (Free Patriotic Movement for Reform and Change) and Hezbollah has allayed the perception that schemes for a recurring civil war in under planning. 

The patient internally non-violence strategy of Hezbollah in conducting non-cooperation activities against an unjust and and mafia control of the government has permitted the Lebanese population to gain the assurance and relief that another civil war is not feasible.  

This Seniora’s government and its allies have been plundering the public treasury for the past three years (since 2005) and for the last 15 years under Rafic Hariri.

This feudal/sectarian/contractor continuous regime, establishing a Ponzi scheme for our financial system, has been spreading poverty and deepening the indebtedness and ineptness of Lebanon, with the explicit support of the Bush administration, and under the guise of empty rhetoric of democracy, security and independence from Syria’s indirect involvement in Lebanon.

Consequently, the Shia have proven to be the legitimate sons of an independent Lebanon and have paid the prices of martyrdom, suffering, sacrifice and pain in order to be the guarantor for the emergence of a Nation against all odds. 

It is the sacrifices of the Shia and their patience to suffer for the benefit of all Lebanese that is providing them with the leverage of flexibility, intent to change, learn from experience and improve. 

The successive unilateral withdrawals of Israel from Lebanon in 2000, an occupation that lasted since 1982, without any preconditions have given the Lebanese citizen grounds to standing tall. 

Our main problem is that the International requirements of Lebanon and our local politics are at odds. 

The USA, Europe and Saudi Kingdom would like to settle the Palestinian refugees as Lebanese citizens with full rights and thus avoiding the corny problem of their legitimate rights to be repatriated to Israel as stated in the UN resolution of 194. 

The Monarchy in Saudi Kingdom has been viewing the Palestinian question as a major liability since the extremist party of Hamas has taken power in Gaza.

Saudi Kingdom is exhausted of paying the bills every time Israel destroys the infrastructure of Lebanon and covering some of the expenses of the Palestinian refugees and would like an end to this conflict that is hampering the internal stability of the Wahhabi Saudi regime.

Israel invasions of Lebanon and its genocide tactics against the Palestinians are done at the urging of the USA 

The two main local movements of the Future Party (Hariri clan) and Hezbollah are more than content for this unconstitutional political dilemma which suits their short-term interests. 

The Future is satisfied with its dominance among the Sunnis in Beirut and the North and thus, giving the Palestinian refugees citizenship might create an unknown variable that could disrupt the majority of the Sunni allegiance to the Al Moustakbal. 

Consequently, the Hariri clan cannot disobey the Saudi orders but it cannot shoot itself in the foot. 

Externally, the Hariri clan is pro Saudi but in reality it is very cozy with the Syrian position on the Palestinian refugee status as its strongest card during the negotiations with the USA and afterward. 

The unstable constitutional political system in Lebanon may delay indefinitely any serious pressures from Saudi Kingdom and the USA to resolving the Palestinian refugees’ question. 

Hezbollah is weary of having to deal with a constitutional government and negotiate returning its arms to the Lebanese army. 

Thus, the two main parties in Lebanon are supporting each other practically and just playing the game of opposing forces.

Furthermore, The USA has decided after the fiasco of the July war in 2006 that no more investment in time on Lebanon is appropriate at this junction.  We have to wait for a new US administration to decide whether it is willing to re-open the file of the Near East problems.

The allies to the two main parties are side shows: they know it and they cannot change camps with the deep mistrust for the other side pledges and dependent policies to foreign powers. 

Thanks to the vehement rhetoric against Syria or its allies in Lebanon by Walid Jumblatt and Samir Geagea, the Future party has been able to give the impression that it is against the Syrian regime while practically it agrees with the Syrian positions and would like to keep the present status quo in Lebanon’s political system of the Taef Constitutional amendments.  

General Michel Aoun has realized that he has been taken by the sweet tender offers of Hezbollah but he cannot shift allegiance or form a third alliance since non resolution of the situation is the name of the game until further agreement among the main Arab states and the main superpowers.

Recently, General Aoun has demonstrated his independence by visiting Syria for 5 days amid a popular welcome to re-establish entente between the two people, if not the regimes.

So far, the polemics among the government’s allies and the opposition political parties are not shy of harboring sectarian allegiances in their charged speeches, but somehow they failed to discuss the actual caste, or closed religious system in our social structure, which is the fundamental problem toward a modern state of governance.

I do not believe that any fair and representative electoral law is of utility unless the basic caste system is recognized as a sin and altered accordingly to represent an alternative for the citizen joining a united and free status under one State. 

The first step is to instituting a voluntary State marriage law and letting the situation unfold into a more liberal understanding of the need of the people. 

The road is very long and arduous before the beginning of a semblance of trust among the Lebanese is established. 

However, I feel that the Shia under the leadership of a wise and disciplined Hezbollah and their corresponding Christian Free Patriotic movement are leading the way for a semi-autonomous Lebanon, at least in its internal restructuring. 

I believe that the necessities of survival would loosen up many stiff ideological and caste roadblocks toward a reformed political system and the institution of a governing body that abide in integrity, accountability and justice for all.

It is a fact that extremist Sunni “salafist” ideology is gaining quickly in all the Arab and Moslem World, out of desperation and the widespread illiteracy and lack of job openings. (See note 3). 

Maybe our mix of all kinds of sects might be a rampart to our moderate liberal tendencies.

The spirit of Statehood is coming from an unforeseen quarter. Mainly the Shia caste freshly arriving in the social and political scene around 1970. 

This disinherited caste was already a majority when the civil war of 1975 broke out and it suffered from the total ignorance of the central government for infrastructure and social services and had also to suffer the humiliation and atrocities of frequent Israeli air raids and land attacks and bombing of their villages under the disguise of dislodging the Palestinian guerillas.  

The Shia caste is opening up to almost all sects and managed to ally with large sections of many other castes. 

This extending arm might be considered as necessary out of the realization that they are a majority in Lebanon and a real minority in the neighboring States of Syria, Jordan, and Egypt.

This necessity is a blessing to Lebanon because the main major caste is encouraging unity against foreign invaders. 

In the event that Hezbollah maintains its strength, then it can be forecasted that the economic strategy of Lebanon will shift from tourism and third sector (the Hariri’s clan strategy) into more emphasis on agriculture and small and medium industries, many of it geared toward guerilla warfare. 

This is how the future looks like to me if no overall peace treaty with Israel is realized any time soon.

I used the term “Statehood” for Lebanon in a general sense to convey that a form of unity is developing in the conscious of the Lebanese, but this notion of Nation is far from appropriate to Lebanon simply because experiences since independence could not provide any evidence to a unified people under legitimate and responsible central governments. 

Lebanon is fundamentally an amalgamation of castes that enjoy self-autonomy. 

I still believe that the Syrians, Lebanese, Palestinians, and Jordanians naturally form a Nation and they should generate a common market with separate recognized States.

I am convinced the Taef Constitution was meant to have total entente among the various main three religious castes in Lebanon before starting to elect a new president to the Republic.

The entente should involve everything from election law, to the constitution of the government and other priorities. 

This fact translates into agreement among the main Arab States and the main superpowers on how Lebanon should be governed during six years. 

Unless the Lebanese leaders and political parties get together to review the Taef Constitution and be willing to pay the price of deciding to have a mind of their own, then Lebanon is de facto under the UN protectorate.

Note 1: the current Dawha agreement, after Hezbollah destroyed Israel communication control in 2008, translated the spirit of Taef in its temporary execution until the Parliamentary election takes place.

Note 2:  The Future movement of the Hariri clan (Saad Hariri is a Saudi citizen) is practically pro-Syrian but it cannot overtly open up to the Syrian regime as long as Saudi Kingdom is not currently in good term with President Bashar Assad.

Note 3:  The Sunni “salafist” movement expressed its strong arm tendencies in the Palestinian camp of Nahr Al Bared. The Lebanese army destroyed the camp along with the extremist Sunni groups and the ramifications are not over in our internal strife.

Note 4:  The social/political structure is held by 19 recognized religious castes that grow at different paces in demography.  Thus, the top of our Temple must be very flexible and changeable when foreign powers decide to destabilize the tacit agreement among the caste political feudal leaders.

Tidbits #75

Most experts agree that temperature checks are a form of theater, a performance intended to put our minds at ease. But the theater is partially the point. When someone steps into a restaurant or hotel, they’re still taking a risk. These thermometers help to remind all of us to continue taking the pandemic seriously.

Never dig deeper in to your origine: Every community that survived had participated in a massacre. La takol asli wa fasli abadan, ennama aslou al fata ma yassalahou.

Des aéroports commencent à tester le « passeport COVID » qui indiquera si une personne a été vaccinée avant le voyage — Les Maîtres du Monde — Sott.net. So travel for me is out of the question: I refuse to be vaccinated for Covid. Though I get the flu vaccine every year

The conventional-minded say that they don’t want to shut down the discussion of all ideas, just the bad ones. There are two reasons why we need to be able to discuss even “bad” ideas.

  1. The first is that any process for deciding which ideas to ban is bound to make mistakes. ...
  2. The second reason it’s dangerous to ban the discussion of ideas is that ideas are more closely related than they look.

More novels were written about the cheating business among couples. The novel is made big by using the moral and ethical standard of a general society as a Filler. The crux of the matter is a local state of mind of the individual. Should he abide by the idiosyncrasies of the community or should he grab the opportunity to experience an all encompassing passion?

La mécanique tranquille des abattoires, tout est blanc et propre, sauf les cris des cochons suspendus par une chaîne: c’ est l’ enfer déguisé’ qui fait peur. Nazi Germany inherited US mechanics.

Natural product Is Not even every citizen’ asset. National debt is every person’s liability, excluding the elite classes.

The 10 biggest Lebanese banks had amassed $180 bn in accounts and they could afford to face any temporary rush on October 17.

By Closing their doors these Lebanese banks on October 18, 2019, it was Not a flawed in judgement: the board members of the banks were following orders from US/Israel to destabilize Lebanon, and they should be investigated and tried in criminal justice.

One day, an astronomer will discover a new star where a Black Hole was supposed to be. And the scientists will find a new job: explaining the process of Black Holes exploding into many stars.

The spirit of humanism of Charles Dickens failed to reach the USA, even today.

Nothing is resolved in the USA about owning sub-machine gun. Why? Because the Constitution allowed the White colonials to own and shout at colored people (Black, Red, and Yellow) who trespass their plantations

Many nations had a civilization of high level of tolerance, until warrior nations, and lately colonial powers, inflicted on them their close-minded and racist Law and Order systems

Avant le péché on était un diamant, et après on est devenu un charbon? Alons, le temps qu’on apprenne ce qu’est le vrai péché qui nous ronge la vie. Il faut apprendre a conqueror les petits péchés pour faire face et confronter le plus vilain des peches. On joue a l’alchimiste: traiter le charbon tout au long de notre vie pour obtenir un petit diamant: Ca vaut-il la peine?

If you are lucky to start the third phase of your life, you better transfer what was a shamble in your head to your body and be proud of it.

Only the governments in Syria and Israel follow the events and a few details in Lebanon. All the other States never cross their mind that Lebanon is a worthy subject matter. Only Lebanon local news media try hard to inflate this croaking animal “nafekh hal Dafda3at”

Hazards of Revolution?

What about planned destabilizing goal by colonial powers?

Note: recall that this article was written 8 years ago. Wish that Cockburn has assimilated the new changes in the region.

Patrick Cockburn London Review of Books Vol. 36 No. 1 · 9 January 2014

Soon after the Libyan capital (Tripoli) fell to the “rebels” in August 2011 I got to know a 32-year-old man called Ahmed Abdullah al-Ghadamsi.

We met when he tried to evict me from my hotel room, which he said was needed for members of the National Transitional Council, in effect the provisional government of Libya. (Still in effect and recognized by the UN?)

I wasn’t happy about being moved because the hotel, the Radisson Blu on Tripoli’s seafront, (The capital is Not on the sea shore, but very far off) was full of journalists and there was nowhere else to stay.

But Ahmed promised to find me another room, and he was as good as his word.

He was lending a hand to the provisional government because he was strongly opposed to Qaddafi – as was the rest of his family. He came from the Fornaj district of the city, and was contemptuous of the efforts of government spies to penetrate its network of extended families.

He derided Gaddafi’s absurd personality cult and his fear of subversive ideas: ‘Books used to be more difficult to bring into the country than weapons. You had to leave them at the airport for two or three months so they could be checked.’

He had spent 6 years studying in Norway and spoke Norwegian as well as English

On returning to Libya he got a job on the staff of the Radisson Blu. One of Gaddafi’s sons, Al-Saadi, had a suite in the hotel, and he watched the ruling family and their friends doing business and enjoying themselves.

Ahmed was a self-confident man, not noticeably intimidated by the sporadic shooting which was keeping most people in Tripoli off the streets. I asked him if he would consider working for me as a guide and assistant and he agreed.

Tripoli had run out of petrol but he quickly found some, along with a car and driver willing to risk the rebel checkpoints. He was adept at talking to the militiamen manning the barricades, and helped me get out of the city when the roads were blocked.

After a few weeks I left Libya; I later heard that he was working for other journalists.

In October I got a message saying that he was dead, shot through the head by a pro-Gaddafi sniper in the final round of fighting in Sirte on the coast far to the east of Tripoli. It turned out that there was a lot that Ahmed hadn’t told me.

When the protests started in Benghazi on 15 February he had been among the first to demonstrate in Fornaj, and he was arrested.

His younger brother Mohammed told me that ‘he was jailed for two hours or less before his friends and the protesters broke into the police station and freed him.’

When Gaddafi’s forces regained control of Tripoli, Ahmed drove to the Nafusa Mountains a hundred miles south-west of the capital to try to join the rebels there, but they didn’t know or trust him so he had to return.

He smuggled weapons and gelignite into Tripoli and became involved in a plot, never put into action, to blow up Al-Saadi Gaddafi’s suite in the Radisson.

Mohammed said Ahmed felt bad that he’d spent much of the revolution making money and, despite his best efforts, had never actually fought.

He went to Sirte, where Gaddafi’s forces were making a last stand, and joined a militia group from Misrata. 

He had no military experience, as far as I know, but he didn’t flinch during bombardments and was stoical when he was caught in an ambush and wounded by shrapnel from a mortar bomb, and the militiamen were impressed.

On 8 October his commander told Ahmed to take a squad of five or six men to hunt for snipers who had killed a number of rebel fighters. He was shot dead by one of them a few hours later.

What would Ahmed think of the Libyan revolution now?

An interim government is nominally in control but the streets of Tripoli and Benghazi have been full of militia checkpoints manned by some of the 225,000 registered militiamen whose loyalty is to their commanders rather than the state that pays them.

When demonstrators appeared outside the headquarters of the Misrata militia in Tripoli on 15 November demanding that they go home, the militiamen opened fire with everything from Kalashnikov to anti-aircraft guns, killing 43 protesters and wounding some 400 others.

This led to popular protests in which many militias were forced out of Tripoli, though it’s not clear whether this is permanent.

Earlier the prime minister, Ali Zeidan, was kidnapped by militia gunmen without a shot being fired by his own guards to protect him. (He was released after a few hours.)

Mutinying militias have closed the oil ports to exports and eastern Libya is threatening to secede.

The Libyan state has collapsed, for the simple reason that the rebels were too weak to fill the vacuum left by the fall of the old regime. After all, it was Nato airstrikes, not rebel strength, that overthrew Gaddafi.

It’s a similar story elsewhere in the Middle East.

The uprisings of the Arab Spring have so far produced anarchy in Libya, a civil war in Syria, greater autocracy in Bahrain and resumed dictatorial rule in Egypt.  (All these failures thanks to US/Saudi Kingdom/Israel/France ) who don’t want changes and democracy in the region)

In Syria, the uprising began in March 2011 with demonstrations against the brutality of Assad’s regime. ‘Peace! Peace!’ protesters chanted. But ‘if there was a fair election in Syria today,’ one commentator said, ‘Assad would probably win it.’

It isn’t only the protesters and insurgents of 2011 whose aspirations are being frustrated or crushed. In March 2003 the majority of Iraqis from all sects and ethnic groups wanted to see the end of Saddam’s disastrous rule even if they didn’t necessarily support the US invasion.

But the government now in power in Baghdad is as sectarian, corrupt and dysfunctional as Saddam’s ever was. (Not true, even then. Obama dispatched ISIS to occupy Mosul because Maliki PM refused to have US military presence in Iraq)

There may be less state violence, but only because the state is weaker. (just witness what is happening by the end of 2017)

Its methods are equally brutal: Iraqi prisons are full of people who have made false confessions under torture or the threat of it. An Iraqi intellectual who had planned to open a museum in Abu Ghraib prison so that Iraqis would never forget the barbarities of Saddam’s regime (you mean USA occupation?) found that there was no space available because the cells were full of new inmates.

Iraq is still an extraordinarily dangerous place. ‘I never imagined that ten years after the fall of Saddam you would still be able to get a man killed in Baghdad by paying $100,’ an Iraqi who’d been involved in the abortive museum project told me. (Isis is now defeated in Iraq and US still claim it is Not in order to remain militarily in the region)

Why have oppositions in the Arab world and beyond failed so absolutely, and why have they repeated in power, or in pursuit of it, so many of the faults and crimes of the old regimes? (Simple: still confronting the colonial powers who refuse any change)

The contrast between humanitarian principles expressed at the beginning of revolutions and the bloodbath at the end has many precedents, from the French Revolution on. But over the last twenty years in the Middle East, the Balkans and the Caucasus the rapid degradation of what started as mass uprisings has been particularly striking.

I was in Moscow at the start of the second Russo-Chechen war in October 1999, and flew with a party of journalists to Chechnya to see the Chechen president, Aslan Maskhadov, in his headquarters in Grozny, where he was desperately trying – and failing – to avert the Russian assault by calling for a ceasefire.

We were housed in a former barracks which seemed worryingly vulnerable to Russian air attack. But it soon became evident that the presidential guard’s greatest anxiety was that we would be abducted by Chechen kidnappers and held for ransom.

The first Chechen revolt in 1994-96 was seen as a heroic popular struggle for independence. (An extremist Islamic regime, as the one ISIS was trying to install?)

Three years later it had been succeeded by a movement that was highly sectarian, criminalized and dominated by warlords. The war became too dangerous to report and disappeared off the media map. ‘In the first Chechen war,’ one reporter told me, ‘I would have been fired by my agency if I had left Grozny. Now the risk of kidnapping is so great I would be fired for going there.’

The pattern set in Chechnya has been repeated elsewhere with depressing frequency. The extent of the failure of the uprisings of 2011 to establish better forms of governance has surprised opposition movements, their Western backers and what was once a highly sympathetic foreign media.

The surprise is due, in part, to a misunderstanding of what the uprisings were about. Revolutions come into being because of an unpredictable coincidence of forces with different motives targeting a common enemy. (Never confuse long-term causes with instant catalysts)

The political, social and economic roots of the upsurges of 2011 go deep. That this wasn’t obvious to everyone at the time is partly a result of the way foreign commentators exaggerated the role of new information technology. Protesters, skilled in propaganda if nothing else, could see the advantage of presenting the uprisings to the West as nonthreatening ‘velvet’ revolutions with English-speaking, well-educated bloggers and tweeters prominently in the vanguard.

The purpose was to convey to Western public that the new revolutionaries were comfortingly similar to themselves, that what was happening in the Middle East in 2011 was similar to the anti-communist and pro-Western uprisings in Eastern Europe after 1989.

Opposition demands were all about personal freedom: social and economic inequality were rarely declared to be issues, even when they were driving popular rage against the status quo. (Wrong. Personal freedom was the slogan, Not the real demands)

The centre of Damascus had recently been taken over by smart shops and restaurants, but the mass of Syrians saw their salaries stagnating while prices rose: farmers ruined by 4 years of drought were moving into shanty towns on the outskirts of the cities.

The UN said that between two and three million Syrians were living in ‘extreme poverty’; small manufacturing companies were put out of business by cheap imports from Turkey and China; economic liberalization, lauded in foreign capitals, concentrated wealth in the hands of a politically well-connected few.

Even members of the Mukhabarat, the secret police, were trying to survive on $200 a month. ‘When it first came to power, the Assad regime embodied the neglected countryside, its peasants and neglected underclass,’ an International Crisis Group report says. ‘Today’s ruling elite has forgotten its roots. It has inherited power rather than fought for it … and mimicked the ways of the urban upper class.’

The same was true of the quasi-monarchical families and their associates operating in parallel fashion in Egypt, Libya and Iraq.

Confident of their police-state powers, they ignored the hardships of the rest of the population, especially the underemployed, over-educated and very numerous youth, few of whom felt that they had any chance of improving their lives.

The inability of new governments across the Middle East to end the violence can be ascribed to a simple-minded delusion that most problems would vanish once democracies had replaced the old police states. (No delusion here. Cannot construct anything in the presence of extremist violent factions created by the US and its allies)

Opposition movements, persecuted at home and often living a hand to mouth existence in exile, half-believed this and it was easy to sell to foreign sponsors. A great disadvantage of this way of seeing things was that Saddam, Assad and Gaddafi were so demonized it became difficult to engineer anything approaching a compromise or a peaceful transition from the old to a new regime.

In 2003  Iraq former members of the Baath Party were sacked, thus impoverishing a large part of the population, which had no alternative but to fight. The Syrian opposition refuses to attend peace talks in Geneva if Assad is allowed to play a role, even though the areas of Syria under his control are home to most of the population.

In Libya the militias insisted on an official ban on employing anyone who had worked for Gaddafi’s regime, even those who had ended their involvement 30 years before. These exclusion policies were partly a way of guaranteeing jobs for the boys. But they deepen sectarian, ethnic and tribal divisions and provide the ingredients for civil war.

What is the glue that is meant to hold these new post-revolutionary states together?

Nationalism isn’t much in favour in the West, where it is seen as a mask for racism or militarism, supposedly outmoded in an era of globalisation and humanitarian intervention. (everything but capitulation is Not favored by the Western colonial powers, even now)

But intervention in Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011 turned out to be very similar to imperial takeover in the 19th century. 

There was absurd talk of ‘nation-building’ to be carried out or assisted by foreign powers, who clearly have their own interests in mind just as Britain did when Lloyd George orchestrated the carve-up of the Ottoman Empire.

A justification for the Arab leaders who seized power in the late 1960s was that they would create powerful states capable, finally, of giving reality to national independence. They didn’t wholly fail: Gaddafi played a crucial role in raising the price of oil in 1973 and Hafez al-Assad created a state that could hold its own in a protracted struggle with Israel for predominance in Lebanon.

But to opponents of these regimes nationalism was simply a propaganda ploy on the part of ruthless dictatorships concerned to justify their hold on power. But without nationalism – even where the unity of the nation is something of a historic fiction – states lack an ideology that would enable them to compete as a focus of loyalty with religious sects or ethnic groups.

It’s easy enough to criticise the rebels and reformers in the Arab world for failing to resolve the dilemmas they faced in overturning the status quo. Their actions seem confused and ineffective when compared to the Cuban revolution or the liberation struggle in Vietnam. (Simply because one people  in Syria, one people in the Nile river and one people in north Africa were artificially divided in pseud-States by colonial powers)

But the political terrain in which they have had to operate over the last twenty years has been particularly tricky. The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 meant that the endorsement or tolerance of the US – and the US alone – was crucial for a successful takeover of power.

Nasser was able to turn to Moscow to assert Egyptian independence in the Suez crisis of 1956, but after the Soviet collapse smaller states could no longer find a place for themselves between Moscow and Washington. Saddam said in 1990 that one of the reasons he invaded Kuwait when he did was that in future such a venture would no longer be feasible as Iraq would be faced with unopposed American power.

In the event, he got his diplomatic calculations spectacularly wrong, but his forecast was otherwise realistic – at least until perceptions of American military might were downgraded by Washington’s failure to achieve its aims in Afghanistan as well as Iraq.

So the insurgencies in the Middle East face immense difficulties, and they have faltered, stalled, been thrown on the defensive or apparently defeated. But without the rest of the world noticing, one national revolution in the region is moving from success to success.

In 1990 the Kurds, left without a state after the fall of the Ottomans, were living in their tens of millions as persecuted and divided minorities in Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria.

Rebellion in Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88 failed disastrously, with at least 180,000 killed by poison gas or executed in the final days of the conflict. (The Shah of Iran and Saddam resolved this conflict in a single day)

In Turkey, guerrilla action by the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), who combined Marxism-Leninism with Kurdish nationalism, began in 1974 but by the end of the 1990s it had been crushed by the Turkish army; Kurds were driven into the cities; and three thousand of their villages were destroyed. (Western media never covered these atrocities)

In north-east Syria, Arab settlers were moved onto Kurdish land and many Kurds denied citizenship; in Iran, the government kept a tight grip on its Kurdish provinces.

All this has now changed. In Iraq the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), though it shares power with the central government in Baghdad, is close to becoming an oil-rich independent state, militarily and diplomatically more powerful than many members of the UN.

Until recently the Turks would impound any freight sent to the KRG if the word ‘Kurdistan’ appeared in the address, but in November the KRG president, Massoud Barzani, gave a speech in the Turkish Kurd capital of Diyarbakir and talked of ‘the brotherhood of Turks and Kurds’.

Standing with him was the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who spoke of ‘Kurdistan’ as if he’d forgotten that a few years ago the name had been enough to land anyone who uttered it in a Turkish jail. In Syria meanwhile, the PKK’s local branch has taken control of much of the north-east corner of the country, where two and a half million Kurds live.

The rebellion in the Kurdish heartlands has been ongoing for nearly half a century. In Iraq the two main Kurdish parties, Barzani’s Kurdistan Democratic Party and Jalal Talabani’s Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, were expert at manipulating foreign intelligence services – Iranian, Syrian, American and Turkish – without becoming their permanent puppets (Crappy pronouncement on these expertise)

They built up a cadre of well-educated and politically sophisticated leaders and established alliances with non-Kurdish opposition groups. They were lucky that their worst defeat was followed by Saddam’s self-destructive invasion of Kuwait, which enabled them to take control of an enclave protected by US airpower in 1991.

At this point, despite having gained more independence than any previous Kurdish movement, the KDP and PUK embarked on a vicious civil war with the Iraqi state. But then they had another stroke of luck when 9/11 provided the US with the excuse to invade and overthrow Saddam. The Kurdish leaders positioned themselves carefully between the US and Iran without becoming dependent on either.

It isn’t yet clear how the bid of thirty million Kurds for some form of national self-determination will play out, but they have become too powerful to be easily suppressed.

Their success has lessons for the movements of the Arab Spring, whose failure isn’t as inevitable as it may seem. The political, social and economic forces that led to the ruptures of 2011 are as powerful as ever. Had the Arab opposition movements played their cards as skilfully as the Kurds, the uprisings might not have foundered as they have done.

None of the religious parties that took power, whether in Iraq in 2005 or Egypt in 2012, has been able to consolidate its authority. Rebels everywhere look for support to the foreign enemies of the state they are trying to overthrow, but the Kurds are better at this than anyone else, having learned the lesson of 1975, when Iran betrayed them to Saddam by signing the Algiers Agreement, cutting off their supply of arms. The Syrian opposition, by contrast, can only reflect the policies and divisions of its sponsors.

Resistance to the state was too rapidly militarised for opposition movements to develop an experienced national leadership and a political programme.

The discrediting of nationalism and communism, combined with the need to say what the US wanted to hear, meant that they were at the mercy of events, lacking any vision of a non-authoritarian nation state capable of competing with the religious fanaticism of the Sunni militants of al-Qaeda, and similar movements financed by the oil states of the Gulf.

But the Middle East is entering a long period of ferment in which counter-revolution may prove as difficult to consolidate as revolution.

How a great conversation is like a game of catch

A TED talk. Jul 19, 2016

How a great conversation is like a game of catchideas.ted.com

As a radio host, Celeste Headlee has engaged in her fair share of discussions, and she’s thought a lot about how to bring out the best in a conversational counterpart.

When you play catch, you have to do an equal number of catches and throws, right? It’s not possible to play catch with somebody and throw more than you catch, for the most part.

Because then you’d just be throwing baseballs at them, which is not nice. This is the exact same ratio as a healthy conversation — you’re going to catch as much as you throw.

you’re going to talk 50% and listen 50%, and we don’t generally have that balance in our conversations.

Here’s the best way to start a conversation that you’re worried might end in an argument.

There’s a great study out of Harvard in which researchers discovered that talking about yourself actually activates the same pleasure centers in your brain as sex and cocaine.

That means it’s very pleasurable to us to talk about ourselves and what we like. You could walk away from a conversation like that and feel fantastic about it.

But remember — talking about yourself makes you feel fantastic. So you may have just walked away from a conversation in which you talked about yourself — that was awesome! — and the other person is walking away going, “Good god, that person would not stop talking about themselves.”

It’s a totally different perception, so you’ve got to remember you’re playing catch — find the balance.

How do you go beyond small talk to have a meaningful conversation with somebody?

Not every single conversation that you have is going to be in-depth and serious. And that’s okay! You should relax.

Eventually, while you’re sitting there talking small talk, something’s going to pique your interest, or something’s going to catch their interest, or they’re going to say, “Wait, what did you just say?” Or, “Why is it that way?”

And someone’s going to ask a question, and it’s going to lead you further into deeper subject matter. So it will happen, if there’s something there to talk about. Otherwise, be on your way — let it go.

What about that awkward silence when you don’t know what to say next?

By the time that you’re thirsty, you’re already dehydrated. So by the time you’ve reached an awkward silence, something’s already gone wrong. But it’s not too late!

Very often, an awkward silence comes because either you weren’t listening or they weren’t listening, and therefore, you guys have kind of meandered off-topic to where you’re at the opposite ends of a football field.

The way to fix that is to say, “You know what, I’m sorry, I got totally distracted. Where did we start? Can you help me out here? I was just following a train of thought about Cheetos, and I got totally lost.”

What should you do when it is very clear from body language that the other person is not listening?

End it. Again with the game of catch.

That’s the equivalent of me taking a ball and throwing it over my shoulder instead of to you. Why would you want to keep playing? You have to have an equal partner in a conversation. Otherwise, walk away.

You make the case that all experiences are not equal. Are you saying that empathy is not useful in a conversation?

What should people do instead?

People always push back on this topic. I’m not a psychiatrist or a psychologist, but I believe that most of us are motivated by empathy. You’re with your friend, and you want to say, “Oh, I do understand you, because I’ve been through something similar.”

But the truth is, you haven’t — you haven’t been through something the same.

You maybe have gone through something kind of similar, but the fact of the matter is that you’re a different person from your friend.

So even if it was the exact same experience, even if you both almost went down on the Titanic, the way you experienced that is completely different. And these situations are most likely totally different.

Although it feels to you like you’re reaching out and giving empathy, what’s happening is that you’re talking about yourself again.

So you shouldn’t say, “I know how you feel”?

That’s the worst. You don’t know how they feel. They’re confiding in you, and all they want you to do is listen to them and say, “Wow, that sounds awful. There’s no way for me to understand what you’re going through, but you tell me what you need.”

What do you think is stopping people from having better, more meaningful conversations?

The elephant in the room is obviously polarization, and this is true not just in the United States, but I think Brexit and the migrant crisis in Europe tell us that it’s happening all over the world.

Oftentimes we’ll enter into a conversation, and somebody will say, “I’m voting for Trump in the fall.” Conversation over. You immediately say, “Nothing this person says is something I want to listen to, they have nothing to teach me,” and you end the conversation.

And if the conversation does continue, you’re not actually listening to them.

That’s what is often ending conversations now.

We have stopped talking to people that we disagree with. We basically want to be able to curate and edit our conversations the same way that we curate and edit our social media. If we’re talking to somebody that we don’t want to hear from, we want to unfollow them like we do on Twitter.

The problem with that is that everybody knows something that you don’t. And so if you are stopping all of those conversations and only speaking with people who have similar experiences and opinions, you’re not going to grow, ever, and you won’t change your mind or your opinion.

They used to tell us, don’t talk about religion and politics. The problem today is that everything is religion and politics.

So what’s the best approach to start a conversation that you know might end up in an argument?

First of all, a lot of conversations end in arguments these days. But when I’m sitting down with somebody, especially somebody with whom I absolutely don’t agree, I sit down and I think through, “Okay, what if they’re right?”

Let’s think about what would change, and how my mind would change, if they are right and I am wrong. And as they start to tell me things, as long as they’re not completely made-up facts, I ask myself what it would mean if they’re right. And then I ask them too. I say, “Okay, let’s say you’re right. What does that mean?” And try to get inside what they’re thinking.

For instance, a lot of people ask me how to talk to Donald Trump supporters. It is a great question.

But here’s the thing: there’s an anger there among people — not just people who support Trump, but people who support Bernie Sanders, or the people who voted for Britain to leave the EU.

There is an anger there, and it could be fascinating and engaging and compelling to figure out where that is coming from. That’s not always going to be the case, and there are going to be conversations you have to walk away from.

But if you’re going to have an argument with someone, the best way to do it is with an open mind, assuming that that person can teach you something, and that you’re not there to teach them.

What should you say if you unintentionally offend someone during a conversation?

You say, “I’m really sorry, I did not in any way, shape, or form intend to offend you. I may be inarticulate, but let me try to explain what I thought I was saying, and then you tell me what you think I’m saying, and maybe we can understand one another.” That’s it, that’s all that you say. Be honest.

Is there a quick way to help a friend to stop obsessing about a negative topic?

It’s difficult to address specific situations, since context is so important. In broad strokes, though, people often repeat themselves when they feel as though they haven’t been heard. For example, when we tell our kids something important and they don’t acknowledge that they’ve heard, we’ll keep repeating it until they say, “Okay! I got it, Mom!”

The same things happen often in the workplace.

So, try telling your friend that you think you understand what he or she is saying: “Let me tell you what I’m hearing and you tell me if I’m getting it wrong.”

Then you can offer to brainstorm to find solutions. If he or she’s not open to that, then be honest. Say, “You’re telling me the same things over and over. I can tell you’re very upset, but we can also move forward from here.”

How can you turn a one-way conversation into a dialogue?

You can’t, really. There’s a couple of reasons for a one-way conversation. Sometimes it’s that the person is shy, and in that case, that’s totally fixable, you can draw somebody out, usually by finding out what they like, or self-deprecation is good.

I usually tell a joke or a story about something I’ve done that was really stupid — and I have a wealth of those examples. But if somebody isn’t in the mood to talk, you can’t fix that.

And here’s the thing that people are always surprised that I say: it is totally okay to not have a conversation. Having a real conversation takes energy, and it takes focus, and sometimes you just don’t have that kind of energy to give. That’s totally fine — don’t have the conversation, enjoy the silence.

So if you’re feeling like you really want to have a conversation and the other person isn’t matching that energy, you just need to let them have their time, and find somebody else who is ready.

What about when people really don’t seem to want to listen, but just want to talk about themselves and their experiences?

I’ve found that it’s good to very kindly address this head-on. Say, “It’s so great to hear all that. Can I tell you a little about what I’ve been doing?” Or any version of that.

Don’t assume that person is just trying to dominate the conversation. Give them the benefit of the doubt, because we all talk about ourselves too much. If you try to improve the conversation and they are resistant, then just accept that your conversations with that person will be brief and unsatisfying.

Just like a game of catch, you need two participants who are willing to take turns.

How do you get others to open up as much as you are opening up?

You can’t, really. For instance, when you’re opening up, is it mostly because you’re telling them about your experiences? Are you talking a lot about yourself, and not giving them an opening to talk about themselves?

Are you in any way, shape or form shutting down the conversation? In other words, does that person say, “Oh, you know, I had something similar happen to me the other day, it was really, really interesting,” and you say, “Oh, no, no, no, it wasn’t like that,” and then you go back to what it was you were talking about.

There are a million reasons why the person that you’re talking to may not be opening up. But often, it’s because you’ve shut the door in one way or another. The fact of the matter is it’s probably not them, it’s probably you.

So what if a conversation has run its course? How do you gracefully exit a conversation?

You gracefully exit by saying, “I need to go; it’s been so great to talk to you, and I’ll see you in a couple days.” Or you say, “You know what? I have too much on my mind, I’m really sorry, it’s been great to talk to you, and I’ll see you again in a couple weeks, but I’m going to head back.”

Or — what happens to me, because I have adult ADD all the time — “I can’t keep my mind on this conversation, I am so sorry, it has nothing to do with you, but I’m going to go sit in my office and try to gather my thoughts.” Don’t lie. No white lies! Just be honest, and gracious and nice, not condescending, and just end the conversation.

This is an edited version of a conversation took place at TEDSummit 2017 (see below). Moderated by TED’s Janet Lee, it includes questions from Facebook and from commenters on Celeste’s TED Talk, 10 ways to have a better conversation.

Note: A graduating girl could Not suffer talking to me for a good reason. Once, I started asking her pertinent questions about her thesis and the conversation lasted for hours and we were both very pleased of this quality time.

Free-Trade Zones? How this works? Can they work in the Middle East?

Note: Re-edit of “Free-Trade Zones of December 2, 2008

Are Free-Trade Zones in the Middle East being worked out? (December 1, 2008)

I have no idea how a Free-Trade Zone works, and what are its advantages, but it sound good, since it is Free? Free trade to whom and how the common people of the States can benefit from these deals?

I doubt anything labelled “free” can be of any value, except free public education to all, free preventive health care, and free institutions to open opportunities for the people to find jobs and field of studies.

Most probably, these zones are meant to enrich the richer countries and degrade the economic production of the weaker nations.

The advantage in the long-term is that it prevent military confrontations, facilitate the travel and trade between the State, inhance exchanges among the people, enlarge the market for added value entreprises, and break-up mythical ideas.

I like to envision the creations of 11 free-trade zones in the Middle East, among the States of Turkey, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, and Cyprus.

Though this idea is Not feasible as long as the superpowers and colonial powers are dead serious of keeping the Middle-East divided, destabilized and wracked with mythical/religious enmities.

The colonial powers, mainly USA, England and France implanted their Israel colony in Palestine in order to disturb daily routine trade and communication, Not only in the Near-East (Nation of Syria), but the Middle East altogether.

Israel is strategically our existential enemy.

With Israel still supported by the colonial power, our region will constantly be destabilized and divided to conduct and resume any sustainable trade and create an economic cycle for self-reliance and autonomy.

Why free-trade zones?

Most of the recognized States by the United Nations in the Middle East were Not naturally and normally constituted, and the borders are artificially delimited: The States  were divided up by the mandatory European nations of Britain, France and the active participation of the USA, after the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire lost the war in the WWI by siding with Germany.

Consequently, there are many ethnic, emotional, economic, linguistic, and historical intermingling and rivalries among these States.

Since “victory” military confrontations are out of the question, and since daily trade and social relations are binding certain bordering zones then, creative alternatives should be studied to form viable trade zones that otherwise would be left unmanaged and precariously volatile.

First, between the States of Turkey and Syria there are many legitimate claims that should be resolved on their borders.  There is the possibility of several free-trade zones such as (Cilicia, Iskandaron, and Lazkieh (Latakieh)) and the Kurdish common zone of Hassakeh and Diar Baker and Van.

Second, between Turkey and Iraq there is an ideal free-trade zone in their common Kurdish region around Mosul.

Third, between Iraq and Iran: two zones can be contemplated (the common Kurdish region, and the region around the Persian/Arabian Gulf.

Fourth, between Iraq, Iran, and Kuwait the Basra region could alleviate recurring conflicts.

Fifth, between Iraq, Syria, and Jordan, where their frontiers intersect artificially, a free-trade zone would encourage commerce in that desolate area.

Sixth, between Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon there are shared bordered around the Golan Heights.

Seventh, between Syria and Lebanon there are potential two zones (the northern Lebanese frontiers of Akkar, and the south-eastern Bekaa Valley with Shebaa Farms).

Eight, between Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, and Cyprus a free-trade zone in Cyprus would iron out differences and encourage maritime commerce.

What are the processes for initiating these free-trade zones?

After a period of three years of ironing out details and instituting regulations with special passports or identity cards for the inhabitants of the zones, then all the zones between the states can be merged.

It is only normal that contiguous zones common to three States could eventually be merged and a belt of uninterrupted contiguous zones would form the natural borders of the Middle East.

As was done in Europe, let commerce and industry form the basis for these zones, which should generate rational cooperative decisions for our future.

The concept of a free-zone is to create a magnate cities, self-autonomous city, with laws and regulations agreed upon among the States.

Ultimately, an economic union could emerge, based on a set of procedures and processes that works, which form a firm ground to negotiating common interests, and disseminating common laws and regulations valid in the various lands.

Complicating the Class-Divide: New Contractor Bourgeoisie in Lebanon Politics:

Rafik Hariri clan, Najib Mikati, Muhammad Safadi, and Issam Fares…

Note: this article was posted in 2013 and you could comprehend why and how Lebanon was driven to total bankruptcy in 2020.

Before the civil war (1975-1989), Lebanon was ruled and controlled by the “comprador” bourgeoisie class (importing from developed nations and selling to the regional States) and their attached commercial/financial banks who manipulated the feudal/tribal/sectarian structure of Lebanon political.social landscape.

During the civil war, Lebanese immigrated in trove to greener pastures and left the space to the sectarian warlords militias leaders.

The warlord leaders split the country into sectarian cantons, displacing, transferring and remodeling the mixed communities into “cleansing” de facto closed societies.

The muslim Sunnis preferred to migrate to the emerging Arab Gulf Emirates and Saudi Arabia. 

A third of Lebanon workforce migrated there within a decade: from 50,000 in 1970 to over 210,000 in 1980.

Those who struck wealth were in contracting civil work; basically working as subcontractors to Emirs and princes who had the proper connections.

Late Rafik Hariri PM, Najib Mikati PM, finance minister Muhammad Safadi, and vice PM Issam Fares were among these new contractor bourgeois…

The Muslim Shia migrated mostly to west Africa where they joined relatives and struck wealth through adventurous trade deals.

The Christians immigrated to the US and Europe for higher education, and most of them never contemplated to return home to settle. Why?

Most opportunities after the war were allocated to the Muslims, particularly the educated Sunnis who filled the vacant institutions, managed and administered foundations of the new breed of contractors, public civil work, and controlled side institutions attached to the Sunni prime minister

For example, the Council for Development and Reconstruction (CDR), communication ministry, internal police force in Beirut, internal intelligence gathering section, Solidere, Sukleen, appointing the governor of the Central Bank and the minister of finance…

This new landscape was an immediate result of the Taif Constitution that expanded the political strength of the Prime Minister at the expense of the President of the Republic.

The business-politicians and neoliberal technocrats in the Future movement network of Rafik Hariri constituted a force for neoliberal “reforms” that appeased the US administration as to the financial policy direction of  the State of Lebanon.

The Hariri clan network had three main purposes:

1. Privatizing State-controlled entities by acquiring them for cheap since they had the liquidity and were backed by Saudi Arabia, and

2. Pegging the Lebanese currency to the US dollar in order to incur far more debt than necessary on the government and insuring total control of the financial condition, mainly to blackmail their rival political leaders into  difficult situation that only the Future movement of Hariri can untangle this volatile condition…

(More details in a follow-up article “Applying neoliberal mechanism on Lebanon”)

3. Controlling the city center of Beirut through the chartered company Solidere

For over 2 decades, the Hariri clan were given the financial responsibilities through appointing the governor of the Central Bank, the minister of finance, and controlling the municipality of the Capital Beirut.

After the civil war, Rafik Hariri filled the vacuum of the Sunni leadership, thanks to the total backing of Saudi Arabia, which was the main loan guarantor for the infusion of international lending multinationals.

The Hariri network of clientelism and media empires (TV and dailies) strengthened their electoral votes in the Sunni communities.

The Hariri clan was successful in 3 dimensions:

1. Reaching political offices like Prime minister, ministers, deputies, governors of public institutions…

2. Gaining control of public institutions to further their economic agenda, especially creating and controlling side institutions directly linked and attached to the PM

3. Gathering popular following, particularly among the Sunni community, the Druze and a few Christian parties

Saad Hariri, son of Rafik, monopolized the Sunni political leadership and contributed to the widening rift between Sunnis and Shiaas.

Najib Mikati PM and Muhammad Safadi had to climb a stiff road for claiming a political representation of the Sunni communities.

Particularly, that the Future movement allied with the Sunni conservative and extremist Muslims like Lebanese Muslim Brotherhood, the extremist jihadist wahhabi, the Ahbash, the Jund al Sham, the Jamaa al Islamiyya

In fact, it was the Future party that financed and covered the many “terrorist” activities of these fringe Sunni organizations, such as in the Sirat Donnieh, the Palestinian camp of Ain Bared, the massacre committed in Halba, and lately what is happening in the large town of Ersal, which confronted the army. to spread its security ambrella.

The new neoliberal Contractor class is a level added in class interpretation of Lebanon political structure.

How this new Contractor class acquired its wealth in the billion? (To be followed)

Note: From a chapter by Hannes Baumann in “Lebanon after the Cedar Revolution” by Are Knudsen and Michael Kerr.

Some have it very easy in life: They are mostly attractive

This Halo effect

A century ago, Edward Lee Thorndike realized that “A single quality or characteristic (beauty, social stature, height…) produces a positive or negative impression that outshine everything else, and the overall effect is disproportionate”

Attractive people have it relatively easy in their professional life and even get better grades from teachers who are affected by the hallo.

Attractive people gets more frequent second chance in life and are believed more frequently than ordinary people.

They get away with many “disappointing” behaviors and performances.

One need not be racist, sexist, chauvinist… to feel victim of this subconscious unjust stereotype.

Otherwise, how can teenagers fall in love and marry quickly?

I have watched many documentaries on the matting processes among animals.

And it was not automatic that the male who danced better, had a louder booming voice, nicer feathers… that won over the females.

Apparently, female animals have additional finer senses to select the appropriate mate.

Have you ever wondered why CEO’s are mostly attractive, tall, with a full chuck of hairs?

Probably because the less attractive are not deemed appropriate for the media?

The book that excited Hillary Clinton to Hate “Arabs” and mindlessly side with apartheid Israel: “The Apocalypse”

“The Apocalypse” and “Entretien avec moi-meme” “by Oriana Fallaci

Note: I reviewed this book in 2007 that was published after the September 11, 2001 on the Twin Tower.and posted it on October 24, 2008.

I learned later that this fatal and heinous book excited many colonial powers to launch campaign plans to discredit Islam and the Islamic population. We are still suffering from the consequences of this dangerous generalized ideology. 

Oriana Fallaci was born in 1929 in Florence and died of cancer, maybe of the esophagus in 2006, as her mother, father, and another sister died.

She was a journalist and covered many wars in Vietnam and the Middle East and managed to interview Khomeini for 6 hours and turned to a writer.

Of her publications we can list: “La force de la raison”, “La rage et l’orgueil”, “Un homme”, “Inchallah”, “Lettre a un enfant jamais né”, “Entretiens avec l’Histoire”, and “La vie, la guerre et puis rien”.

Fallaci had a refuge in Manhattan for 10 years and stopped publishing anything and was treating her cancer when the Twin Towers were taken down by Al Qaeda hijacked airplanes.

She remembered seeing Ben Laden in the 1980s in Beirut when the Israeli war planes imploded a high rise to the ground and she conjectured that the way the towers went down was an exact revenge of Bin Laden two decades later.

The attacks on the Twin Towers forced Fallaci to feverishly go back to write about current dangerous phenomena and stored her 800-pages novel in the drawer waiting for an opportune time to work on her “baby”, but she never got around to finish and publish it.

She wrote in “Rage and Pride” that there come times in life where keeping silent is a fault and speaking out an obligation, a civil duty, a moral defiance, a categorical imperative we cannot escape from.

She felt it impossible to stay quiet and apathetic and thus, facing the enormity of the danger she was forced to resume writing.

She wrote a long article in 3 weeks and lived on coffee and cigarettes and her crying was dry because of a congenital nervous case that occurred to her in 1943 when she was about 14 years old.

Then, the allies were bombing Florence and she got scared and started to cry and her dad slapped her hard saying: “young girls do not cry” (go figure, her scared dad reacted nervously and uttered a stupid sentence).

Fallaci fell in love once in her life with the Greek activist Alekos Panagulis who was assassinated at the age of 38 and she wrote a book about Panagulis titled “A man“.

Alekos suffered 5 years of prison in seclusion and when he was freed he cried in front of the Parthenon and repeated “Bitch of democracy, but it is democracy after all”.

Fallaci doesn’t see any other alternative political system but democracy, though it has many flaws and is unable to bring stability quickly when major upheavals strike a nation.

She never returned to Greece because the authorities removed the expensive wedding ring that she inserted in the finger of the deceased when they exhumed the body.

She kept raging against the “falaka” such as hitting the sole of the feet that she says the Greek police have inherited from 4 centuries of Ottoman hegemony in Greece.

Oriana dedicated her introduction to the memories of the many foreigners who were kidnapped and slaughtered by the Muslim fanatics in Iraq and Afghanistan and to the victims in the school of Beslan by the Chechen and to the Danish Theo Van Gogh the director of a short movie on the status of women in the Muslim World.

Her previous volume “The Force of Reason” was in memories of the Madrid train victims.

She unfurled a huge Italian flag over her window to remind the Italian to be proud of their country instead of the rainbow flag of the European Union, along with two tiny US flags to thank America for deposing Saddam Hussein and fighting “Islam terrorism” and for saving Europe during the two World Wars. (US could have remove Saddam, but they wanted to take hold of  strategic Iraq physically and the US created the Islamic extremist movement))

Oriana was furious when her physician suggested not to mention explicitly to others that she is suffering from cancer.

Most people who died of cancer were referred to as dying from incurable disease.  She didn’t think that people would shun her, since cancer is not contagious and not the results of sinful activities, but people were scared to approach cancer afflicted victims.

The atrocities committed by the US forces at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq was frustrating and she felt betrayed, offended and lied to because Western civilization cannot swallow acts of brutalities against helpless and chained prisoners. She took comfort that the perpetrators were legally judged, convicted and imprisoned (Not so sure about imprisoned or got fair punishment. She just wanted to comforted herself on the values of western colonial power “civilizations”).

Fallaci is bitter and angry that the European and Italian leaders, leftist and green parties are pacifying with the Muslims immigrants and being too tolerant to the Islamic laws of living that she labeled Europe “Eurabia” because it is falling under the Arabic Islamic hegemony and Nazi Islamism.

She calls the communists in Italy the caviar left and that the left and right parties the two faces of the same coin as two soccer teams running hard to grab the ball of Power and they are homogenous; the only dirty and backward right that still exists is Islam and those sons of Allah.

She fumes that the crucifix is taken off the school rooms and Christmas crib is no longer installed in, so that not to offend the Muslims. Oriana wonders: “Who is supposed to get integrated, us or them?”

She resent the new laws that allow immigrants to vote which will alter the way the European and Italian live.

Democracy is based on the two concepts of equality and liberty and Oriana believes that people likes equality and are ready to give up on some of their liberty.

Equality is understood to be legal equality under the law of the land, but it does not transfer to moral and mental equality, and equality in value and merit.

Individuality and competition are what make life worth living and fighting for.

Fallaci rages against the Italian Communist party that infiltrated every municipality and the courtrooms and is over lording its monolithic dogma and cultural hegemony as filtered to them by former Communist Russia.

The communists have appropriated the Italian resistance to Nazi Germany although they didn’t react until the American forces were chasing out the occupying forces; worst, they intimidated and killed many Italian national resistance fighters such as Justice and Action party of which Oriana was member when an adolescent.

She lambasted Sigrid Hunke who wrote “The sun of Allah shines over the West” and her activism at smuggling African immigrants to Italy.

The support that Hunke accords to the enemy of Fallaci culture and Christian civilization exacerbates her failing health.

Although Fallaci is atheist she would like to believe that Europe is a Christian culture and was upset when the European Constitution refused to state that the religion of Europe is Christianity. 

She certainly is furious at the Italian successive government acting more royal than France and Germany in matters of the European Union laws and legislations that are emptying the national character and specific culture of Italy.

She admits that she is a manichist, a cult that Mani spread in the 3rd century in Iran and reached Europe. The concepts of Bad and Good are totally separate entities and no shades should alter the process of distinguishing between them and taking firm stands.

Half of the interview with herself is antagonizing most of the Italian leaders and political parties for homogenizing their doctrines and not exhibiting any serious differences in politics and thus, rendering the democratic process void of any meaning.

Fallaci pinched Berlusconi ears in her two previous books but she claimed that she will not become another Maramaldo who killed an already dying man Francesco Ferrucci in Florence in 1530.

Berlusconi did not have much education and he could not believe that the Italians elected him Prime Minister, though he is a very intelligent man in business and one of the richest according to Forbes.

Even his numerous mass media television channels were Not sucking up to him because he was too proud and over confident to attract the right counselors but opted to be surrounded by “yes men”.

Berlusconi worst enemies are of his own coalition and they have been blackmailing him all the time in order for him to remain in power.

Fallaci does not like Bush and she thinks that he lacks education and is antipathetic but much better than the insipid Al Gore.

Bush is a leader because he can take stands and stick by his decision and, mostly, because he has moral and would not humiliate his wife with extra marital activities like Clinton. (Moral inside the household? And this morality can be altered outside the confinement of the family?)

Bush is not two faced and unreliable like Kerry who flaunts his 3 purple hearts that he got from fighting in Vietnam and yet condemn wars without relinquishing his war medals.

Oriana really dig Bush’s wife Laura because she resemble exactly to the mother of Fallaci mother in looks and in manners.

Oriana is starting to like Hillary Clinton after she learned that Hillary loved her book “Rage and Pride” and does not stop commending it to her acquaintances to read but she didn’t considers Hillary sympathetic before.

Fallaci considers that there are only 3 leaders in the second half of the 20th century who are Wojtyla (the previous Pope), Khomeini, and Ben Laden (the Napoleon of Islam and the prophet of darkness).

Ben laden does not need to harangue the masses but can make others execute his orders from a distance and she would gladly interview him, even though she had swore never to interview anyone anymore.

She would dwell on Bin Laden childhood and upbringing because she does not think that religion was the main factors to his megalomania.

Ben Laden was normal adolescent, frequenting bars, drinking whisky and dating girls in abundance and bought his wardrobe from Bond Street.  She strongly believes that Ben Laden anger at the Saudi Royal family was a result of them kicking him out of the palace once King Faisal was assassinated.

Bin Laden’s father was the closest counselor to Faysal and the (Saudi Wahabi caste) disliked this infringement to the rules.

Oriana appreciates the contribution of Wojtyla for the crumbling of the Soviet Union and for continuing to write at the age of 84 and for keeping up with his heavy travel schedule.  She blames the Pope for doing a lot of harm for Christianity and the West because he pacified with the Muslims.

Fallaci condemned the war on Iraq and worried that the end result would be establishment of an Islamic Republic of mullah and imams; but she supported Bush once it started. (The same position of all those Silent Majorities around the world?)

Unfortunately, terrorism has increased and deaths are accumulating for an obscure result because democracy has to be won the people, and to be won it has to be wanted, and to be wanted people has to know what it is.  Thus, since the Iraqi people do not know what democracy is then they certainly do not want it.

The Iraqis as Muslims deeply believe that destiny is not in their hands but coming from Allah. Even the educated people in Iraq proclaim that they want democracy “Islam style”.

The UN is an impotent organization ruled by many members of Islamic states and so far the Janjaweed, the pro-ultra-Muslims of the Sudan government have killed 50,000 Christian blacks and almost one million displaced to camps in Tchad, and in Kalma; the Sudan has a flourishing slave trade of girls raffled during the Janjaweed forays.

The Americans are providing the humanitarian food and the EU refuses to call what is happening as genocide and prefers to label it a complex civil war situation.

Kofi Annan is not sympathetic to her and is two faced and that is why Blair didn’t trust him and had his phone calls intercepted.  She is obfuscated that the UN declared the Wall of Shame that Sharon built on Palestinian lands as illegal; though she would urge Sharon to erase the sections of walls in Palestinian lands proper and reimburse for the damage to the private Palestinian properties.

Her logic considers that anti-Americanism feelings is attached to anti-West behavior which is synonymous to pro-Islamism and thus anti-Semitism.

Fallaci loathes Arafat like the plague and describes as a despot and totally corrupted who amassed over $200 millions and used to send his wife in Paris and allocated $12,000 a day for her expenses.

Arafat was able to control the other Palestinian factions because he held the string to the purse.  Fidel Castro has $150 millions according to Forbes.

As for the state of affairs with the adolescents in Italy Fallaci likes to refers to Plato in a section of his 8th volume of “The Republic“:

When a people, thirsty for liberty, find “echansons” that deliver whatever he wishes, to the point of drunkenness, it happens to calling despots the governments that are eager to satisfying these exigencies of citizens ever more exigent.

A disciplined individual is then decried as void of characters and servile. The scared father end up treating his offspring as equals and lose respect; the teacher refrains from reprimanding the students when they mock him; youth claims the same rights as the old and the latter submit to these claims in order not show severity. 

Under such a climate of liberty and in its name there vanish respect and consideration for anybody.  Within the womb of this kind of license germs and develop a bad grass: Tyranny”

Fallaci tried to glorify her old age because it is at this age that liberty might be attained; a privilege that younger people are striving all their life to grasp it.

At old age fear from judgments stops conditioning our behavior and we are no longer scared of the future because it is here already.

At old age useless desires, superfluous ambitions, and senseless chimeras are out the window.

At old age we are the wiser because we comprehend much better what were obscure through accumulated experience, information and reflection.  She said that she frequented death several times in her career that she has no fear at the idea of dying.

Oriana recalls asking the Emperor of Ethiopia Haile Selassie: “Have you any fear of death?” and the Emperor started screaming “What death?” and he chased her out to the park where a huge lion was eating beef steaks.  Though, as Anna Magnani said: “It is not fair to have to die since we were born anyway“.

Being able to survive so many years is the real miracle and the best gift of reaching old age.  Anyway, if there was no death then the word life would have no meaning.

The vehement attitude of Fallaci toward Islam stems from two premises;

First, all of the terrorist attacks in the Western World are perpetrated by Muslims, and

Second, the practices of Muslims’ behavior in the Western World are based on the teaching of the Koran which cannot b reconciled with the rational civil laws in the western countries they live in.

(Wrong premises: It is Muslims that were the mostly massacred and killed by the extremist Muslim movement in “Islamic world”)

Fallacy used St. John’s apocalyptic vision to offer her version of Islam as the Monster and enliven her ejaculations and substantiate her stand, as if a flawed concept can be clarified by a more obscure premise.

In St. John’s apocalyptic version a Monster with seven heads and ten horns would emerge from the sea and the Beast on land would execute all the Monster’s orders until an angel descends from heaven and lock up the Monster and punish the Beast.

Thus, the Monster is Islam and the Beast is represented by the European liberals and leaders who are trying to appease Muslims and exhorting them to moderation by dangling carrots instead of raising the heavy sticks.

Note: I generated two articles from this manuscript: “Are there moderate Muslims?” and “An alternative version of Fallaci  interpretation of St. John’s apocalyptic vision”

Another Open Letter to French President Macron

Deuxième lettre ouverte au Président Macron :
Où est l’image satellite du port de Beyrouth ?

Par Hassan Hamadé : Écrivain et journaliste libanais – Membre du Conseil national de l’audiovisuel (CNA)

1er octobre 2020, par Comité Valmy

Monsieur le Président,

Je souhaite commencer par vous féliciter chaleureusement pour votre franchise. Je n’ai pas été déçu que vous soyez allé directement au cœur du sujet, lequel n’a nul besoin de fioritures pour dissimuler sa vérité, vu que cette vérité est la raison directe ayant fait de vous le gagnant de la mission au Liban. J’entends par là : le problème posé par les armes de la Résistance.

Il ne vous a pas fallu longtemps pour avouer ouvertement cette première moitié de ce qui vous intéresse au Liban ; l’autre moitié se résumant à votre obsession de gagner des contrats s’appropriant ce qui reste de la richesse de l’État et du peuple.

Des richesses passant du port martyr de Beyrouth à son aéroport menacé du même sort, à l’électricité, à l’eau, au téléphone cellulaire, aux infrastructures et, bien sûr, à ce que la terre et les eaux du Liban contiennent de pétrole et de gaz, là où le géant de l’énergie, la société Total, occupe le devant de la scène.

Mis à part ces deux préoccupations majeures, votre discours [1] sur la dimension humanitaire, réformatrice et éthique de votre mission au Liban est resté dans les limites de sa fonction de maquillage et d’un semblant d’élégance.

Ceux qui attendaient le contraire de votre part ont été désagréablement surpris. C’est leur problème car dans le dictionnaire des États, les promesses n’ engagent que ceux qui y croient.

Outre les félicitations, il nous faut discuter ensemble, chacun à partir de son camp, de la question de l’affrontement direct avec les forces qui s’opposent à la campagne coloniale destructrice désignée par « printemps arabe ».

Pour rappel, Monsieur le Président, cette expression avait déjà été utilisée par les gouvernements français il y a 172 ans, lorsqu’ils avaient affirmé que la création de la sinistre mission « Baudicour » [2] serait le début du printemps des peuples. Mission qui consistait à déraciner les maronites libanais de leurs terres et à les transférer en Algérie.

Conformément à votre habitude des raccourcis, votre conférence de presse du 27 septembre 2020 est venue confirmer vos déclarations annoncées quelques heures avant votre deuxième visite au Liban, le 1er septembre 2020.

C’est ainsi que vous avez ajouté une zone d’ombre encore plus dense dans l’espace des relations libano-françaises ; autrement dit, une nouvelle ambiguïté qui s’ajoute aux précédentes déjà évoquées [3] et qui mène à une lecture différente du devenir des relations entre nos deux pays, loin de la propagande entourant le mythe d’amour et de tendresse pour le Liban.

Cette fois, vous nous avez rappelés une époque supposée révolue, étant donné qu’aujourd’hui vous nous apparaissez plutôt proche d’un haut-commissaire.

Cependant, avec moins de pouvoirs que vos prédécesseurs à ce poste, car leur référence était Paris, tandis que votre véritable référence se situe quelque part dans le « Nouveau Monde ».

Cela ne vous est absolument pas étranger. Vous êtes le tenant d’une démarche politique ayant opté pour une France européenne, plutôt que pour une France française et si vous aviez à choisir entre une Europe européenne et une Europe atlantiste, vous opteriez pour une Europe atlantiste.

Et je n’irai pas jusqu’à dire, comme certains, que vous iriez jusqu’à préférer l’appartenance aux États-Unis à l’appartenance à l’Europe atlantiste.

C’est probablement la raison qui fait qu’à aucun moment vous n’avez abordé la question cruciale de la Résistance qui protège autant qu’elle le peut le Liban du monstre raciste sioniste, alors que vous considérez le manque de respect à la mémoire de la Résistance française comme un péché mortel.

En effet, la résistance à l’occupation et la défense des patries est par principe une question morale, éthique, légale et humaine, toute proche de la sainteté.

Trouvez-vous qu’il est sérieux de parler de la nôtre comme vous l’avez fait ? Pour de nombreux Libanais, votre discours sur la Résistance libanaise est venu comme un coup de poignard en plein cœur.

Peut-être que vous ne l’avez pas voulu. Et, peut-être que vous avez écouté plus qu’il ne le faut vos conseillers et vos amis, lesquels n’ont fait que vous impliquer dans un problème pouvant fortement compromettre la relation historique entre nos deux pays dans le présent et le futur.

Monsieur le Président,

Je n’ai pas été surpris par votre totale indifférence à l’analyse du dossier libanais par le respecté homme d’État français [4], Maurice Couve de Murville.

La différence entre vous porte non seulement sur l’époque, l’expérience et la culture, mais aussi sur l’appartenance. Il était dans la fleur de l’âge lorsqu’il a rejoint le Commandant de la France libre, a travaillé à la radio de la Résistance, est resté proche du Général de Gaulle tout au long de sa vie et a été ministre des Affaires étrangères, puis Premier ministre.

Ce qui explique qu’il ait tenu à ne pas prendre parti face aux querelles des Libanais et donc à ne pas les encourager à détruire leur pays.

Naturellement, à l’époque il n’a pas eu à s’opposer à la résistance naissante qui a expulsé les monstres sionistes de la capitale Beyrouth ; première capitale arabe occupée par l’armée israélienne lorsque le Hezbollah n’était pas encore né. Lequel Hezbollah est néanmoins né de la matrice de cette première résistance triomphante qui a brisé les crocs des monstres sionistes et les a expulsés de Beyrouth que vous avez visité et dans les rues duquel vous vous êtes promené.

Vous êtes censé avoir été informé de ces faits historiques avant d’user d’expressions offensantes contre notre Résistance, abstraction faite de votre position de principe en raison de vos engagements otano-sionistes.

C’est là une atteinte à la dignité de la patrie libanaise, laquelle suppose que vous lui présentiez vos excuses.

Vous avez parfaitement le droit de haïr la Résistance et de la combattre, mais vous n’avez pas le droit de l’offenser alors que vous traitez du sujet libanais au titre de l’amitié.

Imaginez la situation inverse où un Libanais se tiendrait devant vous pour traiter de la sorte la Résistance française. Quelle serait votre réaction ? Je m’attends à ce que vous entriez dans une grande colère ; là aussi, abstraction faite de votre propre opinion sur la Résistance française qui ne concerne que vous.

Et que dire de vos propos prétendant que la Résistance libanaise sème la terreur en Syrie ?

Que cela vous plaise ou non, Monsieur le Président, cette Résistance est le fer de lance de la défense territoriale contre le terrorisme, à commencer par les organisations atlantistes de la terreur, c’est-à-dire Daech, le Front al-Nosra, la Brigade Sultan Mourad, la Harakat Nour al-Din al Zenki et l’ensemble de leurs dérivées bénéficiant globalement du parrainage de votre Organisation du traité de l’Atlantique nord [l’OTAN] et du financement puisé dans les caisses des pays du Golfe, occupés par vos armées atlantistes.

Plus de 170 000 terroristes venus d’Europe et d’autres pays, amenés par votre organisation au cœur de la géographie syrienne pour la déchirer de l’intérieur, menant ainsi la plus monstrueuse des campagnes coloniales que l’histoire ait connues au cours de ses différentes époques. Organisations qui « font du bon boulot », comme l’a dit un jour l’un de vos ministres des Affaires étrangères !

C’est pourquoi vous vous en prenez à la résistance libanaise. C’est peut-être aussi parce qu’elle a énormément contribué à la défense de la présence chrétienne sur la sainte terre syrienne pendant que votre alliance atlantique, laquelle excelle dans la flagellation des peuples et la négation de leurs droits humains les plus élémentaires, travaille jour et nuit à effacer les traces du christianisme de la terre palestinienne du premier révolutionnaire humaniste, Jésus-Christ, et les traces du crime commis le 30 septembre 2000 contre l’enfant Mohammed al-Durah [5], son père, ses frères et ses sœurs.

Et c’est plus probablement encore, Monsieur le Président, la raison qui vous pousse à voir une contradiction incompréhensible entre la résistance du Hezbollah à Israël et son droit d’être un parti respecté au Liban.

Imaginez, là aussi, qu’un Libanais vous dise que toute force française ayant résisté aux nazis perdrait son droit à former un parti politique respecté en France. Serait-ce raisonnable ? Question, évidemment indépendante de votre propre opinion sur le fascisme et le nazisme qui ne concerne que vous.

Tout comme le Christ, le peuple du Christ est persécuté. Le pape Benoît XVI n’a-t-il pas condamné « l’hostilité et les préjugés à l’encontre des chrétiens » en Europe » ?

Lisez, Monsieur le président, son message pour la Journée mondiale de la paix du 1er janvier 2011. Cette même année où vous avez inauguré l’orgie sanguinaire via votre printemps arabe. Dans le quatorzième paragraphe de ce terrible message, le penseur Joseph Ratzinger semble considérer que vos discours au monde manquent de sincérité.

Contentez-vous de lire ce seul paragraphe, votre excellence, car il est fort probable que vous ne soyez pas intéressé par ce genre de lecture.

Lors de votre conférence de presse, alors que je vous observais pendant que vous déversiez vos ressentiments, j’ai senti toute la froideur de vos paroles en dépit de la volubilité de votre langage corporel.

Vous êtes apparu froid et nullement concerné par la requête libanaise qui vous a été personnellement adressée ; celle de fournir une image satellite [6] de la terrible explosion terrestre engendrée par le crime complexe contre l’existence même du Liban. Vos paroles resteront creuses et sans valeur tant que vous éluderez notre demande destinée à savoir qui a dirigé l’explosion hirochimienne contre le port de Beyrouth, pour favoriser le port de Haïfa en Palestine occupée.

Nous voulons la vérité ; la vérité pour le Liban. Nous avez-vous entendus, vous qui vous permettez de nous donner des leçons en insultant nos politiciens voleurs, afin de susciter notre amitié et de gagner notre confiance, tout en continuant à vous entendre avec eux et à dissimuler le coupable ? Il en est toujours ainsi : généralisation, hausse du ton, débats creux aboutissant à la dissimulation du coupable. Une technique, cher Président, qui ne trompe que ceux qui croient aux paroles des États. Où sont donc les images satellite ? Et que cache leur non divulgation ?

Désolé, Monsieur le Président, pour avoir oublié que votre éloquence en matière de transparence, de démocratie et de droits humains n’a d’égale que l’éloquence de vos confrères banquiers lorsqu’ils insistent pour que les clients déposent leur argent et leurs économies dans les coffres de leurs banques, pour qu’une opération de sublimation transforment ensuite leurs dépôts en vapeurs lorsque sonnera l’heure du grand pillage et de la destruction des familles, sous couvert de telle ou telle révolution colorée, comme cela s’est passé et se passe encore au Liban. Choses que ne pouvez ignorer, votre Excellence.

Et c’est peut-être parce que vous maitrisez ce savoir que vous avez complètement ignoré les aveux particulièrement terribles, formulés quelques heures avant votre grande conférence de presse, devant le Congrès américain, par le diplomate américain, David Hale ; un homme d’une grande politesse, un amoureux de la paix et de l’harmonie entre les humains au point d’accompagner les orgies sanguinaires au Liban depuis des décennies. Il a déclaré que son administration avait dépensé et distribué dix milliards de dollars [7] au profit de ceux en qui vous avez confiance au Liban : des organisations non gouvernementales et des inféodés fiables au sein des cercles politiques et des médias menteurs.

Des aveux venus s’ajouter aux déclarations antérieures d’un autre diplomate américain, tout aussi féru des orgies sanguinaires au Liban : le nommé Jeffrey Feltman. Lequel avait affirmé le 8 juin 2010, toujours devant le Congrès américain, que son administration pacifique, qui hait les massacres et les assassinats, avait dépensé un demi-milliard de dollars au cœur du Liban afin de défigurer l’image du Hezbollah [8].

Les oreilles de ces individus, Monsieur le Président, entendent essentiellement vos collègues parmi les banquiers internationaux, tandis que leurs yeux sont tournés vers la Banque centrale libanaise qu’ils se préparent à dépouiller de son droit exclusif d’émettre la monnaie. Pour cela, le prétexte est fin prêt : la Banque du Liban n’étant plus digne de confiance, ce privilège doit être confié à des banques privées.

Mais, puisque les banques privées ont également perdu leur crédibilité avec la complicité du gouverneur de la Banque centrale (l’équivalent d’Edgar Hoover en matière de finances) et des sommités du comité des banques, lesquels passent la moitié de leur temps à Paris loin des projecteurs des patriotes libanais, le privilège doit plutôt être confié à des banques internationales.

Et la « Bank of New York », l’une des plus grande banques, propriétaire de la Réserve fédérale américaine, détient désormais 34% des plus grandes banques libanaises, grâce à une opération furtive de vol mi-2019. Une opération que les médias libanais « libres » ont dissimulée, ces mêmes médias financés par les dix milliards de dollars précités et devenus promoteurs de ladite révolution ; la révolution de l’autodestruction au nom de la lutte contre la corruption.

Est-il possible, Monsieur le Président, que vous ignoriez ce vol généralisé de tout un peuple par les banques !? Il est étonnant que vous ayez pu oublier un fait aussi terrible, exactement comme vous semblez avoir oublié les images satellite, lesquelles faciliteraient grandement la désignation des responsables de l’explosion hirochimienne du port de Beyrouth.

Monsieur le Président,

Il m’est difficile de croire ceux qui prétendent que vous n’êtes pas au courant de tout cela, tout comme il m’est difficile de croire que vous ne sachiez pas que vos avions de l’OTAN brûlent systématiquement des champs de céréales et des cultures de terres fertiles en Syrie, pour que les Syriens meurent de famine pendant que le blocus atlantiste les prive des moyens de combattre l’invasion de la pandémie virale.

Vous qui êtes issu du monde civilisé, transparent, défenseur des droits humains, naturellement et avant tout démocrate, vous devez présenter vos excuses aux Libanais, à nous tous, Monsieur le Président. Ce serait honteux de vous en abstenir. Quant à nous :

Notre Liban est et restera à nous, il n’est pas à vendre. Notre Syrie est et restera à nous. Notre Palestine était et reviendra au peuple du Christ… notre peuple.

Une fois de plus, Monsieur le Président, veuillez accepter mes meilleures salutations.

Hassan Hamadé
01/10/2020

Traduction de l’arabe par Mouna Alno-Nakhal

Source : Al-Intichar (Liban) http://alintichar.com/123852

Notes :

[1][ Conférence de presse du Président Emmanuel Macron sur la situation au Liban. (diffusée en direct le 27 septembre 2020 (vidéo)]
[2][ Le projet Baudicour de 1848]
[3][Première lettre ouverte au Président Macron ; par Hassan Hamadé]
[4] [La crise libanaise et l’évolution du Proche-Orient [Maurice Couve de Murville]
[5][Charles Enderlin & l’affaire Mohammed al-Durah (vidéo)]
[6][Aoun demande à Macron des images aériennes du moment de l’explosion]
[7] [Al-Mayadeen / Hale : nous avons dépensé 10 milliards de dollars pour les forces de sécurité et la société civile libanaises (vidéo)]
[8][Al-Mayadeen / Jeffrey Feltman : Les USA ont dépensé 500 milliards de dollars pour défigurer l’image du Hezbollah (vidéo)]


adonis49

adonis49

adonis49

October 2020
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

Blog Stats

  • 1,428,204 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.adonisbouh@gmail.com

Join 775 other followers

%d bloggers like this: