(If you still want to read about the Lebanese in Israel, I recommend Carine’s excellent opinion piece)
Hussein has noticed from the discussions that our affiliations greatly shape our ideas. This is why he is tackling the problem from the source: Indoctrination.
How are YOU going to teach your children about religion?

Are people born into a religion? It is definitely not genetic.

Question 1 – Why do most people take it for granted that they were born as Muslims, Christians or Jews…etc?

I would agree to the notion that people are raised as Muslims/Christians by their parents. But then comes

Question 2 – What’s the difference between “raising” your kids as Muslims/Christians and “brainwashing” them into adopt those beliefs?

I think most of you would agree that religions do not conform to the rules of logic. Those of you who are “followers” of a certain faith might not go as far as to call them dogmatic, but that’s what they are. There is never a logical sequence of thought to arrive at the set of beliefs you are adopting. If there were one, we simply wouldn’t have so many religions around us all claiming to be true.

I like to make the distinction between “believing” in something and being “convinced” that something is true. The latter requires sound logic and the ability to ARGUE and convince (or be convinced) others of your convictions. Can you “convince” a Christian that the Koran is a holy book?

I personally have my own beliefs, but I do not follow any organized religion. I do not want anyone to tell me what to believe in and how. I refuse to be like a mere “follower”. But I do respect those who follow organized religions, as long as they keep an open mind and do not try to project their beliefs on others, including their own children.

Question 3 – Do you have the right to present your beliefs to your children as being THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE way? Or are you morally obliged to expose them to the various faiths and ideas instead of YOU choosing their beliefs for them?

I felt the need to post this after all the previous talk about people being different and not being able to live together… Most of those people assume that societies are stagnant, very hard to change, and some move on to cement that by proposing segregation.

That assumption is false. People just have to overcome their psychological and social inertia and start adopting a more open-minded, enlightened, scientific outlook to cultures and religions.

And to all cynics out there, it is a very real and realizable idea. You just have to start with yourselves and the way you will raise your kids.

The Ideas above reflect the opinion of their contributor (Hussein) and do not necessarily represent The Beirut’s Spring point of view.

The Beirut Spring Had invited readers to publish their own pieces. You are welcome to contribute.

The issue of the Lebanese who fled to Israel after the liberation of the south deserves a real and mainstream debate.


It was THE hottest issue in the parliamentary debate, but like in most other issues, it’s being used to score political points, not to find solutions. Too bad. The issue of the Lebanese who fled to Israel is real and needs to be addressed with less shouting and more level-headedness.

The parliamentary showdown had two protagonists: The FPM on one hand, and the Alliance of the so-called Al-khatt-al-kawmi people, represented by Hezbollah, Amal and the PSP. The polarization is so pronounced you can hardly tell that the two parties are talking about the same issue.

To the FPM (and to the secret backers who are not talking because they are represented in the government,) the issue is humanitarian: The “refugees” are Lebanese citizens, said Michel Aoun. They were the victim of the government’s neglect of the south and the Lebanese Army was not sent to protect them after the Liberation, he maintained. This is why they deserve to come back.

But nobody asked the “traitors” to go to Israel and to ask for the enemy’s citizenship, retorted Hezbollah, they should have surrendered to the Lebanese judicial system –which was very lenient with the “agents”, they grumble- Jumblat Echoed that sentiment in yesterday’s AlSafir, and backed it with an aggressive campaign to discredit Aoun in the parliament (see previous article)

“They were scared” insisted M.P. Kannaan from the FPM. “The word they heard from (sayyed) Hassan Nassrallah was that the resistance will come and slither their throats while they’re sleeping”- Nonsense! Answered Naim kassem of Hezbollah, “Sayyed Nassrallah is a great national leader and marja3iyyé wataniyyé (for however you translate that), and he would never say anything like that.

The problem with such a debate is that it’s polarizing the Lebanese people into sectarian stereotypes. Aoun, (and secretly, the LF) are only echoing the sentiments of the Patriarch, who wants the Christians who went to Israel to come back and to be forgiven. The Moslems, on the other hand (including Almustaqbal Newspaper who called them “agents” in this morning’s issue), are intolerant of another far-reaching amnesty.

Some people are finally starting to shape the debate by giving it more substance and less sizzle. Amal’s Ali al Khalil said today that the debate shouldn’t be confessional, and that, in an apparent hint to the Patriarch, contrary to common believe, there are a lot of Shias among the “agents”. He gave the problem a security dimension by saying that Lebanon’s security situation cannot handle another influx of people who have a high probability of being Israeli Agents. The ball is in Michel Aoun’s court to explain how, in case the people came back, they would be sorted between suspects and normal citizens.

The most important thing is that the issue be debated openly among the Lebanese people, through the media, educational institutions and civil society. The a-priori alignments along sectarian lines and the culture of delegating to the leaderships and representatives should be challenged. The politicians have their agendas. We have a country to build.

Don’t criticize Michel Aoun just for the sake of it.

When I was in Lebanon a few months ago, I wanted to finalize my Army Draft status. I was excited to learn that my situation (working abroad) entitles me to a permanent exemption from the mandatory draft. So I drove up to the ta3bi’a (barracks) to get more information. I was referred to an office marked: “Lebanese Abroad.”
A soldier was sitting on a desk. He was a bit younger than me. I walked in and told him about my situation. He smiled, and showed me a list of documents I should get to complete my exemption. He was very nice, very patient, and above all, very respectful.
The list contained a document that needs to be fetched from Sureté Generale. It was at the height of the Jamil el Sayyed era and I was frightened to my bones(It was at the time when the Beirut Spring was very critical of him). But I braved my way to their department in Addlieh. To my surprise, I got the same efficient service with a smile. A group of young men and women (yes women), wearing their trademark black berets, were being very nice, respectful, friendly, and yes, helpful. The whole endeavor took only 10 minutes.

Why am I bringing this up?

Yesterday, in his parliamentary speech, M.P. Michel Aoun said that the Lebanese security establishment is demoralized. Our young men and women have been at the wrong end of political bickering just because of some bad apples in high ranks. He has a point. The members of the Army, Surete General and other agencies (Ajhizes) are our brothers and sisters who are sacrificing their lives for their jobs, and from my personal experience, they are doing their best.

This is why I was very surprised to see the reactions of the Future movement and the PSP to his speech. Almustaqbal newspaper and future-TV singled out the “demoralized” comment and showcased it in a way that means “did you here what this crazy guy just said?, he was defending the agencies.” Worse, in today’s parliamentary speech, PSP’s Wael Abou Faour attacks Michel Aoun and his sympathy for the Ajhizé, calling him a project for another Lahhoud. For the record. The PSP’s anti-Aoun campaign is getting on my nerves.

Today, I was listening to an interview in VOA (Voice of America) with an In-Sync singer. The host asked her if she has anything to say to the hundreds of millions of people around the world who are listening to the show. Do you know what she said? She addressed her speech to the American troops all over the world, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan and told them that she loves them and that she and the whole American people stand behind them.
I got an email a few days ago from an American who said that he doesn’t want to read my blog anymore because I said that the American army in Iraq was incompetent.

Our men and women in arms were more than admirable when they helped facilitate the March 14 day of freedom, so please, quit demonizing them. Give them some respect and stop using them for your cheap political ends.

Kamal has taken issue with my previous post and decided to tell us why.
He suggests that the Lebanese should quit hiding behind fake national unity rhetoric and accept the notion of a federal Lebanon.
Please let us know what you think of Kamal’s Ideas.

NOT A SINGLE MUSLIM CLERIC SHOWED UP

Not a single Muslim cleric of ours showed up (nor sent a representative). That means they implicitly endorsed Geagea’s imprisonment (while they meet and condone Jumblatt or Berri or other war criminals turned national leader-mind you Hussein)…Geagea has sure noticed that; i hope he will get the message, and quit the “wehdé wataniyeh” delusive speech.

Many Muslim clerics were invited though. According to one cleric i personally know (a relative of mine actually), these people decided not to attend in order to send a message to “isolationist Christians”… WTF!!??

Isn’t Geagea sectarianism “softer” than the one of Hezbollah? Remember: He only wanted to separate Lebanese Christians and Muslims (“Taqseem”- in one way or another, in one politically correct formula or another…) while Hezbollah (or the abject Islamists Denniye-style) wants to force an Iranian (or Saudi, respectively) style Islamic republic on both Christians AND Muslims (read their manifesto). Christian clerics are nonetheless always represented in the Hizballah events. No comment.

And next time you will talk about “wehdé wataniyé”, try not to be impressed by “wehdé intikhabiyé”. No “wehdé wataniyeh” is possible in this country, at least in its actual form. Sooner or later we will have to go back to our de facto sectarian federalism. Why not turn it into a De Jure one? That’s the only way we (all of us, including YOU Mustapha, including YOU Doha, including ME Kamal, not to mention Joe, Maroun, or Elie,…), we will stop thinking about our sect representation in ANY political event, and start trying to build a modern country like the ones we (all of us, including you Mustapha, including you Doha, including me Kamal, not to mention Joe, Maroun, or Elie,…), we strive to obtain a visa for and live happily in, while posting on a blog about how Lebanon -a forcedly unified Lebanon- should be a message…

Passing Time will lead us to a de jure form of sectarian federalism. Until then it is recommended to enjoy political correctness, while trying to get an emigration visa to a (federal -USA, Belgium, Switzerland, Canada…) western country. And most of all, remember to look aside and conspicuously utter: “wehdé watanieh” (or “pfuuu… sick sectarian mentality” as another brilliant pseudo-secular Hussein puts it) when sectarian issues force themselves on you.

The Ideas above reflect the opinion of their contributor (Kamal) and do not necessarily represent The Beirut’s Spring point of view.

The Beirut Spring Had already invited readers to publish their own pieces, but the London bombings had slowed things a bit. You are still welcome to contribute.

The complex task of rebranding Samir Geagea.

“My Lebanese countrymen […] We have fought a civil war that may have had its logic at the time. But this logic does not fit nowadays.”

This is how Samir Geagea effectively declared, from the airport, that he’s a changed person. Out are the days where “The security of the Christian people is above all other considerations”, and in are those where “we should all look shoulder-to-shoulder for the shiny days ahead… to build the new Lebanon in Muslim-Christian national unity”.

It is easy for everyone to say that the past is behind us, but as Samir Geagea appears to know very well, the transformation from a sectarian to a national leadership is a tricky and complex game.

To effectively achieve the leap, a politician has to convince the other party that he indeed has their interest at heart, while at the same time maintain legitimacy with his core constituency. Two people are playing this game at this moment, Saad Hariri and Samir Geagea, and both have to keep eye on balance. So far, both are doing very well.

Let’s start with Hariri. His actions have shown lately a lot of rapprochement with the Christians, a big part of which he inherited from his father. But he has to also keep his eye on his core Moslem constituency, which might start to grumble if Hariri becomes “too Christian” and forgets his Moslem “mandate”. This is why Hariri is playing a double game: bombard the Moslems with Future T.V. positive coverage of Samir Geagea to change their hostile attitudes, while at the same time appease them by showing them that he is still a “strong Moslem leader” by picking up the occasional fight with president Lahhoud (and Michel Aoun), like the recent one over who should head the governments’ meetings.

The same is happening with Samir Geagea. His actions and talk have shown a lot of willingness to reach out and to think nationally and for the interest of all the Lebanese. Witness how, unlike Aoun, he blamed the national debt not on Rafik Hariri, whom he referred to as “people who were building Lebanon”, but on the Syrians who were “suffocating” him. But at the same time, Geagea still has to maintain his “Strong Christian Leader” image by appeasing some of his hard-core Christianists (like the people who are maintaining his website). This is why he was talking of “a lack of balance” that “needs to be fixed”.

People don’t just forget the past, and words must be buttressed by actions. This is why the Hariri-Geagea Tango is a good model for reconciliation in Lebanon.
The more the merrier.

Too many birds

In his speech to supporters before he leaves for a month of recuperation, one of the things Samir Geagea said is that the previous regime was trying to break one of Lebanon’s “wings” (In reference to Christians). If only Samir knew how many metaphorical wings and birds are roaming around in the new Lebanon.

Geagea himself and Michel Aoun are Phoenixes that rose from the ashes. The Lebanese political scene has lots of Doves and Hawks on most issues, from Syria to Israel to America. We also have chickens that are planting random bombs here and there with eagle-eye precision. We have lots of ostriches that don’t have a clue about what’s going on. We have cocky politicians who pigeonhole their constituencies into narrow sectarian categories. But not all birds are in politics, just look at the various kazdouras (promenades), you’ll sure notice the peacocks riding their cars and looking for bird-brained chicks.

With all those wings flapping around, we can all be confident that one day Lebanon will be able to take-off.

The Syrian Official Media has been waging a “Syria is the real victim” campaign against the Lebanese in response to what it perceives as Lebanese “aggression” and “insults.” Why are they doing this?

In a democracy, The Media and public opinion have always had a symbiotic relationship: Public opinion influences the media, but the media also shapes public opinion. Sometimes problems arise when powerful special interest groups dominate the Mass Media and transform it into a subtle brainwashing instrument. Witness Murdorch’s America, Berlusconi’s Italy and lately in Lebanon, the Hariri-Tweini Alliance.

But those problems pale in comparison to what autocratic systems can do with their own media. Syria, with its new trademark shortsightedness, is proving day after day that it is a creative “media engineer”.

When the Americans accused Syria of letting suicide bombers cross to Iraq, Syria invited the world’s press to a “border-tour”, to see for themselves the “American falsehoods”. Also, when everyone was talking about the Syrian control over the Lebanese border, Syria invited the press to “register” the “free flowing of goods across the borders”. Needless to say, both “tours” were staged and clearly meant to insult everybody’s intelligence.

Since we all know what’s really going on, why do the Syrians keep on trying?

One of the reasons is that Syria does that because it wants to mobilize the Syrian and Arab public opinion against the regime’s “enemies”. This unfortunately works sometimes. People who are presumably “intellectuals”, like Azmi Becahra, are falling for the Syrian PR machine and are thinking that Lebanon is the real aggressor.
Thankfully, Aljazeera did not subscribe to the Syrian version of events the way it did when it believed Saddam and ignored Kuwaiti and Iraqi people. But that could change. Arab Public opinion is a target of the Syrian “marketing campaign” that has a simple and appealing story line: The Lebanese are cooperating with the imperialist west and the Zionist enemy against their own Arab Brothers.

The Other reason why Syria is fabricating the news is that the Syrian regime doesn’t know about other ways of doing things. This is why it is suspicious of the free Lebanese who express anti-Syrian opinions. Who doesn’t remember the lame but famous “zoom-out” theory that came out of Bashar’s mouth to cast doubt on the amount of Lebanese who demonstrated against Syrian troops back in early March?

Unfortunately, the “puppeteer” theory is widely spread in the Arab world. This is why Gebran Tueiny, Ali Hmedeh and Nassir Assad (Anti-Syrian Lebanese commentators) can all be easily cast as “Agents”. In fact, the theory is so widespread that I sometimes get comments on this blog that I am paid by the Saudi royal family, or even more flatteringly, by the CIA.

So please allow me take this opportunity: Saad, Condoleezza, if you’re reading this, I have a discount on Anti-Syrian articles, are you interested? This is your last chance! The discount ends today.

The Sharm el Sheikh bomb and the Monot one are done by different people for different reasons.

Naharnet did today the most ludicrous lumping of two separate pieces of news in one headline.

It is tempting to find similarities between yesterday’s two bombs: they both target places that could be construed as decadent and filled with tourists and they both occurred almost at the same time. But the bombings have two totally different signatures.
The Sharm El Sheikh bomb clearly has the signature of Al-qaeda sympathizers: Utter disregard for Human life and suicide bombing designed to maximize casualties and destabilize the ruling regime in the Arab world’s most populous country.

In Monot, Beirut, it was different. The explosion happened under a car in an unpopulated parking lot. It was clearly designed to cause maximum panic (and economic repercussions) with minimum casualties. This is consistent with the previous bombs that stroke Christian areas in Beirut and claimed minimum casualties but wreaked a lot of material havoc. MP Michel el Murr had concluded that local agents (who don’t want to hurt their families and friends) are behind the bombs.

The Beirut pro-Syria politicians accuse the “Islamists” of being behind the Beirut bombs, but the sharm el sheikh explosion clearly shows that they are way off. Naharnet should have been more responsible and not give credence to their argument.

Clubbing in Monot has always been a blast. But someone just gave that sentence a very literal meaning.

Forget the beaches; forget the food, the mountains or the shops. The real reason why Saudi, Bahraini, Kuwaiti, Omani youngsters come to Lebanon is to party hard in Mono Street, the very place that was hit by a bomb on a Friday night in the beginning of summer.

Monot Street has the appealing combination of a Paris Left bank walkway and a big city clubbing neighborhood. You are more likely to hear people speak in French than in Arabic in this French-named place, and there are no signboards whatsoever written in Arabic. The most common sentence I’ve heard from non-Lebanese Arab friends who go to Monot is this: “I’ve never seen so many pretty girls at the same place like that”. Perhaps this is why Arab tourists dig it, or perhaps it’s because they like to pay $500 for a bottle of Champaign.

Western tourists on the other hand don’t like Monot; one of them once told me that the “Lebanese Try too hard to be European”. She said that she prefers Damascus because it’s more “authentic”.

Speaking of Damascus, who was behind that bomb?

Nobody knows, but it seems conveniently consistent with a certain country’s attempt to stifle our economy by first targeting our trucks and now our tourists. But hey, the Lebanese can always teach their Arab brethrens to Dance their problems away.

Tabbouleh in the Jungle

West Africa has always had a strong Lebanese contingency; we have been around for the last 120 years. But never have I felt the strong cultural Imperialism trace we left until the day I drove into what I thought was the middle of nowhere in Ghana.

It was a peaceful place away from civilization, with a nice beach and your regular palm trees and fishing boats. I was hanging out with a bunch of friends from The US, Canada, Italy and Ethiopia and we were getting hungry. So we searched around and found a nice little African hut with the word “Restaurant” clumsily written on a wooden board.

We got in and got our “menus”: Regular sheets of paper on which the food names were handwritten. I didn’t know what to feel when I saw the big two food sections: “Local Dishes” and yes “Lebanese Dishes”, was it pride? Maybe. But it was mostly astonishment.

The reason why I’m remembering this incident now is because I read this piece of news. It seems the Lebanese want to move into something bigger than cultural imperialism after all.