A few days ago, I posted an item about an article on Lebanon that appeared in the Washington Post by its special correspondent in Lebanon, Lynn Maalouf. A few days later, I received an email from her. I will post her email below, followed by my reply to her email.

"Wow, dear As’ad AbuKhalil, for someone who is actually an academic (and I actually had to study your work back at Georgetown), I have a hard time believing that you jump to conclusions this fast. Do you actually know me, or know my background to conclude what is my position regarding Israel’s occupation of South Lebanon? Or where I was in 1982 for that matter? Or is it a question that you ask the 1.2 (please forgive me if this figure is not precise to the dot) people who were asking for the withdrawal of the Syrian army from Lebanon? Although I can see that a person writing for a site called “Angry Arabs” would make such gratuitously judgmental statements, I am bewildered that an academic would join in. And just in case you read the piece that Mohamed Karim is talking about, did you read the rest of the sentence? If not, then the entire sentence reads this: “With my countrymen, I had shouted at the top of my lungs: "Syria out!" What I'd meant was the Syrian army and the Syrian-Lebanese political and security mafia that had run the country since 1990. I certainly didn't mean my mother.” (my mother being Syrian, as I explain in the piece). So you actually believe that all the people who demanded the withdrawal of the Syrian army on March 14, actually condoned Israel’ occupation of Lebanon?

lynn"

"Wow, dear Lynn Maalouf. First, why would you assume that academics would be less likely than other people in society (carpenters, shoemakers, drivers, etc) to jump to conclusions? We seem to disagree on this: I don't think that academics are wiser than other people, or that they are less likely to rush to judgment. No, I don't know you, and don't know your background, but have read your article. And I commented on that article alone, and not on anything else. I certainly can't comment on what I don't know about you, which is exactly what you seem to be complaining about. You seem to saying that I should not "rush to judgment” by complaining about your article without taking into consideration your background or other information about you, which is obviously not at my disposal. And I don't know where you were in 1982; although I know where I was in that year, and my memories are not fond. And unlike Lebanese patriots, I am not impressed with the millions of demonstrators, and with large masses of people in streets and squares, no matter where. I will not quibble with you on that point—on whether 1.2 million people actually took the street on that day, and I am sure that Hitler, Mussolini, and Saddam were able to also attract very large crowds. And given the context of sectarian agitation and mobilization in Lebanon, the figure may even be more than 1.2 million. And yes, I do ask every one of the Lebanese demonstrators on March 14^th—if I have the actual chance-- whether they did protest against the Israeli occupation of Lebanon. That is not only due to my own insistence on consistent and universal standards of sovereignty and independence, for those who care about "independence" and "sovereignty" in the country that never was--and never will be thanks to its leaders and sects--free and sovereign. My firm belief is that people turned out on March 14th for their own petty and sectarian agendas, just as people turned out on March 8th for their own petty sectarian agendas. Of course, Lebanese do have the right, nay duty, to protest the domination of the Syrian regime and its murderous practices over the long years, although I cast doubt on the sincerity of the "movement"’s leaders perhaps because most of them were quite willing-- skillful in that regard--to prostrate themselves before Syrian mukhabarat functionaries. Having suffered for years from a ban on travel to Lebanon due to an article that was deemed (by the Syrian-Lebanese security system) critical of (and offensive to) Hafidh Al-Asad, I know first hand the true nature of the security regime in Lebanon, and hold those who helped construct it (Syrian officials, Rafiq Hariri, Ilyas Hrawi, Walid Jumblat, Nabih Birri, Emile Lahhud, Michel Murr, etc) responsible, morally, legally, and politically for its crimes. I did not understand why you would find "the Angry Arab" title relevant to anything, even to assumptions about me, unless the word Arab or Angry or both offend your sensibility or the sensibilities of the Washington Post. Or is it because “Angry Europeans”say are more civilized, and one knows how hard Lebanese try to act "civilized" and "modern" (unlike “backward” Arabs around them) and their (mis)treatment of foreign maids is perhaps an effort to learn from the experiences of White Man's colonial record? Perhaps that explains why foreign maids in Lebanon are priced according to skin color: the darker the cheaper. You again made a comment about "my being an academic"--that "academic" thing seems more of an issue for you, not for me. But then again, that says something about you, or about your views of hierarchy and elitism in society. Was I judgmental in my statements? Yes, as you were in what you wrote. I mean, how could you write about politics without being judgmental, unless you strive to be a "fair and balanced" journalist, and Fox News does a great job in that regard, I have to say. So you explain to me that your demands for "Syria out"--a slogan that carried more than a tinge of racism to it, especially when those chants led to (and justified) attacks on Syrian workers in Lebanon. Oh, you explain that you did not mean your mother. Am I suppose to take note of a humanitarian gesture on your part? How nice. So while you shouted the slogan, you in no way intended to expel your mother from Lebanon. OK. I did draw conclusions about your position or declaration of position on Israel based on your own words. It does not matter what your position was on Israel's occupation of South Lebanon given your own words. You did not make a reference to your position on Israel, or to Israeli brutal occupations and invasions of Lebanon, and did not mention anywhere in the article that you at any point "shouted at the top of [your] lungs:" Israel out. That is telling, no? This can mean one of two things: a) either that you indeed were opposed to Israeli occupation, and did shout "at the top of [your] lungs": Israel out, but decided not to mention it in your article. But that would be a sign of political cowardice, or a desire to cater to the sentiments of your Washington-DC readers and editors at the Washington Post; b) or that you were in fact not opposed to Israeli occupation of Lebanon, and that can only mean hypocrisy and inconsistently in your standards of independence and sovereignty, but you are not alone in that discrepancy in the Tears-for-Hariri-Forever camp in Lebanon. No, I don't believe that everybody who demonstrated on March 14th condoned Israeli occupation of Lebanon, but many did. Worse, many in fact fought with (or actively or indirectly like An-Nahar for example supported) the Israeli occupation army when I think about some of the leaders of the March 14th movement, and when I see that the political goals and agenda of the March 14th Movement does not really differ from the agenda of the right-wing sectarian militias at the start of the Lebanese civil war. Unless one can explain to me why this glorious movement suddenly matched its slogans with UN1559, and began a racist and security campaign against the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon; those same refugees who were victims of the Syrian-Lebanese order, who were the very victims of the Syrian regime-inspired, Amal-executed horrific War of the Camps.

As`ad"