Michael Young is NOT right-wing; and King Fahd is Not sexist; and George W. Bush is intellectually gifted. Read all about it. Michael Young replies; and Angry Arab replies back. Last night, after writing a post about right-wing, Lebanese sectarian Christian writer, and opinion page editor for the Lebanese Daily Star and columnist for (the conservative) Reason, Michael Young wrote me an email in response. I shall reproduce it in full in italics and will reply to him (between brackets). Here we go.

As'ad,
Your entries on me are amusing for being so spectacularly shallow. Most of the time I let it slide, because that's part of the game. But some of the accusations are serious and insulting, and I really think you need to be less careless when portraying me as a right-wing sectarian something or other. [I find it interesting that Michael Young for the second time objects to my reference to him as “right-wing”. What is he? Left wing? Far Centrist? I do not understand why that should displease him when it perfectly fits his political orientations as expressed in his writings in Daily Star or in his other writings that I have read in recent years (of course, not to be confused with his earlier writings that were not critical of “sisterly” Syria). I have no problem in anybody referring to me as far left-winger--in fact, I relish it, and yet Young seems to be embarrassed of what he actually is. It is sad that I have to remind you of where you stand politically, and please don't rely on me to remind you where you stand geographically too. That is his problem, not mine of course. Perhaps, it is due to Young’s desire to market himself differently to different audiences. Only days ago, I read Young praising the appointment of M.Doran (the protege of Bernard Lewis) as Middle East expert at the National Security Council, under the wise leadership of E. Abrams. Now, I don’t know any leftists or centrists supporting this cheerleader of Bush’s wars, and an advocate of Bernard Lewis’ orientalism. And Young is, if my memory does not fail me, a fan of the Likudnik F. Ajami, and that also is not a left-wing position. That is right-wing. Also, Young has turned the editoral page of the Daily Star into a platform for right-wing and neo-conservative voices, and a place where one feels comfortable in rehashing the most vulgar of Orientalist clichés, and of Bush's wars. Don't take my word for it; let the words of Young speak for themselves. Here, he expresses his admiration of George W. Bush: "Like Ronald Reagan in Eastern Europe, Bush has shown in the Middle East that simple, indeed simplistic, ideas can go a long way when expressing the frustration and anger of populations afflicted with tyrannies refusing to accord them even minimal respect." Now, is that leftist or rightist? Moreover, Young gives his endorsement to a right-wing website that publishes the most hostile anti-Arab, anti-Muslim vitriol, and calls that style “fun.” For all that, and for more below, Young is indeed right-wing, just as I am as far left as one possibly can be. But I discovered that Young is also sectarian Christian when I read his recent writings on Lebanon. He has been submerged in too much Hummus, and cannot seem to get himself out of the messy Tabbulah of right-wing Lebanese politics. His recent letter to the editor to the Post got my attention. It was in reply to an article by an American writer, Annia Ciezadlo (somebody I don’t know, and have never met—although I received a kind email from her yesterday,). What was Annia’s offense? Well, she dared to represent a view common among the Shi`ites of Lebanon (among others). How dare she? The Shi`ites (for Young and other sectarian voices in Lebanon) are to be represented; they can’t represent themselves. I grew up in that place, and know quite well the common condescending attitudes toward the Shi`ites of Lebanon. How often have I have encountered while growing up—because my name is common also among the Christian AbuKhalil family of Kisrawan—patronizing attitudes of people who discover that my family is Shi`ite, at IC and AUB. People who would tell me, not realizing their own prejudices, “But you don’t look like Shi`ites”? or “But you don’t talk like Shi`ites,” etc. What most bothered me about Young’s letter to the editor is this. Over the years, especially after Sep. 11, the Washington Post and New York Time have carried scores, hundreds perhaps, of articles that are hostile, antagonistic, and offensive to Arabs and Muslims, and not once, have I read a letter by Young in protest. Not once. But then again, Lebanese ultra-nationalists, to whom Young belongs and he has served as a mouthpiece of the right-wing sectarian Christian opposition during the Hummus Revolution, do not get offended when they read insults of Arabs and Muslims perhaps because they may share hostility to Muslims, and perhaps or because they consider themselves “misplaced” Westerners, as the New York Times called those right-wing sectarian Christian Lebanese. But Young got mightily offended, as has other right-wing ultra-nationalist Lebanese, because Annia, whom I will be meeting during my visit to Lebanon this summer, dared to represent the point of view that she encountered among her in-laws. That offended Young, because only Christian right-wing Lebanese are authorized to address the West about Lebanon, because they represent the “civilized” Lebanon, and not the riff-raffs of the country.] The least you can do is read what I've written on sectarian politics, rather than pluck out a sentence or two and pretend you've done due diligence. I mean c'mon, there must be some debris of the academic in you, despite the contrarian act you must put on to make your blog mildly entertaining. [If you are entertained by my blog, which was not my intention, that is by accident. But I also seem to raise your ire too, which amuses me a great deal. And I am reacting to what you write yourself. I invite you to read yourself; read your last “reply” (or Angry ultra-right-wing Lebanese reply) to the Washington Post). It speaks volumes (of hummus?). Notice how much you quibble with the numbers of the sectarian composition of Lebanon; the myth of the French 1932 census has to be maintained at all cost, demographic facts to the contrary notwithstanding. That is exactly what Zionism does with Palestinian presence. I hope that Young does not produce a book by the title “From Time Immemorial” in which he claims that the Lebanese Shi`ites are not Lebanese after all, and that they all came from outside of Lebanon. And Young, who supports Bush who opposes quotas and affirmative action, is fully supportive of the quota that gives the 3rd larest community in Lebanon the most seats in the parliament. Let us assume that this is acceptable, but why was it “the fruit of compromise”. Which compromise? And who gave what to whom and in return of what? He says that this is not challenged by any of them. Yes, it is. And it will be, especially when Lebanese political discoure--in the absence of Syrian domination--will get more frank, i.e., more vulgarly sectarian and hateful as we now observe, especially as the Hummus and Batata Revolution descends into a typical Lebanese festival of sectarian hatred, double-talks, agitation, animosities, and political fraudulences. The formula was “agreed upon” in 1943? Who agreed on what? Who had the power to give what? And were the masses (not to mention the Shi`ites) consulted about the arrangement between two wealthy elite Lebanese? And you judge a political formula by its products, and series of mini- and major civil wars is not something that you want to brag about, as you seems to brag about the pre-1975 political system. And is it not laughable—the answer is yes, it is laughable by the way—that you praise the pre-war Lebanese system for avoiding the “authoritarianism” of the Arab world? How lovely is that? Ultra-Lebanese nationalists are still not embrrassed to promote the Lebanese political system that produced a civil war that resulted in the death of 120,000 mostly civilian Lebanese and Palestinians—yes, I count Palestinians unlike ultra-Lebanese nationalists? I thought that the savagery of the Lebanese during the long years of the civil war would have put an end to the Lebanese claims of superiority vis-à-vis other Arabs, but I am mistaken, sadly speaking. And yes, the powers of the president on paper has been diminished but Syrian political support has made this current silent president more powerful than either the prime minister or the speaker. But Ta’if did not transfer power to the prime minister or to the speaker; be accurate here. It transferred it to the collective Council of Ministers. I should add here that I do not support Ta'if accords because they do not entail the end of the sectarian political system.]

Yes, I believe in the sectarian system with its 50-50 divide between Christians and Muslims, but I've also written that it must be transformed because it is not tenable down the road. If you bothered to speak to Christians who disagree with you, you might notice that there actually is a dangerous sense of existential fear among them (one I am very uncomfortable with, but which one cannot avoid addressing), so that any new mechanism must be introduced consensually. [Yes, I understand that there are fears among some Christians in Lebanon, but there are also fears among ALL other Lebanese too. Furthermore, those Christian fears have been fanned and inflamed by the likes of the sectarian Patriarch and the various right-wing leaders of the Christians—and that includes those who are pro-Syrian and those who are anti-Syrian, and also by the sectarian voices on BOTH, or ALL, sides where religious-inspired movements are common]. Taif provides a mechanism, through a deconfessionalized Parliament, creation of a Senate and administrative decentralization. I've also advocated rotating the three top positions of state. All this might not be something you approve of, but it would be useful to mention to your readers that no one is really calling for a one-man, one-vote system in Lebanon today, largely because the demographics remain so uncertain, and that uncertainty has affected non-Christian communities as well. Does Jumblatt want a one-man, one-vote system? Are the Sunnis or Shiites certain of what their demographic weight might be at the end of the day? [Well, I don’t believe in one-man, one-vote perhaps because, unlike you it seems, I want women to vote and to fully participate in the political process. You may be talking about what I call one-person, one-vote. I find it ironic that those right-wing Lebanese who praise the American political system as their ideal and yet it is the reverse of what they demand for Lebanon. There are no quotas for African-Americans in the US, and 3 African-Americans have served in the Senate in a century, if I am not mistaken. And I like it when Young talks about “uncertain” demographics? Uncertain? Is there any question in anybody's mind that the Shi`ites, for example, constitute the single largest community in Lebanon? Only uncertain because the Patriarch and his subordinates do not want to face reality, and conduct a new census for Lebanon? And please, don’t bring Jumblat into the picture as if that feudal medieval relic speaks for me, or for any progressive in Lebanon, with the exception of the Hariri left (known as the Democrtatic Left—I call them the New Right of Lebanon].

Secondly, where did you get that I was on the patriarch's side in wanting Christians to vote for Christians and Muslims for Muslims? It seems that stereotypes are only acceptable when they go your way, otherwise it's obviously a case of racism. Not only did I disagree with the patriarch on this, it's almost a physical impossibility, and he himself backtracked on the idea. [The Patriarch did not retract this; if anything. After saying it, he could not stop receiving delegations of masses congratulating him on his “frank” talk.] The 2000 law discriminates against Christians and independent Shiites in the south, and I wrote that in the letter, rendering this phrase "Furthermore, notice that they are concerned about Christian deputies winning by Muslims votes in South Lebanon" meaningless. [I do not support the 2000 law or the Qada’ law, and wrote against it and against ALL sectarian dynasties in an article in As-Safir]. When I wrote that the law discriminated against Christians, that was a specific response to Ciezadlo's inaccurate implication that elections are invariably a tale of Christian advantage. Reread the paragraph; it'll only take a few seconds. [I reread your paragraph—but I will not promise to read it daily, don’t be hurt—and you did not seem to express concerns beyond the sectarian position that I accurately attributed to you.] For the record, I have no problems whatsoever with Muslims voting for Christians; I spent the war among Muslims, never thought of having it any other way, and do not in any way identify with Geagea or Aoun, since that's apparently my sectarian destiny.
As I said, all this is out there in my articles, and while there really is no need to read them, there really is no point writing about me unless you do read them. Then again indolence and laziness is par for the course in the field these days.
Michael Young[Finally, Michael. I don’t want to upset you. But a person who seems to be your friend, has written this about you on his website: “Michael Young, a Maronite, and champion of Lebanon's confessional system, had little time for our grips about the old Lebanon. "What do people expect?" he asked. This is Lebanon. We are all part of the confessional system. Even if you scratch Aoun, you find a confessional minded person," he insisted. (Aoun is the politician who poses as the destroyer of the old system and champion of a new united Lebanon.) "It is 10 times better than the authoritarianism Lebanon is surround with." That is the real alternative to the Lebanese system. We should be grateful that we have real pluralist politics, and the Lebanese should stop bitching." So said Michael." I read this and that reinforced my perception of you as sectarian right-wing Christian ultra-nationalist Lebanese. If there is a confusion, it may be in your mind, and if there is more than one Michael Young, let us know. And if this is you, then please, let the real hummus-free Michael Young stand up to be counted especially that this reported conversation took place at the fine restaurant Mijana (your friend called it "Majana" but his transliteration of Arabic is consistently inconsistent) which serves excellent Hummus?]