Rational republic

Lebanon: A State For the Elite and by the Elite

2012-05-26T01:11:00.000-04:00

Ever since its creation Lebanon has failed to depart significantly from the general understanding that its Zouama (elites) had agreed upon. Lebanon is rather unique in this regard; the general public has never played a major role either in its creation nor during any role of its subsequent development.

The idea of a nation state is foreign to this part of the world. Maybe that is one reason that the Middle East has failed to give rise to a single functioning democracy since the end of WWI i.e. the dismembering of the Old Man of Europe. The defeat of the Ottoman Turks gave rise, under European urgings, to the creation of nation states, although none of the inhabitants either believed in the concept or even understood it. It was that imported idea that led the French to create Grand Liban in 1920 by preaching separateness between the Christians of Lebanon and the Moslems of Syria. The French were not acting on behalf of the Lebanese masses but simply a few religious leaders and local zaims.

Even the semi sacrosanct National Covenant of 1943 which is the understanding that came up with the idea that the President is to be a Maronite, the PM a Sunni and the Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies a Shia had no input from the general Lebanese citizenry. The Zoama decided about the shape of what is to be and the populace had no say whatsoever in the arrangement.

Even after the quintessentially Lebanese solution at the end of the Maronite hegemony ,that ended with the civil war, the system of governance that became operable, until this writing, was the agreement worked out at Taif between the feuding war lords. Unfortunately that was another major chapter in Lebanese history that was decided solely by the same zoama that had essentially been responsible for the National Pact. Taif was a “solution” by the same elites who had refused to allow the common people to have a say both in the creation of the state, its constitution or it’s National Pact. Taif was a proposal by the elites and for the elites.

An alien idea for a nation state based on the rather novel sectarian concept was used by those in power to further their own narrow selfish interests and appear to have managed to keep their grip on the state since its inception till the Taif and beyond. This includes the Doha arrangement, and the few fiascos that have given Lebanon its failed attempts since 2005 to form an effective government.

Albert Einstein once said that it is irrational to keep doing the same thing over and over again but to expect a different result. That has been the major Lebanese failing. Governance is based on a flawed model and the mistake is compounded by preventing the public from participating in the determination of its destiny. The Lebanese elite do not trust us, the commoners, since they believe that they know what is good for us. All what we have to do is play our role as sheep. They will take care of the rest.

Until we the people decide that we have had enough abuse then the Lebanese tragedy/comedy will continue going round and round in a vicious circle. Do you think that we can surprise them next year? I am not betting on it.

You Reap What You Sow. (Incongruity = Strife)

2012-05-21T00:53:00.003-04:00

There are two sides to every issue. This does not offer cover to each side but it simply means that each side acts in such a way as to support its version of what transpired. Fortunately, reality can take only one version, anything else is a distortion. The sad events unfolding in Lebanon present a clear example of the above. The same political groups who had the audacity to suggest over the years that the horrendous assassination of Rafic Hariri and his entourage could have been arranged by his own family are at it again. They would like to peddle the vastly illogical account that the vehicle of Sheikh Ahmad Abd Al Wahed was sprayed with over fifty Lebanese Army bullets killing the Sheikh and a member of his entourage because it did not stop at the Lebanese Army barricade.

Someone should remind the Lebanese Army that even if there is truth to the allegations that the vehicle failed to stop then the army could have sent instructions to the next barricade to stop the Sheikh who is well known in the region or could have shot in the air or at the tires instead of spraying the vehicle with over fifty bullets as the driver testified. Irrespective of whether the civilian vehicle stopped or whether it failed to stop the tragic loss of life is nothing short of an indictment of the army personnel at this check point. Their unprofessional and totally undisciplined behavior, possibly politically motivated, can never be condoned since an army is not meant to shoot at its citizens and terrify them, unless it happens to be the armed forces of a dictatorial regime. Armed forces are to protect the borders and help prevent internal strife, not start it.

The Lebanese army must initiate the most thorough and most transparent investigation in its history if the trust of the citizens is to be regained by the institution. It is with that in mind that President Suleiman should use his good offices to assure the public that justice will be done and that Lebanon belongs to all its citizens. But how can the citizens feel that the government cares equally about all the citizens when they are constantly reminded by events that the Lebanese are all equal but some are more equal than others. How can one have any trust in an army that shoots in cold blood a man of God at its check point when it could not arrest the Hezbollah member who shot down one of its helicopters killing an army pilot? Such discriminatory behavior is not the exception but rather the rule. It is also to be noted that this army has been able to obstruct small arms from being smuggled across the Lebanese Syrian border but has failed over the years to indict or intercept a single unit of the huge cache of arms that has crossed and continues to cross the Lebanese Syrian border. The very real allegiance and performance of the Lebanese army is at stake and since ours is an army subject to civilian rule then it is for the politicians to initiate the cleansing process.

What better message than for the current crop of cabinet members, whose government has proven to be most ineffective in all fields, be it social, economic or political, to resign. 0 Mr. Mikati, the current Prime Minister, erred when he agreed to form this current cabinet led by Hezbollah and the FPM. This very space has warned many a time that the cabinet structure was unworkable and that Mr. Mikati could do Lebanon a favour by putting together a small government of competent technocrats. Well, it is never too late. The Lebanese political leadership must come together to contain the present level of mistrust by arranging for a cabinet resignation and the simultaneous formation of a technocratic government led by Mr. Mikati. The new cabinet should demonstrate clearly that all Lebanese are subject to the same set of laws; taxes, civil and criminal, and should also govern equitably, efficiently , democratically and competently in all areas including but not limited to electricity, national debt, energy, social security and personal freedom of expression.

Expatriate Vote in Lebanon: Another Act of Deception

2012-05-06T11:51:00.000-04:00

To pretend the wide availability of a commodity or service when in fact access to the item in question is severely restricted can be deadly as the Noble laureate Amartya Sen has clearly demonstrated in his classic “Poverty and Famines”. Ever since the world no longer views famine and hunger as an outcome of crop failures as used to be the case but in most likelihood as a lack of access to food since it has been demonstrated that most such episodes are often accompanied by major obstacles erected by the social and economic systems. This is not much different than to claim that prenatal care is abundant for anyone that can afford, say, the $300 fee per visit.

Unfortunately, the above principle of pure discrimination and deception has evolved to become the bedrock on which the Lebanese political system and Lebanese cabinet operate. It often appears as if citizenship, in Lebanon, does not carry any intrinsic rights, just the opposite what is important is who do you know and how much can you afford to pay as a bribe. Nothing gets done without “wasta”.

The latest iteration of this form of deception, which has become elevated to become an art, is the latest development regarding the ongoing discussions on possible reforms to the current rotten electoral system. One idea, that has met universal support, is the plan to allow the Lebanese expatriates to participate in the upcoming parliamentary elections next year. So many countries have offered their expatriates the right to vote that this issue has become taken for granted all over the world. But things are never what they appear in Lebanon. What appears to be real is often an image of a distorted reality. This statute is no different.

To get a clear understanding of what Lebanese officialdom is offering imagine, if you will, an area of land that is as large as a combination of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority. Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Oman, Yemen and Saudi Arabia then multiply that area by 2.5. The result of that exercise would be the area of the United States of America. The Lebanese government is proposing that all the Lebanese citizens living in the US; let us assume for the sake of this exercise that they number 100,000 strong; have the right to participate in the upcoming elections provided they can make an appearance in person at one of four places only, either the Lebanese embassy in DC or one of the Lebanese consulates in NYC, Detroit or Los Angeles. Does anyone really expect those that live beyond say 20 miles of the embassy to even consider taking place in this process? What the Lebanese government has essentially done is to perfect the game of pretending to offer a service without actually doing so

The Lebanese cabinet, including the Lebanese President, who was unconstitutionally elected need to be reminded of the simplest and most essential principle in a democracy; the right to vote is inherent, it is intrinsic and cannot be alienated from the citizen. A citizen MUST have access to the vote under any set of circumstances and government has to put into practice a system that honours the idea the franchise is the lifeblood of democracy and government, at all levels, is obligated to provide access to that service that is totally equal and that is unencumbered. Anything less should be grounds to civil disobedience on a massive scale especially when the solution is simple elegant and inexpensive. If the mail can be trusted for registration then why cannot we trust it for casting a ballot? And the pretence goes on and on.

A Cabinet of Deception

2012-04-25T22:51:00.000-04:00

It is especially ironic when the government that is expected to guard and protect the interest of the public becomes the most important player in perpetuating deception and false calculus. These last events in Lebanon beg the question: If the government is not to be trusted then why have it?

Think, if you will, of a major corporation that sells rice in 1000 gram containers for 4000LL each. The marketing department of this corporation decides to maintain the size of the container and its 4000LL but instead puts only 900 grams of rice in each box. If the boxes are marked properly then this action will not be illegal although the consumer protection agencies would wage a campaign against the corporation accusing it of the intention to deceive the public by camouflaging the price increase of 10% that the said corporation has stealthily imposed on the unsuspecting public. One can even imagine calls to boycott such products for the lack of transparency.

Imagine the disappointment when those that are promulgating such practices are the governmental agencies whose only purpose is to protect the consumer instead of exploiting her. What makes things even worse is the unbelievable attempt at using wrong calculus in order to rationalize such action. Can they be that dumb? Apparently the current Lebanese ministers can be dumber than dumb and that is a tragedy of unbelievable proportions.

Let us go through a hypothetical example that illustrates the naiveté of this cabinet officials. Let us assume that the Lebanese populace consumes every day I million 1000 gram packages of bread. If each of these packages sells for 1500 LL then the cost for the one million KG of bread would amount to LL 1.5 billion. The government has decided; in its infinite wisdom; nay its obtuse thinking, that it would not allow the bakers to increase their price by 10% or the equivalent of LL150 per 1000 gram package but instead it forced the bakers to reduce the contents per package to 900 grams and maintain the price at LL 1500. The “genius” behind this voodoo calculus should be fired on the spot. Note that the 1 million kg that are to be consumed daily cost under the old system LL 1.5 billion. When the 900 grams per package is adopted then the 1 million kg would sell at LL1.66 billion i.e. an increase of LL160 million. Had the government allowed an increase in the traditional package of 1000 grams to be sold at LL1650 then the total expenditures for the 1 million kg of bread consumed each day would have been LL1.65 billion. So what did the government accomplish by creating this false crisis and then pretending that they have acted in the interest of the consumer when in fact they have attempted to deceive the citizen into thinking that the government was acting in favour of the common good. The government has simply increased the uncertainty and the level of anxiety simply to wind up in doing nothing.

Shame on each and every member of the cabinet for having agreed to play this game of pure deception; shame on all the MPs who have failed to raise any objection to the above but most of all shame on a so called free press whose only role is to act on behalf of the weak, the voiceless and the exploited but obviously has failed miserably in living up to expectations. This is the perfect example of what is meant by the adage that one should be careful not to appoint the fox to guard the hen house. Unfortunately for Lebanon we did just that.

Earth Day 2012: What Are We Celebrating?

2012-03-31T21:50:00.001-04:00

Many in the world are already celebrating the 42 anniversary of Earth Day and that is understandable. The young idealists who started this movement had a dream, a dream that the citizens of this planet have grown up, opened their eyes and decided that the human species must change its behavior , in all fields, if the planet and all what is on it is to have a chance to sustain its existence and to thrive. Over forty years have passed and the dream is farther=r away than ever. Actually it is not an exaggeration to claim that the dream is currently out of reach and that the human species has managed to create the conditions that will lead to nothing short of a ruinous outcome. Yes we are beyond the tipping point and in the words of the great James Lovelock we are witnessing “Gaia’s Revenge”.

How naive of us to have expected a different path. The idealism of youth blinded us from noting that every noble goal calls for commitment, hard work and sacrifice. A worthwhile goal is not for free but demands that we make major changes in our attitude and our behavior. It is not enough to put lipstick on a pig.

Modernity has allowed us to build islands of prosperity but within oceans of need and degradation. Yet what we wanted to do was to continue business as usual hoping that if we keep doing the same thing over and over again then eventually the outcome will be different. It never is. Exploitation breeds exploitation, tyranny cannot give birth to freedom and a world that is built on the principle that holds nationalism and patriotism as sacred is doomed to sacrifice the other and abuse the commons. Greed and selfishness is not the road to salvation. they are the road to perdition.

Whether the age of the Anthropogenic started with the industrial revolution or even 12000 years earlier as some would argue, the simple fact of the matter is that the direct effect of human behavior have grown so fast over the past 50-60 years that unless we show enough spine and courage to undertake meaningful action to change rather radically our behavior then the Anthropogenic might be bringing about its own destruction and in short order.

Climate deniers aside, scientific models suggest that the limits of human adaptation to climate change are in the 6-8 degrees Fahrenheit range. What is very disturbing about the above is the fact that most models predict that we will be there by around 2100; the 4degrees Fahrenheit is already in the bag and cannot be avoided even if all emissions are to stop tomorrow.

As if all of that is not enough, we go on our merry way pretending that the overall number of humans on this planet is not an issue of concern neither is the food that is required to nourish them. A quick calculation based on the carbon footprint of the average US citizen implies that we need about 6 planets if the same standard of living is to be made available to all the Earths’ inhabitants. Why shouldn’t it? It is tragic that many believe that financial capital can substitute for natural capital and so many nations increase their rate of accumulation of financial assets by devouring the only capital that counts, the natural ones. Is that anything short of a Sorceress’ Apprentice as John Foster Ballamy, a Marxist economist has stated?

It is rather clear that "only mad men and economists believe that we can have indefinite growth in a finite base" and that unless we "dare to do the impossible then we will have to contemplate the improbable." Capitalism has ushered in the most prosperous period in history and has encouraged a modicum of democracy, liberty and creativity. Alas Capitalism rests on the premise that there are no limits to growth and thus, if left unfettered will only compound the ecological and human crisis. It is time that we accept the simple conclusion that a paradigm shift is sorely needed, a radical revolutionary change that questions the misguided principles upon which we have built our world vision , a vision that is out of step with reality. Yes, creative destruction will bring about the end of the system that nourished it and that is the way that it should be. That is how history unfolds. Ecological sanity is not compatible with any of the present societal structures that we have erected anywhere in this world.

Celebrate Earth Day with an open mind and with a sincere commitment that a healthy environment is not to be had through policies of economic growth, larger human populations and an archaic societal architecture that is built to favour personal good instead of that of the commonwealth.

LIRA: A Devalued Internet?

2012-03-23T22:23:00.001-04:00

Creative destruction is the phrase popularized by Joseph Schumpeter, the great economist, who used it to describe the creative power of capitalism and the free markets. Love it or hate it, capitalism thrives of uncertainty and adversity by letting the animal spirits loose in order to challenge the status quo and keep all actors on their toes, so to speak.

There is no room for complacency and tradition under this dynamic system that is anchored on revolutionary change. Note what has happened to old fashioned wired phones, traditional travel agents, neighbourhood financial brokers and traditional print media just to name a few major industries that have been transformed by the internet.

The new digital age of telecommunication has shrunk the world and transformed the role of print journalism. Anyone who has access to the internet and a cheap computer can become at least a pamphleteer if not a small scale journalist. It does not take much to start a blog, make a daily or even hourly post in which one can share his/her thoughts with the world. This is good. It empowers the poor, the disinherited and the exploited by giving them access denied them by their exploiters and rigid rulers.

Those who are in control do not welcome change. Why should they? Change can only diminish their power and control. Obviously the ones who hate change the most are those that do not trust the common wisdom of the masses, those that are not willing to adapt to new realities. Fortunately, those that refuse to change will be swept under the rubble of their own edifice so that a freer and a more productive environment can rise.

In trade and international relations the new reality is that of integration and the phrase that captured that reality the best is that of Thomas Friedman: It’s a flat world. You either adopt the new rules of the game or you will be swept aside. This is what happened in home wired phones, wireless telephony has changed practically every aspect of life and the same has happened to all forms of media. Traditional media has had to change its old established habits or risk being overtaken by the new trends of e magazines, social media and blogs.

Lebanon unfortunately is showing signs of arterial calcification especially in its response to the inevitable changes being witnessed in the electronic media. One can argue that the Lebanese structure of traditional journalism is sort of unique in the world. It is not unique due to its diversity, as some like to claim, but it is unique to the lack of major independent media outlets. Most of the TV stations, major dailies and a lot of radio in addition to major commercial blogs are in essence mouth pieces to established political parties. One will be hard pressed to find objective coverage of any issue in Lebanon. Each media organ will report through the prism of its political party, which by the way, is bound to increase divisiveness among the Lebanese since each group will get its daily quota of biased information from its “leaders”. Then all of a sudden this monopoly is shaken by the internet. Low and behold, regular citizens find that they can express their points of view and even start discussions many other dissatisfied citizens. All of this for free.

Of course none of the established political parties supports this new challenger since its success comes only at the expense of the traditional powers. So what to do? Find a roundabout way of protecting the old inefficient and anachronistic monopolies by pretending that what is required is an orderly internet market where the established power will write the rules in order to suppress freedom of expression and maintain its control on what to disseminate and how to disseminate it.

That ,in a nut shell, is what Minister of Information Daouk, is asking for in his misguided proposal ;Lebanese Internet Regulation Act, LIRA. It is simply an amateurish effort at stopping progress, trying to maintain power in the hands of officialdom to muzzle the ability to publish and critique and to pretend that the law is needed in order to protect freedom. That is an oxymoron isn’t it? The Minister is either anxious to submit a proposal for a statute that is not needed but only because he is under pressure to justify his salary or he is very misinformed about what is the e media and how it operates. Freedom cannot thrive in infertile soil.

Please note that his Excellency met on Friday with representatives of the major Lebanese e blogs, Tayyar, LF, Kataeb and Lebanonfiles in order to arrive at an agreement that is satisfactory to all the above. Not a single one of these, with the possible exception of Lebanonfiles, is an independent voice. May I even suggest that the Minister and all of these “traditional” voices have an interest in suppressing any new challenges to their hegemony? They are afraid of the individual blogs, the truly independent, and the real pamphleteers. That is what they are after and that is what they wish to suppress. It’s a pity when a government fears the real voices of its masses, those that have maybe 50,000 page views a year. What a shame.

Climate Change & Capitalism

2012-03-17T16:03:00.002-04:00

The following PPT was done for a panel of The Left Forum March 18, 2012. Take a look.

Climate change & capitalism

View more PowerPoint from guston1

Patriarch Al Rai Misspeaks again.

2012-03-14T23:22:00.000-04:00

“The closest thing to democracy (in the Arab world) is Syria” thus spoke the Maronite Patriarch Al Rai. Such nonsense, had it been spouted by a lesser individual would have been grounds to have the speaker examined. There is nothing that can be defended in the above statement and unfortunately the Patriarch goes on his merry way of not realizing how vacuous he sounds. To make things worse the above was said just as he was embarking on a trip to visit the Jordanian Monarch and the Qatari Prince. Both were too well mannered to show their disgust with the inanity of these childish utterances that demonstrate a total lack of understanding of what is democracy and even what is the basis of Christian dogma. As if the above senseless views were not enough the Patriarch dared defend these faulty views upon his return to Lebanon by issuing a statement berating some Lebanese for not reading the whole text, as if the qualification “in the Arab world” was to be his savior from having committed , and not for the first time this unforgivable faux pas.

I guess his eminence has been too busy making silly statements left and right about areas and topics that are outside his area of expertise that he must have forgotten that the early Christians were thrown to the lions in the Coliseum of Rome rather than waver from the teachings of their master who urged them to “know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” The truth your eminence is that Bashar, whom you have called a reformer, is a butcher who murders men women and children for no reason except to stay on the “thrown”. Isn’t it blasphemy for a cleric to oppose the down trodden and to side with power, arrogance and tyranny. I always thought that Christians worshiped humility and worked to liberate the poor and the exploited since He taught them that “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

What is even more frustrating than all of these shameful statements is the insistence of Patriarch Al Rai that he does not delve into politics. What in the name of God does one call statements justifying a state within a state, offering moral support to a corrupt and bankrupt dictatorship that is opposed by practically the whole world for its cruelty and its opposition to the right to dissent, to freedom and to the right to congregate, what is a judgment about whether systems are democratic or not and missives asking the world community to be blackmailed by terror but political statements.

Maybe, just maybe, there is a silver lining to all of this. Maybe Lebanese of all religious affiliations will come to recognize that these men of the cloth spend a lifetime reading their holy books and interpreting dogma and they should stick to their own knitting. It is clear that it is difficult for one to pray to two Gods, a civil secular mundane and political one and a highly spiritual and mystical existence. These two do not mix and it is high time that we ask the clergy to stay out of politics totally for the same reasons that they would not welcome a commoner interpreting their scriptures.

This last call is not directed only at Patriarch Al Rai but also at all other religious leaders. We need to implement the present constitution by eliminating sectarianism from the political sphere. The best and the most meaningful starting point for that would be for government to stop classifying citizen by the religion that they practice or chose not to practice. It is no one’s business whether I pray or to whom I pray. What is important is for government to treat all its citizens equally and to provide them with equal opportunity based on nothing else but merit. This would go a long way in diminishing and hopefully eliminating any civil role for religious leaders in the public square. Maybe then they would see the wisdom of being silent and of standing up to power at any cost. Then the religious leaders will get the respect that they deserve from those that chose to seek their spiritual guidance. There is no room for the religious in the public square as both Patriarch Al Rai and Mufti Kabbani have demonstrated recently.

Kofi Annan: Please No Palliatives.

2012-03-11T23:10:00.000-04:00

Nothing, whether good or bad, takes place without a reason. Sometimes we might not like a particular explanation of the rationale and /or motivation for a particular act but that does not give us the right to construct an irrational explanation so that it will fit into our view of the world. This mistaken understanding of the raison d’être of a development is what leads often to a wrong diagnosis. Such faulty explanation, unfortunately, result most of the time in promoting and sponsoring policies that are at best geared to symptoms. That course of action is best described as a palliative to cover the illness instead of a treatment that aims to attack the root of the problem. The palliative policy is deceptive while the one aimed at the roots is curative.

Kofi Annan is an honest and very well respected figure worldwide but his policy, or at least what has been made public about his policy, as a peace envoy to Syria suffers from the above tendency to deal with peripheral matters instead of focusing on the real disease. If it is true that Mr. Annan is attempting to broker a resolution to the Syrian crisis by either protecting the current regime or making an effort to preserve it then his mission is bound to fail.

It is true that no one wants to see more bloodshed in Syria and more destruction of its cities and infrastructure. But it is equally true that no one should be interested in arranging for an ineffective settlement that would allow the Syrian wound to fester and become even more dangerous to its body politic. Mr. Annan must know that the basic rationale for the Syrian uprising is to establish a government elected by the people and respectful of the intrinsic rights of each citizen to freedom of expression and freedom to congregate. There is no reason to believe that Mr. Assad is the person to lead the transformation of the Syrian society. If he had any interest, as peripheral as it might be, in reform or in changing the Syrian regime from its path of a single party dominated by one family then he sure has done a wonderful job of concealing such beliefs until it became politically expedient to claim that he is a reformist. It is so clear that the efforts at reform under the pressure of a popular uprising are anything but genuine. There is no reason why those that are being killed by the hundreds, men women and children, each day as a result of a direct order of the Syrian president to the armed forces should trust either these forces or those that are issuing such orders. Paradoxically, the same army that has failed to fire even one shot to regain Syrian land has shown no restraint in using all its might against those that it is expected to protect, its civilian citizens.

There are many principles that argue convincingly against the retention of either Basher Assad or any of his entourage. Chief amongst these is the essential idea that Syria does not need an evolution that keeps the exploiters and tormentors in charge but it needs a new democratically elected leadership to deal with the humongous challenges that the country faces in all fields, economic, social and political. The former Secretary general of the UN must not be allowed to forget that uprisings are the natural response to oppression and that the Syrian people have been oppresses and abused by the same small circle of family members and their relatives for over forty years. Another crucial idea that Mr. Anna should not forget is that “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable” as stated by John Fitzgerald Kennedy. And obviously no one can ever afford not to be driven by the idea that rulers need always and forever the consent of the governed.

It is hoped that Kofi Annan can use his influence to stop the killing machine and to bring about a settlement based on the rule of law and transparent free elections. All Syrian factions must be given a free and equal access to the ballot box and an equally unencumbered right to run for any office. If Mr. Annan can accomplish this then the world and not only Syria will be grateful for his positive and meaningful accomplishments. Anything else will not do because it will be only a palliative.

Support for Syrian Dictatorship: Cognitive Dissonance?

2012-02-25T13:21:00.001-05:00

Many of the conflicts, both inter nations and intra states, would not exist had consistent yardsticks been applied and had we interested parties been driven by the logic of “what is good for the goose is good for the gander”. Unfortunately this is not the case and never will be.

Obviously the above is not meant to justify the rationalization that the supporters of the Syrian Ba’ath are using to justify acts that they would have opposed had these acts been committed by other states or by an opposing group. One of the strongest cases in support of this point is the absolute derision that greeted the George Bush declaration of the right for pre-emptive strikes by practically all nations but later on the application of this contemptuous logic was adopted and acted upon by many a nation.

I think that these efforts to accept an action at one time and oppose it at another stem from the tendency to arrive at a position and then find means of justifying it i.e. reverse engineering. This tendency to act irrationally is described by psychologists as Political dissonance. This is simply the inability to think logically whenever the facts do not agree with our preconceived cognition. Professor Larry Bartels, a political scientist at Princeton University explains it this way: “what they’re really doing is inventing facts or ignoring facts so that they can rationalize decisions they’ve already made.”

The above is very evident if one reviews the various stages that the arguments by the regime supporters in Syria have gone through over the past year. They started by stating emphatically that the Arab spring will not find its way into Syria since the Syrian people are totally satisfied with their lot and are confident that the Syrian dictatorship will reform itself out of existence . Then once the demonstrations started the supporters dismissed all of them as being the work of, literally speaking, a few hundred dissatisfied individuals. But as the demonstrations grew and spread then the participants were accused of being foreign agents. When the authorities decided to hit back hard by employing tanks and heavy machine gun fire against civilians in residential neighbourhoods the regime supporters argued that this level of response was perfectly acceptable since the government forces have not employed even 10% of the fire power at their disposal (what a scary logic is that?).

All throughout this metamorphosis the language used was also undergoing change. It evolved from a handful of losers to foreign agents to traitors and along the way the cause of these “losers” started being described as having some legitimacy but only if they would submit to the dictates of their tormentors. No wonder cognitive dissonance is described as a malady that cannot be corrected since the suspicion is that it is hard wired into people.

Regime supporters are at the moment using every opportunity to demonize the uprising by pointing to its use of arms as being proof that those that are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice are doing so for the benefit of foreigners. That is laughable when the opposition was in essence driven into armed struggle by the policies of the regime itself that saw fit to marshal its military against dissenters. Unfortunately the Syrian opposition has played into the hands of the Syrian government by taking up arms in self defense. I wish that the opposition could have stayed peaceful and had instead concentrated on civil disobedience measures. But the fact that they did not is a disagreement about tactics and not goals. This is ultimately the weakness of the regime supporters. They are willing to keep adopting different arguments to justify and rationalize any policies adopted by the regime to suppress demonstrators, violate human rights, support armed struggle outside Syria and continue the brutal, cruel and deadly oppression of those that dare ask for a better life and a more democratic one.

Since the major criticism of the uprising by the regime centers on the use of arms by the opposition then does that mean that the regime supporters would accept massive well organized civil disobedience activities instead? I don’t think so since I am of the opinion that if that was to take place then those who favour the status quo would change tactics and would paint the demonstrators as uneducated, unskilled and as being paid mercenaries of KSA, Qatar and the US. The regime supporters are not opposing the uprising because they have a disagreement with the methods but they are opposing the uprising simply because it is asking for a regime change, a cruel dictatorship that is willing to employ any method to continue its undemocratic rule.

Ultimately it is the Assad clan that is responsible for the current state of unrest in Syria and for the bloodshed. No amount of justification or rationalization can ever legitimize a dictatorship especially if one believes that rulers must have the consent of the governed.

Bashar Is Solely Responsible For Syrian Bloodshed

2012-01-30T19:51:00.001-05:00

It is always lamentable when killings become a common everyday occurrence and in particular when many of the victims are innocent civilians, children women, and old people. It is especially chilling when death and destruction becomes a daily affair by the forces that were meant to protect the population against foreign enemies and to guard their rights and privileges. It is especially disheartening when “evil” is rationalized as essential since that transforms a shameful and ignominious act into a trite one. That is the danger of allowing murder, and oppression to metamorphose into a sterilized, common and hackneyed accounting of those killed every day in cold blood by a ruthless dictatorship whose sole interest is to maintain its ability to oppress, exploit and abuse.

Taking away life of civilians of all ages, including children, by their own government just because they dared protest against tyranny is always wrong. Obviously, deontological philosophy will never permit such egregious acts since it is based on a profound understanding of our moral and ethical obligations to each other. But neither would consequentialism, its opposite, approve of murderous acts that would not prevent greater numbers of people to be killed in the future.

The irony of the daily horrendous events of loss of life in Syria is that the tragic loss of life is being used by those that are essentially responsible for it as an excuse and a rationale for them to continue their senseless spilling of innocent blood by ordering heavy artillery and tanks to level neighbourhoods that dared demonstrate for democracy and personal rights. It is paradoxical when the oppressors who had over forty years to adopt some reforms and let the sunshine into the dark and rotten dungeons that they have built start portraying themselves as reformers and as democrats. The foreign minister of this rotten regime, Walid Al Moualem, even declared that the Syrian Ba’ath gang is ready to teach the world a lesson in democracy. He has no shame, neither do his fellow conspirators. I wonder whether Mr. Al Moualem even knows what is the meaning of democracy, citizenship, human rights, diversity, personal responsibility… Obviously his Don; Bashar Assad does not, as it was made amply clear in his interview with Danish TV where he said that he implied that he is a dictator who knows best what is good for the Syrian people, their personal preferences be damned. It was also laughable when he told ABC TV , just a few months ago, that he was not in control of what goes on in Syria and so he must not be held accountable for the approximately 6000 lost lives, tens of thousands of prisoners, many city quarters across Syria demolished or an economy that is about to implode.

It is not uncommon for individuals to have a distorted vision of reality but when the preservation of such a vision results in the deaths of thousands and the destruction of dreams then that paranoia and delusion cross a redline. The acts of the last year have made it amply clear that those in control of the Syrian government are driven purely by personal ambition to stay in power and to exercise their tyranny and oppression. Syria as a country that belongs to 22 million people is an alien idea to them since the country is a fiefdom for the Assads and their clan, a mentality based in a pure vision of personality cult worship and a party that is all knowing.

Is there a place for such tyranny and repression or do the citizens have the right and the moral obligation to put an end to a half a century of exploitation and abuse? It has been long in coming but finally the Syrian brothers have awoken from their slumber and have taken a stand for what is right and just. It is the Ba’ath and Bashar that have tried to exploit the situation over the past year in order to distract the revolutionaries from demanding what is rightfully theirs; the ability to decide their own destiny. Bashar could have avoided all this bloodshed had he declared his intension to hold free elections and to introduce meaningful reforms over a year ago. He chose not to do so only because he did not believe that the Syrian masses deserve to be treated with dignity. Let him reap what he has sown.

An Annual Automatic Minimum Wage Adjustment: Misguided Policy

2012-01-21T20:58:00.001-05:00

The adage “Be careful of what you wish for, it might come true” highlights the need to be very cautious and deliberate in choosing an end as well as a means. For who wants to attain a cherished goal if that implies adopting wrong and illiberal policies that are antithesis of the goal sought. Even Machiavellianism would not advocate a means that could wreak more havoc than the benefits bestowed. Such a circumstance is similar to the empty and hollow Pyrrhic victory where the king of Epirus defeated the Roman army in battle but said: "If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined."

Unfortunately for organized Lebanese labour, the latest raise in the minimum wage is being celebrated as a victory, which it is, had it not been attached to a provision of annual automatic increases tied to the rate of inflation. This automatic rise in the level of minimum wages poses a great danger to transform this accomplishment into a defeat for labour.

Indexing of wages, even minimum wages, is problematic for at least two reasons. (1) What is the index that is to be applied for the purpose of conducting such adjustments and does the country posses such a reliable objective index? One issue to be clarified at the outset,is that an adjustment by a consumer price index , CPI, does not make all its recipients whole as it is popularly alleged. Given two consumers Ali already owns a house while Elias does not and assuming that the largest component in the CPI is that of housing then a 10% increase in pay might help Elias not fall behind but it will be pure gain for Ali who has already purchased his dream house. As this very simple example illustrates there are a number of indexes that could be constructed and each could lead to a different result. That is why it is important to agree from the start on a specific index and who is going to be in charge of collecting the data for that particular measure. This is not a simple matter since Lebanon does not have the detailed studies to compose the baskets that are to constitute such measures. I still have to see the detailed composition of a Lebanese CPI. Furthermore the cost of living in Lebanon, as small as it is, shows considerable variation between regions and thus regional indexes are in order. But what ought to be of a great concern is the feature of automatic guaranteed rise in minimum wages. That automaticity could become the most damaging to the labourers at the bottom of the pyramid. If it so happens that the wages of unskilled labour increases without a commensurate increase in its productivity then that would only lead to more unemployment among the low skilled and would exasperate the levels of poverty.

A constant level of minimum wages in real terms is an honourable goal worthy of achievement. That is not what is being questioned. It is the efficacy of the method used in order to achieve that noble goal. A cost of living adjustment , even if a reliable and fair index is available, must not be automatic since that introduces rigidity into the labour markets and because it assumes that all inflations are alike which ,we all know ,is not the case. Economies, such as many of the southern European ones, are at times afflicted by negative macroeconomic data that demands a major effort to control wages in order to regain competitiveness. Under such dire economic circumstances labour will be committing suicide if it demands a higher nominal wage when wage restraint should be the regimen. The phenomenon of cost push inflation or what has been called stagflation is no longer an aberration but is instead a possibility to contend with. Another equally troubling scenario would be that of an imported inflationary environment combined with relative stagnation in the productivity of the economy where the general wage level is stagnant. Under such conditions an automatic increase in the minimum wage would become a reward for being unskilled.

A society is best judged by how equitable is its distribution of income, once the skill level is accounted for, and how well it treats its underprivileged and poor. These goals are to be promoted through a progressive income tax structure, greater expenditures on education and targeted growth policy. A rigid automatic increase in the minimum wage is not a substitute for the above. If this proposal is adopted as is then I predict that it will hurt those that it claims to be helping but the degree of the pain will not become clear until 5-7 years after its adoption.

May I humbly suggest a periodic thorough review , once every five years or so, of the status of the minimum wages vis a vis the rest of the economy instead of the straight jacket of an automatic annual increase.

What is a Fair Minimum Wage for Lebanon.

2012-01-12T19:56:00.001-05:00

The idea of a minimum wage has a great appeal all over the world. Although the notion was first introduced by New Zealand in 1894 practically all countries in the world have adopted a minimum wage standard. Since each of these countries has attained its own unique mix of social and economic development then each country has used its own rationale while setting these wages. Yet probably most such statutory wages share a common concern about reducing poverty and promoting fair equity.

Lebanon has been struggling for a while to set up an adjustment to its current level of minimum wages but to no avail. The last three tries have failed and a fourth one is expected to be announced sometime this week. The need for an adjustment in the level of monthly earnings in Lebanon has become increasingly urgent as the cost of living; especially the major components of housing and food have outpaced any wage gains. The result can very easily be observed in the high poverty rate. A recent study concluded that 28 % of Lebanese households live below the poverty line of $4 per day.

Since equality in pay leads to an equality in income then why not guarantee a wage level that will compensate each labourer a level of earnings that is close to the per capita income. As incredible as this idea might sound it is in essence the goal of Charbal Nahas, the Labour Minister, who proposed a level of compensation that will allow the least skilled among us to earn close to 75% of the Lebanese per capita income. Such a policy ,if adopted, would prove to be very misguided . Superficially such policies tend to enjoy wide organized labour support since they aim to narrow the pay differential between the skilled and the unskilled. Unfortunately such policies will also discourage investments in education and enhanced productivity. The higher is the proportion of GDP that is guaranteed by minimum wage legislation then the smaller is the premium for investing in human capital.

So what sort of a guideline should one follow in setting a minimum wage? Allow me to suggest that an effective minimum wage policy should be set in such a way as (1) not to discourage the pursuit and acquisition of higher skills and (2) ensure that the reward of employment is the attainment of a living standard that is above poverty. The concern with (2) is often referred to as a “living wage”.

Given that the current Lebanese per capita income is around $10,000 per annum then the first criteria above; encourage acquisition of high skills; should be in the range of 45%-55% of GDP per capita. That implies an annual minimum wage of $4500-$5500 or $375-$458 per month. The second criterion is even more problematic since the actual cost of living differs substantially from one region to the next. There is no doubt that living in Beirut or its direct environs is financially more demanding than living in the Bekaa, Akar or the south. But since the custom is to set up a uniform minimum wage for the whole country and since the currently acceptable poverty line in Lebanon is that of $4 per day then a family unit of four individuals would be able to escape poverty with a monthly income of $480.

Based on the above rough computations we can conclude that the Lebanese minimum wage should not be set above 700,000 LL per month. This level of income would allow a family of four to escape poverty especially if the main wage earner is to get some assistance from his/her spouse. Anything above this level will start to become counterproductive and will affect adversely industries that are dependent on unskilled labour. A high minimum wage might make Lebanese agricultural produce much less competitive.

And last but not least we should caution that the pursuit of social justice is an honorable goal but as in everything else good intensions are not sufficient to bear fruit, they must be accompanied by the proper productive tools. Minimum wages are only one tool in the fight against inequality and poverty, a tool that must not be abused.

Lebanese Religious Leaders: Are They Anachronistic?

2012-01-06T22:04:00.003-05:00

The Maronite Patriarch, Al Rai, has demonstrated one more time why is it that men of the cloth should not deal with politics but should confine themselves to their field of expertise , religious guidance. The logic in this case is quite simple: a rational person would not seek the advice of a carpenter when an automotive vehicle breaks down neither would one seek the guidance of an electrician when the bathroom sink develops a leak. If the above is true, and I sure hope that it is, then why would I need to listen to the advice of a clergy when the issue is purely political? This matter of separation becomes even more urgent among the Christian clergy whose spiritual master, Jesus Christ, asked them to "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's".

That has been the basis for the separation between church and the state and it continues to be. That is why a secular state is a state that does not consider the religious beliefs of its officials, simply their qualifications to do the job in question. But the Christian Maronite Church has different views. Its clergy especially its high rank ecclesiastics seldom perform their religious duties of simply preaching the tenets of their beliefs but instead issue their periodic political analysis and furthermore act as the final arbiters of what is to be enacted or not in the civilian and political realm. The Maronite clergy act more as an unelected Parliament than as men of God. An excellent example of how egregious are the pronouncements of the Maronite Church is best illustrated in the sermon given, on Friday January 6, 2012, by its most senior official, Patriarch Al Rai .

The Patriarch called upon “The Lebanese, Christians and Moslems, to preserve the Lebanese structure which consists of Moslems - Christian’s unity together and that is not built on demographic numbers but on the two cultures of Christianity and Islam. This unity forms the single civilization which is rich in its diversity of customs and beliefs. This Lebanese structure, by maintaining the principal of equal partnership, as per the constitution means a just and equal balance in positions and responsibilities. The cooperative and supportive Christian and Moslem halves form the Lebanese entity.”

A close reading of the above makes it very clear that the speaker, Patriarch Al Rai, has an uncommon understanding of what is democracy, equality or secularism. His only concern seems to provide a rationale for continuing the present unfair and undemocratic structure in Lebanese politics because it treats all people as equal but some as more equal than others. What does the Patriarch mean when he says that Lebanon is built on the idea of equal partnership between Christians and Moslems and that demography does not count? I for one have always believed, like so many others in this world, that demography is destiny. What is the basis of this equal partnership? Is the Patriarch asking for the protection of individual freedoms and liberties for all or is he asking for equality of seats in the Chamber of deputies and for a guarantee that the President of the Republic will always be a Maronite? When would this equality of elected officials cease to be acceptable? Should the Christians be entitled to 50% of the seats in the parliament when they represent say 20% of the population? Is the strong opposition of the Maronite church for offering the Lebanese citizenship to the Palestinian refugees influenced by this shallow call for “religious balance”?

Any kind of an exchange whether it is between individuals, regions or countries, whether it is in the realm of ideas or physical goods is best when it is based on the principle of knowledge and efficiency , on comparative advantage. It is not difficult to show that people of the cloth do not have much of an advantage in anything in a modern democratic society and so society is bound to be ill served when it heeds the advice of those whose knowledge of the field in question is at best suspect.

The Lebanese have nothing to worry about if they adopt a constitution that protects individual rights and that is implemented. Once we can rise above our narrow tribal religious affiliations to elect the most competent for the job then it should make absolutely no difference whether the official is a Protestant, a Sunni, a Maronite, a Shia or a Durzi. What is important is that the individual in question is a capable, knowledgeable and a competent Lebanese. Nothing else should matter not gender, not racial origin, not sexual orientation and not the colour of one’s eyes. It is time that we ask the heads of the churches and Mosques, to leave the public square and to specialize in that which they can do best, save souls. Unfortunately I do not believe that the clergy, Christian or Moslem, are about to abdicate their political power which borders on being absolute. In the final analysis it is up to each of us to tell the clergy of our churches and mosques that the sacred and the secular are separate issues and that we will not tolerate their interference in civilian life.

Are The Proposed Minimum Wages Too High?

2011-12-23T00:43:00.009-05:00

Minimum wages have always been very controversial and chances are that they will always be so. The idea is so contentious since it deals with one of the most sensitive ideas of a market economy, that of Laissez Faire. Is there room for government regulations and how much government interference is acceptable is at the heart of this issue?

One school of thought in mainstream economics, the positivists, refuses any kind of government regulation as being ultimately ineffective. They simply maintain that a society must accept what is, the market dictate. The opposing view, represented by the normative school, argues for what ought instead of what is. Members of this school of thought admit that a market economy faces many market failures and the only way to correct for these failures is for the Government to interfere and force the markets to change their behavior into what ought to be. It is clear that the second school is built on subjective thinking since what is, say, equitable to one might be inequitable to another. Let it be said though that market failures are not a theoretical construct since one can point to any number of such instants. In a sense all prices are not the real prices since the cost of externalities is never internalized fully by any supplier and thus the point of equilibrium is never the true efficient one. That is the whole idea that was initially advanced by Pigou and has become known as Pigouvian taxes.

As controversial as minimum wages are yet the arguments on both sides are rather simple and straight forward. Those that do not favour minimum wages argue that free markets are best at allocating resources and that government is not in a position to make such judgment. They argue that minimum wages end up in hurting those that they are planned to help; the poor. There are many studies that support this point of view by showing that job losses more than compensate for the increase in wages.
The arguments on the other side are just at straight forward but in my opinion more convincing. They rest essentially on two pillars:

(1) Moral: No one should work when the rewards would not lift one from under the official poverty line. These are the ideas that have become called “living wage” and that are often supported by ones view of what ought to be considered as fair rewards.

(2) Economic: Labour markets are neither homogenous nor perfectly competitive. This means that the simple textbook model of supply and demand that the positivists depend on is not applicable. It is easy to show that in imperfectly competitive markets a higher wage could act as an impetus for greater productivity and thus even more employment. The great majority of labour case studies support this argument.

The above presentation is meant to show that almost all over the world governments have sided with the normative school of thought by mandating a minimum wage rate. This however does not imply that government has a carte blanche at setting any rate it chooses. Obviously if the minimum wage rate is to have any meaning then it should be above the minimum market rate but it should not be set at a level that would become counterproductive by choking off hiring and reducing the competitiveness of the affected industries. And so the real question is how high these rates should be? Unfortunately there is no set answer for this question although there is some rough evidence to where it normally is set. A quick review of the minimum wages all over the world reveals that they are usually related to the level of economic development of the countries in question. As a general rule the industrialized countries tend to have a higher cost of living ,a relatively high GDP per capita , a higher absolute minimum wage rate but that rate usually replaces a low proportion of the GDP per capita. In most of these major countries the minimum wage represents less than 50% of the GDP per capita: USA 33%; Germany None; France 53%; Japan 35%. Only the least developed and the poorest countries have adopted a wage rate that is either close to or even higher than the GDP per capita: Ethiopia 95%; Benin 108%; Burkina Faso 133%.

So where should the level in Lebanon be and what do the world levels say about the recent controversy that was set by the new minimum wage adopted by the council of ministers? The best judgment is to take a look at the group of countries that are in the same group of GDP per capita:

Country....$GDP/capita Min..... Wage/GDP/capita
Hungary………………13,000…………………………..……..34%
Poland…………………12,300…………………………..……..45%
Uruguay………………12,000………………………..………..23%
Chile……………………11,800………………………..………..38%
Lithuania…………11,000……………..………………..…..35%
Libya……………… .10,800…………………..……………..13%
Brazil…………………10,800….…………………..……………37%
Latvia……………….10,700……………………………..…..37%
Russia……………….10,400………………………………....19%
Turkey…………………10,300…………..……………………..57%
Venezuela…………10,000…..………..……………………60%
Lebanon.. .. ....10,000……... ………………………….70% (based on the new proposal of $576 per month)
Mexico………………..9,500……………..…………………..13%
Argentina……… …9,100.………………..…………………63%
Kazakhstan…... …9,000………………………..………..12%
Gabon………………...8,800….………………………..………27%
Costa Rica……… …7,700…..…………………………..…36%
Saudi Arabia......7,600................33%

As the above table makes it abundantly clear the Lebanese proposal would make the Lebanese minimum wage represent the highest such wage rate in the world. Actually had it not been for Argentina, Venezuela and Turkey the Lebanese rate could easily be judged to be twice the global average for countries at its level of GDP per capita. So even if one is to be progressive but yet realistic it is abundantly clear that the Lebanese minimum wage rate should be scaled back to a maximum of $500 per month. That would still keep the Lebanese rate as the second highest in its group of countries, barely behind Argentina. Any rate higher than that would be irresponsible and will NOT help either the country nor those that it is intended to favour. The government has many other tools that it can apply to improve the level of welfare of the poor besides a forced unrealistic minimum wage rate. It is one thing to be progressive and it is another thing to be suicidal.

The Bane of Lebanon: All Encompassing Sectarianism

2011-12-17T20:49:00.004-05:00

There is a time for everything. A time to live and a time to die but there is never a time to be sectarian “a member of a sect or faction, especially one who is bigoted in his adherence to its doctrines or in his intolerance towards other sects, etc.” To be sectarian is to be close minded, to be a bigot, to see the world through a very narrow angle that distorts reality and makes a mockery of diversity, pluralism and democracy. Paradoxically these are some of the most important themes that many in Lebanon pretend to be promoting when in effect they are doing the opposite by pledging their allegiance to the backward and reactionary visions of the men of the cloth of the clergy.

Lebanon is currently in the midst of dealing with such three schizophrenic issues, each of which demonstrates clearly the need for a law that prohibits the clergy from meddling in political affairs. Interestingly enough each of the three largest sects in Lebanon has to face reconciling the irreconcilable; political stands that are the exact opposite of what each sect wants to appear to be promoting.

Maronites and Democracy:
No one can ever seriously question the commitment of the Lebanese Maronite church to a sovereign and free Lebanon. The church has played a major role in the creation of Greater Lebanon, as it exists today, and has always taken positions that challenge the political hegemony of foreign powers in Lebanon. Unfortunately though, the church leadership has seen it fit to play a political role in Lebanon instead of concentrating on its spiritual one. By doing so the church has promoted a distorted vision of identity. It has claimed in the past and still maintains that all Lebanese are equal but some are more equal than others. That is at least one reason, why it insists that the Lebanese official institutions are not to be populated either by elected officials judged by the merit of their vision nor are appointed officials to show superior knowledge and expertise in their respective fields. The Maronite church has favoured in the past and continues to favour the fact that the “official” sectarian denomination of a specific number of both appointed and elected officials should be the only criterion taken into consideration in these elections or appointments. Merit can easily be trumped by religious practice. What seems to be crucially important to Bkirki is to have 50% of the Lebanese MP’s be of the Christian faith and they are willing to lobby government for what they consider to be their fair share of political appointees whether these individuals are qualified or not to perform a certain job. Bkiriki and all Maronite MP’s do not seem to see the irony , maybe one can call it even the hypocrisy, of claiming to be democratic but yet insisting on a quota. The recent discussions regarding a reformed electoral system have even magnified the antithesis between what they claim to espouse and what they actually support. Most of the major Maronite blocs are on record supporting the strange proposal by the Orthodox Church that would mandate each sect should elect its own representatives. Isn’t that the most antiinclusive measure that a society can take and isn’t this a measure that defines personal political identity in terms of religious sect at birth? Is there any room in this vision for non believers or for those that make a profound distinction between the sacred and the secular? Whatever happened to personal qualification as being the only yardstick against which potential recruits are to be judges.

Sunnis, Civil Marriage and Women’s Rights.
The Sunni Dar Al Fatwa does not fare any better than the Maronite church. They are just as schizophrenic if not even more so since what is at stake does not appear to be that fundamental. Yet the Sunni clerical hierarchy has seen fit to oppose, and rather strongly, the proposal that would offer Lebanese women some official protection against domestic violence and abuse. The strange reasoning by the Mufti is that protecting women against abuse by the male hierarchy would lead to the dissolution of the sacred family institution. Did they ever stop to think that if abuse is so crucial to this institution then maybe it does not deserve to survive? But the beat goes on. The Sunni mufti speaks of equality and individual rights but promotes domination and hierarchy by one gender over the other.

Shia and Independence
Yes not all Shiites in Lebanon are members of Hezbollah but HA acts as if it is the sole representative of Shiism in Lebanon, and to be fair it is the strongest of the Shia factions. Its leadership has never hidden their total commitment to the Wilayat Al Faqih, the relatively new interpretation that arose in Qom and was popularized by the Grand Ayatollah Khomeini. If the clergy are to be the rulers and if Islam is to be the answer then how does HA propose to bridge the vast chasm that would never accept non Shiites as equals? To claim a belief in the philosophy of Wilayat Al Faqih eliminates immediately any belief in the other, in nation states and in their sovereignty. To HA Lebanon as an independent state would be tolerated only because it cannot be conquered. As soon as it becomes feasible to transform society into a totally Shiite one then the individual rights of others will never act as a hindrance. That is not democracy or the rights of the down trodden masses. That is ultimate discrimination.

Salvation
Based on the above it should be obvious that each of these three sects has a major problem of credibility. Each advocates, for convenience only, an idea that it opposes vehemently in practice. These in compatible positions cannot persist for ever. Each of them will at one point or another be called upon to stand up and be counted. Inconsistent positions will ultimately cause the collapse of the edifice that is built of quick sand. Lebanon’s salvation, for all its citizens, is to judge each of them on His/her merit and allegiance to the common good. It is time that men of the cloth should retire to their respective religious institutions and it is time for the Lebanese to define their political identity in terms of what is good for the state and not by whether various members prey, or how they pray. The clearest sign that Lebanon has joined modernity would be when voters cast their ballots on the basis of ideas and not sectarian affiliations. We should rejoice when the Lebanese elect a Shia woman for Presidency, a Protestant as a PM and a Druze as a speaker of the Chamber of Deputies. It is only then that we would have transcended the narrow politics of divisions and chosen real democracy.

Syrian Dictatorship, Israeli Occupation and Civil Disobedience

2011-12-12T01:45:00.003-05:00

It can be argued that dictatorship is not that different than outright occupation by a foreign military. Actually it has been suggested by many commentators that occupation is the ultimate dictatorship. What is important for us in this column is the similarity between the two forms of rule. Both deprive the people of their personal rights, both are non democratic, both are not elected, both maintain control through armed forces and both violate the most fundamental principles of human rights as expressed by the Human Declaration of Human Rights. It is rather obvious that both occupation and dictatorship are two different forms that accomplish the same end: rule against the consent of the governed. Whenever such rule is present then it is an invitation to rebellion and revolution. The above describes very well at least two political entities in the Arab world; Syria and The West Bank, the former is occupied by the Assad family and the latter by Israel. Both of these forms of government are cruel, discriminatory and exploitative.

The Palestinians have resisted occupation and have tried a number of policies over the past 44 years but they have not succeeded in attaining their objective yet. They are possibly the last remaining colony in the whole world unless one considers China a colonizer of Tibet and the Russians as colonizers of Chechnya. The valiant Palestinians have not however committed themselves to the principle of non violence through organized and wide spread civil disobedience. I, and many others, have often argued that the Palestinians have no choice but to adopt the Gandhian method of civil resistance. That is the only way to “disarm” the cruel Israeli machine of occupation and deliver the Palestinian people to the “promised land”, the land of self determination, sovereignty and democracy.

It must be also very clear that the same methodology suggested to the occupied Palestinians on the West Bank is also the one that promises to be very effective in delivering Syria out of the clutches of the Assad regime and into the phase of representative democracy and self respect. The current Syrian regime has resisted the legitimate demands of its populace by constantly denying the facts on the grounds. The whole administration has acted over the past ten months exactly as one would have expected dictators to act. Deny, obfuscate and pretend that the unelected rulers, those that impose themselves by the power of hired thugs otherwise known as “security forces” are the only ones that know what is good for the country.

This irrational logic is so wanting that it does not deserve to be addressed except to say that if pretenders were so sure that they have the good of the people at heart then why fear an open and free election? Why insist on a system that depends on random fear and on expropriating everything of value to the integrity of the individual. Obviously dictators, all throughout history, have dreaded the moment that the oppressed find the strength to stand up and claim their stolen rights. Dictators have always lived in fear of the moment when the regular citizens will shout that the emperor has no cloths, that the regime is bankrupt and illegitimate.

The Syrian uprising that started nine months ago is all of the above and then some. The Syrian people have demonstrated great courage in standing up to the might of the dictatorship thugs and have offered the greatest of sacrifices without any hesitation. The Syrian people have given all of us, the world over, a lesson in sacrifice and commitment. They have faced the organized “shabiha” hoodlums and their supporting tanks with smiles on their bare breasts, bravery and heroism. They have already offered over 400 martyrs, many of whom are children and women and they have managed to keep up the pressure on the killers and criminals in power. They have simply set an example of audacity and boldness that has rarely been seen, if ever.

Yet the regime continues with its lies and distortions. It fabricates stories about undisciplined armed gangs that are in the employ of foreign powers when arguably it is the present regime that has often served the Israeli occupation of the Golan best. An excellent example of the cluelessness of Bashar Assad, the head of the ruling pyramid, was demonstrated in his disastrous interview with ABC where he claimed that he has never ordered any killings and that he is not in charge of the armed forces in Syria. Isn’t this a perfect fit for what is a psychopath?

"Superficially charming, psychopaths tend to make a good first impression on others and often strike observers as remarkably normal. Yet they are self-centered, dishonest and undependable, and at times they engage in irresponsible behavior for no apparent reason other than the sheer fun of it. Largely devoid of guilt, empathy and love, ...psychopaths routinely offer excuses for their reckless and often outrageous actions, placing blame on others instead. They rarely learn from their mistakes or benefit from negative feedback, and they have difficulty inhibiting their impulses."

The current monstrous regime in Syria is intent on showing that the uprising is essentially driven by petty religious rivalries and revengeful acts. That is why the present Syrian dictatorship will stop at nothing that will help it provoke a violent uprising. The courageous Syrians will commit a fatal error if they fall for this trap that is being set up for them. They should spare no effort to show both the depraved Syrian regime and the world that they are above sectarian hatreds, petty politics and random violence. What better way to show that they are cut from a different cloth than the present killers and exploiters of the Syrian people than to adopt wide scale acts of civil disobedience and non violence. Let the authorities arrest, if they dare hundreds of thousands and maybe millions of citizens, let the few thugs run the schools, the factories and the shops. Civil disobedience has worked wonders in India, South Africa, the Czech Republic, the Ukraine and has even partially succeeded in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and even Lebanon among other places.

Syria is obviously in need of a revolution and there is nothing better than what Henry David Thoreau called “peaceable revolution” in his essay about Civil disobedience. A peaceful and non violent Syrian revolution is the best option for the Syrian uprising. I am certain that it will succeed and once it does then it would have set up another example of the efficacy and attractiveness of “civil disobedience” for the whole world in general and for the West Bank in particular. When the people ask for freedom, respect and integrity then no dictatorship can possibly deny them their intrinsic rights.

STL Funding and Lebanese Polity

2011-12-04T21:14:00.003-05:00

And so Lebanon dodges another bullet. What was billed, by all sides, as being potentially an explosive event ended up being a whimper just like the Elliot had predicted in “The Hollow Men” :

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

But has the problem been solved or have we applied the traditional Lebanese formula that has been in control of the country for over fifty years. La Ghaleb wa la Maghloob. No winners no losers. What a crock. Why anyone should be obligated to act responsibly if the outcome never matters. It always ends with the La Ghaleb wa la Maghloob.

In the last round things are different. No matter what kind of a spin anyone wishes to apply to the outcome Mr. Mikati has scored a touchdown in the last seconds of the fourth quarter. As a result the big losers are both Hezbollah who promised that the STL will never be financed and then obviously the clAoun who never seems to know what he wants. It is as if he is always waiting for orders from Damascus.

But this apparent victory is hollow. It does not mean much. Lebanon is still waiting for the real independent Najib Mikati to stand up and make a statement that is based on nothing else but the Lebanese national interest. He has not done that yet and it is highly unlikely that he would. The FPM on the other hand is busy bending itself into a pretzel form to say that what they have always cared most about is the integrity of Lebanon more than the simple singular issue of STL finance. The only response to that is bunk!!! This fiasco has demonstrated again the lack of professionalism, the amateurism in decision making and the total incompetence of those in charge of the FPM. But don’t blame them blame those that have voted for them without holding them responsible for anything and blame those that will vote for them again.

But the biggest looser by far is Hezbollah. A party that has threatened and cajoled a people on this very same issue that they had to eventually agree to. It will be next to impossible to explain rationally this flip flop of Hezbollah.

But Lebanon has not won except a small moral victory. HA still acts as a state within a state. Note the recent problem with electric generation at AlZahrani power generation plant. The official Lebanese authorities have not been allowed to enter that area because it is only a “ghost” part of Lebanon an incorporeal region. The South is ruled by HA and neither the Lebanese Army, nor the Lebanese PM nor the Lebanese President have much to say about that.

Unfortunately Lebanon’s problems are not limited to those mentions, as seminal as they might be. The opposition; March 14; is not in a much more enviable shape. Sa’ad Hariri has demonstrated amply enough that he was not born to lead. He is neither charismatic, nor well read he is neither creative nor principled. He simply has no vision; if he does he has not articulated it. The others in his camp are at least equally as disadvantaged and even more so. Samir Geagea carries so much baggage from the civil war that he must never be given even the chance to lead while the Gemayels will never be able to escape from their self made image of religious and political dinosaurs. Mr. Jumblatt appears to be a liability to both sides.

Lebanon’s salvation is in modernity, democracy and a clearly defined bill of rights, i.e. a truly secular society. But how can we have a secular society when the Patriarch, the head of the largest Church in Lebanon behaves on a daily basis as a political chieftain, a non elected one for that matter. What hubris and what chutzpah. Why does he think that he is qualified and/or entitled to act as a political feudal lord when he is at best a priest, a man of the cloth who is supposed to offer some guidance to his flock on strictly spiritual basis? The Maronite patriarch and all the other Christian church leaders must, in the name of Christianity, renounce all semblances of political power and simply encourage their flock to develop an identity that transcends religion. If they fail to do that then they fail the basics of the Judeo Christian ethics, the egalitarianism of St Francis of Assisi.

And in all fairness the same is true of the Moslem Sunni Mufti. He must emphasis to his followers that to be a good citizen of a state does not diminish one’s ability to be a good observant Moslem. Religion is a personal matter and must not be brought into the public square. That is purely for the secular. And that is another fatal flaw in Hezbollah who have stated clearly their belief in Wilayat Al Faqih. It simply states that the head of the church is to dictate and rule. No one else is important. That is autocratic and dictatorial. That is the interpretation of Qom and not Najjaf.

Yet I will be willing to put at risk everything of value to me in order to protect the right of Hezbollah to the freedom of self expression and belief but not for the right to abuse this freedom by taking a whole country hostage. They can rationalize it any way that they want but no one has a monopoly on resistance and no one has a right to establish a state within a state through illegitimate force and foreign interference.

A democratic Lebanon shall rise from the ashes and the tyranny of hooliganism and vigilantes shall perish. Either the outright fall of the Syrian regime or the introduction of meaningful democratic changes ogre well for Lebanon. They would only mean the diminution of the HA power. But let us remember that that is not enough in itself for the establishment of a potentially vibrant democracy. We have to declaw the other clerics also, the Patriarch and the Mufti.

Mikati Must dismiss the Aoun Histrionics.

2011-11-27T23:21:00.003-05:00

Old habits die hard, actually at times they never die. This is a good thing if the habit in question is that of integrity, high ethical standards, intellectual curiosity and creative thinking. But it is a bad when the characteristic in question is that of being addicted to superficiality, megalomania and a squeaky wheel. Lebanon is cursed by having one of political heavyweights behave like a Dean of the latter group, a group that is addicted to obstructionism, nepotism superficiality and bluster. General Michele Aoun has exemplified the role of being the squeaky wheel of Lebanese politics, the wheel that needs to be oiled in order to stop the aural damage and lessen the demagoguery.

The self proclaimed saver of the Christians and the most principled of the Lebanese politicians prevented the formation of the present cabinet for weeks by constantly raising peripheral issues and meaningless objections. Then all of a sudden he forgot about all the issues that he had objected to and consented to the cabinet formation essentially unchanged. What is it that had changed? Was it orders from Damascus and/or Tehran? We will never know for sure but that is the most likely explanation.
As if the above sophomoric behavior is not enough, yesterday the General instructs his cabinet ministers not to attend a regularly scheduled cabinet meeting and hints that his parliamentary bloc might resign from the cabinet if it dares approve honouring Lebanons’ obligations to the STL. What is strange about this issue is that the Premiere, Mr. Mikati, has always insisted that his cabinet is committed to fulfilling all the international obligations of the country. If everyone, the world over, has known about this for months then why did mon General not know about it? Is it because he was asked to join the cabinet when he did and now he is being asked to quit? Is there any other explanation.

Mr. Mikati should dismiss the childish behavior of the FPM and carry on doing the peoples’ business. Lebanon can hardly afford a cabinetary vacuum at this moment. But that would not be enough. Mr. Mikati has an obligation to govern as the effective Lebanese independent politician that he promised us to be. He should use his bully pulpit to lobby for policies that benefit the Lebanese citizen and should shame the ideologues and obstructionists into supporting policies that are guided by the national interest no more and no less. That includes but is not limited to favouring policies that will stand up to dictators and to threats from reactionary regimes built on fear and brutality.

This cabinet has thus far failed to be effective and has failed to govern. Its major problem is the lack of harmony between its members and in particular between the FPM and everybody else. The Premiere has the duty to form a cabinet in his image and not to conform to the whimsical wants of a group of ministers that are focused on histrionics and grabbing headlines. There is a popular folkloric tale in Lebanon about Jeha who broke the spout of the only clean water reservoir in the village so as to be noticed. That is nothing else but a need to be noticed, an ego full of misplaced hubris. Such an individual “habitually infuses inordinate emotion and self-dramatization into interpersonal and social persona”. That simply means that the General is "over the top", he has become nothing else but a caricature , a person who is in love with himself. Lebanon needs better politicians and Mr. Mikati should bring the General back to earth. Somebody has to.

The Fall of Bashar and the Rise of Democracy in Syria and Lebanon

2011-11-21T22:39:00.005-05:00

Often reality is difficult to accept and especially for the ideologues whose understanding of development and their advice is rarely, if ever, to be taken seriously. Ideologues are not to be confused with principled individuals because their positions are dictated not by the rationality of a circumstance but by a predetermined notion of which party to oppose and which one to support. They act as if one party has a complete hold of the truth all the time while the others are always misinformed even if they are to adopt views that are associated with their opponents. A perfect example of an ideologue is the expression of utter bewilderment on the face of the head of the Ba’ath party in Lebanon, Mr. Shukur, when his debate opponent, Mr. Alloush, stated that he does not believe the statements of Bashar Assad. The priceless expression was what one would expect to see on the face of a 4 year old when told for the first time that there is no Santa Clause.

The reaction of Bashar Assad and his entourage to the declarations of the Arab League and other nations all over the world are not any different. They refuse to accept the clear inevitable conclusion of the ongoing Syrian revolution. It would be practically impossible for Bashar Assad and the Syrian Baath to stay in power. They have already lost and the longer it takes them to internalize this reality the costlier will be the final synthesis. The Syria that the Assads have ruled for over forty years as a fiefdom has finally had enough humiliation, abuse and exploitation. It has risen to and has demonstrated tremendous courage in facing the unbelievable odds to standing up to the security apparatus and the army. These actions would not have been called for had MR. Assad acted responsibly by showing that Syria is above party and it transcends family and business cronies. Alas Mr. Assad, just like an addict, could not bring himself to admit that the Ba’ath has abused the trust of the Syrian people and that the continuous mismanagement of the economy have transformed Syria into a paper tiger and a backward and bankrupt economy that is rapidly moving towards an environmental abyss as well as an economic meltdown and a social disintegration.

Instead of doing the right thing of listening to the clear and legitimate demands of his people Mr. Assad has decided to bunker down and to defy the world by threatening that if he is to be constantly reminded of reality and legitimacy then he might have no choice but to lash out at his unarmed civilians. Pity the man that thinks of himself as a modern leader but acts as a tin horn dictator. But our biggest sympathy goes out to the brave Syrian civilians who have decided that freedom is not free and that they are willing to pay the price.

The tipping point has already been breached. Syria will be free from the Ba’ath. What is not certain is how dear the price will be. Mr. Assad is still the dominant factor in this equation. He can act responsibly by accepting the new facts and start immediately the negotiations for an orderly and peaceful transfer of power or he can persist in his obstructionism by bringing down the temple on himself and the Syrian people. Time is running short and unless he acts decisively in the next few days to avoid a Syrian Armageddon to save himself and the country that he claims that he loves then he would be committing an abominable act that history will not forgive for centuries to come, if ever.

A corollary to the above is the major transformation that will engulf Lebanon when the cruel Syrian dictatorship is finally booted out. The ramifications on Lebanon will be as seminal as the changes in Syria. Lebanon will finally get a chance to exercise its independence and sovereignty. Its people will be able to rule themselves as any democracy should and the new realities will finally help bring to an end the Mafiosi rule of Hezbollah and all those that have helped and abetted its nefarious acts. It should also usher in a tide of new, young and committed youth who reject sectarianism and corruption. A new era of citizenship will take hold in Lebanon as soon as the divisive and backward Syrian Ba’athi minions are swept away from the official offices that they have exploited and profiteered from for decades. The only question that stands as an obstacle in the face of the historical movement in both Syria and Lebanon to enter a new post Assad era is whether the celebrations will take place in late 2011 or early 2012. I can hardly wait.

Syrian Suspension And The New Reality In Lebanon.

2011-11-13T17:49:00.003-05:00

The reaction of the Syrian regime to the recently announced suspension of the Syrian membership by the Arab League reminds me of the story about the proud mother during a military parade who was jumping up and down with joy and yelling to whoever can hear her: “Please take a look and note how all the brigade is out of step with my Amer, bless his soul”

A few months ago when the European Union announced a set of measures against Syria and some Syrian oligarchs in conjunction with Washington Mr. Al Moualem, the Syrian foreign affairs minister announced with bravado that Syria will act as if neither the US nor the EU are part of the world map. Two days ago the Syrians decided to erase another part of the world map; this time they said “Toz” to all the Arab countries. Russia and China have, so far, shown some lukewarm support for the Syrian regime although both countries have stressed that they expect Mr. Assad and his Syrian minions to stop the use of force and to implement genuine reforms immediately. Maybe it is time for the Syrians to dismiss another major chunk of the world map. It looks very highly likely that pretty soon the Syrian regime will operate in a shrunk world of its making composed of Iran, Venezuela and North Korea. Obviously they can always count on the unquestioned support of their Lebanese subordinates: Hezbollah, Amal, FPM, Marada, Talal Arslan and Wiam Wahab. The support of Mikati and Safadi will be ambiguous

The relatively wide official Lebanese support for the Baath killing machine is problematic at best. The Tower of Babel, better known as the Lebanese cabinet, is one more time trying to take a position and its opposite at the same time. The PM, Najib Mikati, has never tired of telling the world that Lebanon honours all its international obligations and will obviously pay its dues to the STL. Unfortunately he forgot to relay that message to the largest bloc in the cabinet, FPM, and the real power behind the throne Sayed Hassan Nasrallah. Mr. Nasrallah, an unelected official who acts as the PM, Speaker and President ; all rolled into one; has declared a few days ago that as far as he is concerned the STL does not exist, as if reality is something subjective. (If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it then does it make a sound?) I guess not. If SHN decides not to see something then irrespective of the scientific proof that an entity exists Mr. Nasrallah feels that he can act as if it does not. Does the Emperor have cloths on or is he naked? Ask SHN or Bashar Assad before you answer that one. Their views are what counts, the truth be damned.

Then there is the Lebanese position Vis a Vis the decision of the Arab League to suspend Syrian membership. Lebanon dispatched its foreign minister to support the Syrian position and argue that Syrian demonstrators do not exist, the 3500 deaths of unarmed civilians are the fabrication of Western media, tanks and the full might of the Syrian armed forces have not been used against unarmed civilians in Homs, Hama, Dara, Latakia among numerous other places all across Syria. But to top it all the Lebanese President, Michael Suleiman, himself elected unconstitutionally, called Bashar Assad to tell him that Lebanon did not vote for Syrian repression but only to protest the punishments being doled to Syria What a joke. When would we ever learn that to take a position and its opposite simultaneously is a logically bankrupt exercise and what is more important that it is an insult to the intelligence of the public.

It is time to shout it from the hill tops. The Emperor has no cloths. This Lebanese cabinet is a sorry excuse for a government. Lebanon is ruled according to the diktats and personal whims of a certain unelected clergyman, Sayed Hassan Nasraalah, who does not recognize the right of Lebanon to sovereignty and independence. No one in this cabinet would dare take a position on important issues without seeking in advance the blessings of SHN. This charade has gone as far as it can. But what is equally clear is that the Syrian Baath has already lost even if, against all odds, it manages to stay in power. The minimum changes coming to Syria are a new constitution that does not recognize the Baath as a special party, free and popularly elected members of the parliament and a freely contested and elected president. Who would have even dared suggest such changes a few months ago? The new reality is that Syria will become more democratic, that all the Baath lackeys in Lebanon will have to adjust their vision to see the new reality including SHN.

Slavoj Zizek en Occupy Wall Street

2011-10-12T00:02:00.000-04:00

An interesting, informative and yet entertaining presentation by one of the top intellectuals in the world. Take a listen

Patriarch Rai: A Shephard Endorses A Wolf?

2011-10-04T00:14:00.004-04:00

When viewed through the prism of citizenship; and that is the only view that counts; then no country has any minorities. All citizens irrespective of their gender, race, physical attributes, educational skills, sexual preferences of religious persuasion are treated equally. In the eyes of the law of the land they are to have equal rights and equal protection. The state is not allowed to differentiate between any of its citizens as long as they are law abiding.

In a modern democratic state, as the one described above, the fears expressed by minorities are unfounded. Actually when a religious leader such as the Maronite Patriarch Rai express concern about the destiny of minorities then that flawed sense of identity is a reflection of his narrow vision of what a sense of citizenship entails. Citizens of a nation cannot be minorities in their own countries whereby the constitution does not discriminate between its residents. Yes inhabitants can always be classified by a myriad of characteristics that will result inevitably with a minority and a majority. But such distinctions are meaningless in determining qualifications for a political office or the ability to perform a certain job. If ones girth is not grounds for state discrimination and thus for fear that overweight people will not have access to political posts or financial institutions among other things then why should the issue of prayer or non prayer be any different.

A state is composed of different people who have different beliefs and who belong to different sub categories. That is what natural diversity, a hugely important feature for healthy evolution and growth, is all about. All countries will have conservatives, liberals, progressives, libertarians, highly skilled, rich, poor, Moslems, Christians, atheists… but each member of any of these groups belongs to only one class of citizens. That is why the scare mongering about minorities and the equally meaningless boast of some that this nation or that one is composed of minorities is based on a flawed logic of what is muwatiniah. Citizenship has no minorities.

It is especially troubling when such discriminatory language is used by those that are expected to embody the highest of values of ethics and morality. Patriarch Rai, among others, is essentially a preacher and a servant of Jesus Christ the man who had the courage to never waver from his beliefs and who threw the money changers from the temple. He was also the one who said in the Sermon on the Mount “'Blessed are those who hunger and thirst to see right prevail; they shall be satisfied.'" It is with lots of trepidation that an atheist should be reminding the leader of a 1600 year old Catholic Church about the teachings of Jesus Christ whose message was about courage, love and forgiveness, not about political compromise and expediency. It was in the same sermon that Jesus went on to teach the multitude by saying:’ "But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also." He did not say “If someone strikes you then support their oppression so that you may be protected “.

And finally I will let Billy Graham speak to the Patriarch about what the real historical message of Christianity has been about for over 2000 years: “"Christianity grew because its adherents were not silent. They said, 'We cannot but speak the things we have seen and heard.' … They stormed against the evils of their day until the very foundations of decadent Rome began to crumble."

I sincerely and humbly think that Patriarch Rai ought to be reminded of the message that his church has stood for all throughout history but above all he must reconsider his stand of offer spiritual solace to those that represent moral decadence in the Middle East, those who have violated every shred of decency for over forty years, those who have used the full power of the military against unarmed civilians, the Ba’ath regime of Syria led by Bashar Assad. Unless Patriarch Rai finds a way to speak truth to power, to speak against dictatorship, oppression and violators of human rights he will have to endure the opprobrium of his stance on the dark side.

The above tale should also serve as a reminder about the dire need for secularism. Individuals should be free to practice their religious beliefs any way they choose but such beliefs must be banished from the public square. Let the Patriarch tend to his spiritual flock and have the imams and sheikhs do likewise to their followers but let civil society be a free place for all citizens to fulfill their earthly dreams and pursue their aspirations unhindered by a religion that is often bestowed upon them by birth.

Hypocrisy (in all fields)

2011-09-30T12:01:00.002-04:00

It has often been said that a picture is worth a thousand words. Well in this case it sure is.
I honestly think that it would be redundant to say much about the accompanying image, it tells the whole story and very effectively for that matter. It also demonstrates clearly that most of us are not that sincere about the claims that we make.This goes by the polite name of claiming to be politically correct when in fact one has no intention of subscribing to the idea one is pledging lip service to. That is the essence of hypocrisy.

Palestinian Authority:To Go To The Security Council Or Not.?

2011-09-19T00:45:00.002-04:00

That the ongoing tragedy of the Palestinian dispossession in 1948 is still in limbo speaks volumes about the depth of the injustice that the Palestinian people have been subjected to by the whole world community. The iniquity bestowed on the Palestinians is practically unparalleled but they have come to accept the state of Israel, the power that has usurped their land, their homes, and their humanity provided they would not be prevented from establishing their own nation on the land that was taken by Israel during the 1967 war.

The sudden shock of the dispossession led to the adoption of a few unproductive policies in the hope that their acts would win back what has been taken away from them by force, their land and their right to self determination. Many have argued over the past 65 years that the Palestinians have often been their best enemies when they followed policies that guarantee negative sensational press coverage but nothing else. These wrong and misguided means are best described as pyrrhic victories. Whether it was exploding the airliners in the Jordanian dessert, massacring the Israeli athletes in the Olympic village in Germany or throwing overboard the body of Leon Klinghoffer from the Achille Lauro the Palestinian guerrillas failed to win converts to their cause.

Eventually the Palestinian leadership agreed to renounce its claim to the whole of Palestine and to accept to live side by side with the Israeli state that has not stopped its continued incursions into the West Bank by building more settlements and by expanding the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem by continuing the acts of dispossession and disinheritance of the Palestinians. Yet the Palestinian Authority under the leadership of President Abbas and PM Fayad offers nothing but continued support for the two state solutions that the Israeli government has honored through lip service only. Their latest move is to seek recognition of a Palestinian state from both the General assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations.

It is clear that most countries in the world, with very few exceptions will vote at the General Assembly in favour of this resolution. It will pass overwhelmingly. But a General Assembly vote does not carry as much heft as one in the Security Council, and this is the rub. The US government has all but guaranteed that it will veto the Security Council resolution later on this month. Since this expected Palestinian request and US response are a practical certainty then one must ask what the potential outcome from this line of action is. One thing for certain is that the US veto will expose the US one more time as duplicitous and hypocritical as far as the Arab Israeli question is concerned. The fallout from such a vote will hurt not only the US but also all its potential allies in the region. Unfortunately, the realities of American presidential elections dictate that Mr. Obama will forget all his promises to change the world and will veto the resolution at the Security Council. Make no mistake about it, Secretary Clinton and the White House will use Orwellian language to tell us that they vetoed the resolution because of their commitment to a two state solution. If any one takes these explanations seriously then they make great prospects for those who want to sell land in New Orleans ‘ ninth ward.

But why should a setback for the US, as significant as it, be considered more than a moral victory at best for the Palestinian people. In a sense such a moral victory could be construed as an empty one if not quite a Pyrrhic victory. The attempt to embarrass the US on such a large scale will undoubtedly lead to efforts by the Congress to reduce US financial aid to the Palestinian Authority at a time when its budget coffers are empty. But that in itself is not a major development. The real danger from this vote is that the intransigence of the current Israeli government will only increase and the possibilities of any progress diminished appreciably. The world media will spend a day or two maybe even a week covering this story and interviewing the Palestinian officials who will be celebrating their new status at the general assembly but as time goes on other stories, political and economic will come to dominate the news cycle. By then the Palestinians would be exactly in the same position that they are in right now and possibly they will be facing larger challenges.

Usually the argument to do the right thing wins easily. But in this case, I am afraid that the potential consequences of this act more than nullify its purely moral gains for the Palestinian people. If an act is to be judged ultimately by its consequences then the PA has nothing to gain from this line of action. Maybe what the PA should consider, rather seriously, is a declaration that they no longer want a two state solution but instead they want to demand that they become citizens of the state that has occupied them for the past 44 years. If their demands are not met then the PA will launch major civil disobedience campaigns all across Israel. Maybe it is time that the Israeli political establishment should be made to realize the consequences of its acts.