Thursday, April 30, 2009
Hariri Dirty Tricks
The Daily Star is excited: it is jumping up and down
Report
Liberated...to death
Robert Fisk on Lebanon
Libyan TV affair
Your Prince Nayif
SSNP and anti-Semitism
Reports
Caught up
Zionist crime scene tour
- Briefing by officers in the IDF Intelligence and Operations branches.
- Inside tour of the IAF unit who carries out targeted killings.
- Live exhibition of penetration raids in Arab territory.
- Observe a trial of Hamas terrorists in an IDF military court.
- First hand tours of the Lebanese front-line military positions and the Gaza border check-points."
Drones
A Palestinian teen
Irate
Worst for bloggers
A poll that will not be featured in the New York Times
Polls
Chutzpah
The hand of RAND
Fabrications of MEMRI
Syrian-Lebanese relations
The health of the dead Prince
The Four Lebanese Generals are released: who cares?
The Four Lebanese Generals.
This was a powerful team which ruled Lebanon on behalf of the Syrian regime for more than a decade, but in full cooperation with the symbols of the so-called Cedar and Potato Revolution, like Rafiq Hariri and Walid Jumblat. Jamil As-Sayyid was one of the most powerful men in the country for a while: and that pitted him again Nibih Birri who suspected (with justification) that the Syrian regime was grooming him to succeed him as speaker for parliament. The plan was for Sayyid to run in 2005. The generals were finally released today and the spectacle was beyond the expectations: it was well orchestrated and choreographed—to mobilize and inspire the opposition and to tweak and antagonize the March 14 camp. And Jamil As-Sayyid is one tough and shrewd man, and he is one of the best in propaganda in the lousy republic of Lebanon. I strongly believe that the Hariri family (which ruled Lebanon after 2005 on behalf of the American and Saudi regimes just as it ruled prior on behalf of the Syrian regime) put them in jail because they feared their formidable political and intelligence skills, especially the skills and network of Jamil As-Sayyid. And the March 8 camp does not have intelligent figures (except, Nasarallah, Birri and `Awn but their rank is not unified) and As-Sayyid can fill a void, especially in tactical matters where March 8 is pretty dumb while the other side employs a variety of PR and advertising firms in its service. The Lebanese military-intelligence apparatus is of such low caliber that those four represented (and maybe still represent) the elite and the best of the military-intelligence establishment. One of them, `Ali Al-Hajj, was a personal bodyguard of Rafiq Hariri before a conflict arose between them—not on principles, never on principles with the trader Hariri. But I was cautioning friends: you should not assume that this propaganda victory for the opposition will necessarily translate into an electoral victory. No event—no matter how big—will change the basic sectarian stance of the Sunnis and Shi`ites in Lebanon. There are no undecided in Lebanon to speak of, except among a section of the Christians. We know exactly how Sunnis and Shi`ites will vote but the question is the Christians: and the choice there is not between candidates as much as it is between a Christian alliance with Sunnis versus a Christian alliance with Shi`ites. We can speak of only a fraction of the Christian community (let us say some 20 or 25% of the population) who may not be solidly behind `Awn or the Lebanese Forces. So the ability of one event to change basic political realities is very small, if not negligible. And the second factor is money: Hariri family rules not only by virtue of its representation of strong and powerful patron, or by virtue of its skills in acute sectarian agitation and mobilization, but also by its dispense of financial rewards. But this release yesterday is a big event: Jamil As-Sayyid could easily become the brain behind the opposition. This is a very formidable opponent that Hariri family has to contend with. The speech of Sayyid (and of the rest, including the low key Raymond `Azar) was quite strong and impressive, as was his demeanor, if measures by the standards of Lebanese politics. They all sounded strong and unvanquished, and determined to go after their enemies. They now operate with the full knowledge that they will not be arrested again, no matter what. Now let us not go too far in estimation of their skills lest my assessment be misunderstood as praise: these are not some rosy angels: they were part of a government structure that was corrupt and repressive, but so is the present-day government in Lebanon. I can criticize both because I oppose both, but for Walid Jumblat or Hariri to speak from a standpoint of liberty and democracy is like Dahlan speaking about virtue. It can be said that the repression of Hariri government after 2005 exceeded the repression of the Sayyid rule before 2005—you can measure it by the number of people killed on the streets (by government fire) or by the numbers of people killed in Lebanese jails—but Human Rights Watch is busy with the health and welfare of Israeli collaborators and spies to notice. But As-Sayyid and `Azar ruled on behalf of the Syrian regime (with Jumblat and Rafiq Hariri) and they implemented Syrian orders in Lebanon, and helped impose its order. Politically, As-Sayyid is not grateful to the lack of support (until a few months ago) from Hizbullah and its allies who remained silent for more than 2 years after the arrest of the four generals. But As-Sayyid needs Hizbullah and the March 8 opposition needs a leader who is not Birri and who is not Hizbullah (and who is Shi`ite). The Hariri machine must be in tears or in great embarrassment: mini-Hariri, who always appears fumbled and tattering and hesitant and incompetent and clumsy and inarticulate and illiterate, appeared more so today in his statement that he read (he always reads, and very badly and very erroneously). He looked as if he was announcing death in the family. Of course, this comes as a great blow to the prestige and standing of the Lebanese judiciary: as if it was ever credible in the history of Lebanon. I remember when growing up when Lebanese politicians would call individual judges to free murderers and rapists if they happened to belong to the supporters of this Za`im or that Za`im. The Hariri family went too far in its accusation and charges without evidence, and in fabricating evidence: the International Court did not yet deal with the manipulation of two witnesses by individual who work directly for Mini-Hariri. Personally, I don’t believe that there is such a thing as international justice in the age of US domination. No court is immune from US influences and interferences, and those fools in Lebanon and Syria will now rush to praise the court will be disappointed soon. After the release of the four generals, for example, the court issued a special statement in which it said that it could re-arrest the generals if evidence is found against them. There was no need for that statement, and it merely stated basic facts and axioms but it was clearly designed to help the sagging fortunes of the Hariri coalition in Lebanon, as was the silly statement that came from Washington, DC. It was clearly a response to the propaganda blow that its camp suffered in Lebanon. The TV images were quite vivid and the generals were smart in talking about “the innocent poor prisoners” in jail—a clear reference to Sunni fundamentalist prisoners. Hariri family is lucky in inheriting billions: but the family is quite unlucky to have somebody of the caliber of mini-Hariri (I really can’t think of a more incompetent and more unqualified person) to head the family and manage its political affairs. But to be incompetent and have the charisma of a potato is a double misfortune. Personally, I don’t care to know who killed Rafiq Hariri—that is the least of my concern. I care more about finding the identity of the person who planted the potato that now sits in my fridge. The question is a political one, first and foremost just as the Bush administration acted as if it really cared about Hariri and as if it really grieved over his death when Bush humiliated Hariri back in 2002 (I think) when Rafiq met with him to ask for US financial help (for one of the Paris conferences for Lebanon). A person who was present in the Oval Office in that meeting told me that it was embarrassing how much Bush humiliated Hariri. He bluntly told him: why not use your own money, or why not ask your friend King Fahd. But I am told that Rafiq Hariri defended the Syrian regime and Hizbullah in that meeting, just as this duplicitious person did all his life in public. In private, he always played game and lied. It is all a matter of political exploitation. I am not sure that we will know who killed Hariri. The chief of Internal Security in Lebanon (a Hariri man, Ashraf Rifi) never believed that the four generals were guilty, but he was not a decision maker. He did not even think that Syria’s intelligence chief in Lebanon, Rustum Ghazalah, was involved. He was convinced that the Syrian regime (at the highest level) dispatched a special team for the assassination and that it did not even consult with or inform the Syrian intelligence or military apparatus in Lebanon at the time. It could still be a fanatical fundamentalist network of some sorts. That is possible too. It is not clear what will happen: the electoral prospects remain largely unchanged but the credibility of the Hariri family remains weak especially among the Christians and it is more uncredible now. The Hariri family has mortgaged the future of Lebanon and Lebanon will continue to pay the price for intrigues and conspiracies that Rafiq Hariri (politically and economically and militarily) imposed on Lebanon. Oh, and lest I forget: there were other developments in the Hariri tribunal yesterday: blah blah blah blah, and blah.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Mubarak Rule
My least concern
Gaza: never forget, never forgive
Philosopher
UAE shame
Political prisoner
Mubarak and pigs
UAE and torture
Mukhabarat and media
Revolution
Lebanese presence in the North Pole
Damascus ahead of Beirut
Lebanese Minister of Health
Hariri Tribunal
Qadhdhafi and his son
Cowardly clerics
His doctors were stunned
Abu `Umar Al-Baghdadi
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Husayn Musawi
US Ambassador in Lebanon (II)
Dahlan army
US Ambassador in Lebanon
Wahhabi standards
Numbers
To wear or not to wear...the abayah
Sons of.....................Abbas
Dahlan
What?
Swine
All that you have done to our people is registered in notebooks
Tunnels
Israel's demise: or the demise of the usurping entity
Saudi-US conspiracy?
Mubarak rule
Ready for burial
Corporate Swine
Dahlan, O Dahlan
Supreme Media Censor for Lebanon
Saja kindly translated this article of mine which appeared in Al-Akhbar.
Tariq Metri, Lebanon's Supreme Media Censor
As’ad Abu Khalil
http://www.al-akhbar.com/ar/node/109340
Information Minister Tariq Metri's eagerness to announce his media principles occurs in somewhat curious timing. Against the backdrop of political clampdown, there seems to be a dire need to critique all political sides, not to gag speech. So what led to Metri's involvement in an announcement like this? Political partisanship or merely naiveté?
Much can be said about Tariq Metri as an undistinguished phenomenon of an educated politician in Lebanon. You can revisit his leftist history in the Lebanese Nationalist Movement and expediently analyze yet another ex-leftist. You can revisit his ascension to power by nomination and endorsement of Emil Lahoud, only to switch gears in less than two years and somehow turn into a permanent Fouad Seniora nominee. You can impute innocent reasons to the radical shift in his discourse (in less than two years): for instance, you can try believing that he changed his perspective based on conviction. Minister Metri was possibly influenced by Sa'ad or Nader Al-Hariri's power of persuasion. You may remind him of his futile speech before the UN Security Council during the peak of Israeli aggression towards Lebanon. But that is not our topic. We're concerned about the "Statement of Principles" draft Minister Metri presented to media representatives in Lebanon (in spite Saudi ambassador Abdul Aziz Khoja's absence due to extenuating circumstances).
The statement started under the rubric of "concern for the freedom of media outlets." Before proceeding any further, you realize when you read the preamble that it's a prelude for latent intentions of repression that will appear in the rest of the statement. The minister reiterates his emphasis on "the profession's principles and ethics." He didn't explain what he meant by "principles" or ethics or who defines them. Will he take the initiative of recruiting his esteemed ministry for the task of framing those principles and ethics? The minister goes on to reverberate agreeable discussion of "the values of tolerance and dialogue", which is troubling especially since the he belongs to the Saudi axis (which, in fairness, places all Salafi sides in Lebanon on the same footing without bias). Are the values of tolerance and dialogue a prologue for bringing Lebanon to a warm meeting with Shimon Peres, like the Saudi king had done with the excuse of dialogue and tolerance? Furthermore, if the Minister is truly concerned about tolerance, will he join us to condemn beheadings and the stoning of lovers in the Wahhabi kingdom, which represent an extremist example of religious fundamentalists in the world even by the Department of State's standards? This discourse per se contradicts media liberties in democratic countries to which everyone in the miserable homeland claims membership. The Al-Hariri family is preparing to impose restrictions and repression on journalistic liberties in Lebanon using different names, and on behalf of the Saudi Kingdom, which has many outlets in Lebanon (like "misery to the heart" - whoever coined that phrase must have been very depressed) to finally condemn the "media campaign" against it, as if Lebanese media doesn't include vehement criticism of other regimes including Syria and Iran. Criticism of the two axes must continue if Lebanon's journalistic liberties actually mean anything. However, the Hariri group's intentions to repress journalistic freedoms came early, in a memorandum it prepared for the Ta'if conference (this was proven in a book about Ta'if by George Bacasini himself). This approach has become quite clear in the Lebanese ruling family's discourse - that is, almost-ruling family were it not for the objection of at least half of Lebanon. What is this equality between speech (no matter how stern, assertive or vile) and violence? Speech is speech, violence is violence, and they are conflated only in totalitarian regimes. However, this concept has become the ruling elite's official policy in order to gag people, suffocate voices and repress liberties. One senses frustration in Saudi media from one newspaper that dares to criticize Saudi Arabia, albeit the House of Saud's media (and its adherents among Al-Hariri media) freely criticize regimes with which it disagrees, while it is notable that Al-Saud's media (and its adherents among Al-Hariri media) forgives any regime which buries the hatchet with the Saudi government and immediately cease to criticize it.
Equating speech and violence is an Orwellian trick that won’t pass. Allow me to enlighten the ruling elite's Media Minister about freedom of speech in democratic countries, although he has lived for a long time in one of them. For example, in America the jurisprudential interpretation of the First Amendment regarding freedom of speech distinguishes true speech and false speech. The standard for constitutional review of freedom of speech also entertains the standard of protected and unprotected speech. Here freedom of speech guarantees the freedom of opinion even to false speech, while true speech is not subject to censorship. Restriction of speech may expose the government (or the President) to a legislative and judicial lawsuit (for the history of freedom of speech in America, see the new book by Anthony Lewis titled Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment, in which he explains the evolution of freedom of expression, which was not always protected since the establishment of the Republic, as the American government criminalized the "defamation" of government officials in the late eighteenth century, similar to Anwar Al-Sadat's "vice" law, the law of "Verbal Transgression" in Jordan, or the law of "Weakening National Spirit" in Syria, etc.) A victim of false defamation cannot sue someone who publishes a lie except in limited situations in which the plaintiff can prove not the falsehood, but the intent of falsification in addition to proving the truth. This is a very high bar in constitutional law which makes proving unprotected defamation nearly impossible. Of course, the standard differs among countries, and Britain for example has a lower bar than that. The law there also distinguishes between the purpose of defamatory speech and writings; the law protects the right to lie about someone in "the public eye", meaning a public official or a celebrity.
Metri would say there are instances when governments may restrict freedoms if the written or verbal speech constitutes, according to the interpretation of the Supreme Court, which does not answer to the authority of the President or Congress, "clear and present danger" to public safety. The point of the text of the statement to reserve the responsibility of defining what constitutes danger in the hands of the government itself. Hence, criticizing the situation of women in Saudi Arabia, for example, constitutes a "threat" to public safety in Lebanon. This doesn't pass legal or constitutional muster, Mr. Minister of Information.
The minister appeals to "the spirit of the Doha agreement" when he announces his authoritative intents. First, let's note that nobody notices absence of a "spirit". What in the world is a spirit? Do you know what a spirit is, Minister Metri? Are you trying to call on spirits today? You’re akin to someone who tries to put out flames with fire. As for the Doha agreement, like many agreements and kisses between politicians in Lebanon, it has no constitutional or legal legitimacy. Who decides the "spirit" of the Doha agreement (besides fortune tellers)? Pierre Al-Gemayyel led the country to civil war and collaborated with the Israeli enemy in the name of the National [Pact]’s spirit. Keep us away from spirits, Minister. Metri then repeatedly speaks about "prohibiting declaring others traitors, and political and sectarian instigation." This is certainly hypocritical and cannot be negated by affirmations. Again, who besides your excellency decides the standard for declaring someone a traitor. There is obscurity here because this description is easily used in Lebanon to silence dissident voices. And where were you, Minister Metri, when your partner Ahmad Fatfat (who else?) of the previous government accused me personally of treason on the pages of this newspaper for no other reason than that I had criticized (or "trespassed upon" per Fatfat's expression) Rafiq Al-Hariri. Did you, as someone who discourages resorting to a judgment of treason, rush to condemn Fatfat's speech? Did you utter a single word at the time? Because it is not easy to agree upon a clear definition of treason, especially since Solanj Al-Gemayyil, who prepared dishes of appetizers for Ariel Sharon (as he wrote in his memoirs), sits under the Parliament's dome and since the Maronites’ patriarch does not cease to apologize for the murderers, collaborators and butchers in the South Lebanon Army, the definition of treason has become obscure, and this is bad. When there is no agreement among the Lebanese people, not even on that Israel is an enemy, then all vulgar polemics are merely hogwash and part of political bickering.
There are more dangerous matters, Tariq Metri. When the ruling elite denounces declaring others as traitors (even though it practices it towards its adversaries), does it prepare Lebanon for a phase in which deeming others as treason is entirely excluded from Lebanese law? What about treason itself? What about dealing, communicating and collaborating with the Israeli enemy, which current Lebanese law penalizes? Is this what the Patriarch meant when he highlighted in a recent sermon the importance of overruling laws and concepts that pertain to the era of occupation (he uses occupation to refer only to Syrian reign in Lebanon. We can't say here that the Patriarch spoke against the Israeli occupation, because he wants Lebanon to get along with "all its neighbors"). Deeming one guilty of treason is part of criticism in all democratic countries. It is widespread in this country. Right-wing author Ann Coulter has written an entire book titled Treason in which she deemed Liberals in America traitors. The danger here does not lie in parties' use of the treasonous label or the ease of using names and descriptions in organizations, but rather when it is used by governments (and all Arab governments use the definitions and laws for political reasons, which makes true pursuit of the treasonous virtually impossible. How can you pursue Israel's agents in Lebanon if Rustum Ghazala imprisons Tahseen Khayyat under charges of agency for Israel if he doesn't succumb to him, for example?). Governments may repress under both treason laws and prohibition thereof. Tariq Metri's team plans to limit liberties in Lebanon under the rubric of disallowing media outlets to deem individuals traitors. Considering others traitors is a part of free speech in a country, exactly like the freedom to exchange insults and name-calling between political rivals.
Tariq Metri shouldn't try passing legislation that gives politicians more freedoms than those afforded (or reserved) to the media. Politicians are exchanging treasonous labels and insults in Parliament, which is their right a universal right. However, placing violence and verbal speech on the same footing is a petty trick that lacks constitutional muster. It's as ironic as Fouad Seniora's talk about "merits democracy" while he's a part of a group headed by Sa'd Al-Hariri, as if the latter had gained his position due to merit. Democracies, not the Wahhabi regimes that embrace you, Tariq Metri, do not limit free speech and do not deem speech as violent unless it involves threat of bodily harm. Otherwise, you're attempting to erode free speech regardless of your use of words that equate speech and violence. It is rather funny (or sad) that the Seniora government considers criticism of a particular political tract violent speech (or verbal violence) while one of its leaders called for the assassination of the president of a neighboring country (not Israel) and called on the US to send booby-trapped cars to Damascus. This does not constitute violent speech in your definition but you do object to naming someone "an ex-leftist" and consider it a threat to his safety. From where do you get these standards, Minister Metri?
Tariq Metri resorts in another section of his emergency draft (which is similar to emergency proclamations in Arab countries that claimed to work on the liberation of Palestine and restricted freedoms in the name of the liberation of Palestine) to stating he intends to "secure balanced coverage". Balanced? Again, who decides? Has nobody brought to your attention the fact that balanced coverage has become an international joke because right-wing Fox News, which is the most biased here, presents itself as "fair and balanced"? Will the balance you're calling for be similar to that of Fox News'? Minister Metri expresses naiveté, or deception, when he calls for the separation of news and opinion. How will that happen, Minister Metri? It is possible to separate the two? See Pierre Bourdieu's book About Television which describes a reality created by the media, not reflected by it, even without intervention by the state elite. He warns of a new kind of indirect censorship. There are limitations and restrictions on speech under capitalism that follow from capital's tyranny, especially since expensive television dwarves other media outlets. Media independent of the Saud and Hariri families' monopoly can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
In his discussion of "the common good", Metri reminds us of the Baath Party's statements in the 1960's. Which common good is this, Information Minister, when blood has become as cheap as water (as Amal Danqul says) on the streets of Beirut and Tripoli? If the Lebanese can't agree on the identity of the enemy, do you want them to agree on the common good? You're detached in your ivory tower. Metri reaches the peak of orwellianism in the fifth section of his ominous draft when he shamelessly addresses the "purification" of media of "assault" and "mockery". What's wrong with mockery, esteemed Minister? Mockery and satire are literary devices. If you really want to purify media and school curricula, you might as well omit the books of Al-Jahiz, Ahmad Faris Al-Shidiaq and Maroon Abood for consistency with your information philosophy. Will this article be subject to your purification process? What happened to you, Minister Metri? How can an educated person, or a citizen, call for the purification of speech of mockery? Do you have any idea what the repercussions of your proposal are? Will you prohibit the satire of Al-Hutai'a and Al-Mutanabbi too? What will you leave for us? What will happen to our liberties if we allow you the freedom of repression? Whether you know it or not, you've become an enemy to culture and liberties, and moreover you discourage "excess" of criticism. Are you kidding, Mr. Minister? Did you import this legislation from a repressive Arab regime? Are you going to prescribe for us doses of criticism like a physician prescribes medicine? Have you become a pharmacist, Mr. Minister? Is this like Fakhri Karim's thesis about "permitted speech"? You've gone so far in your statement as to prohibit agitation and political discourse. How can there be politics without agitation? This is part of the political process without which democracy can't survive in this miserable homeland.
No, Mr. Minister. Your project is very dangerous and hints of destroying the last venues of free expression in Lebanon. We don't know why one independent newspaper that has no connection to your abundant wealth disturbed you, agents and allies of Al-Hariri. Your intentions were clear when Sa'd Al-Hariri entered the political arena: he didn't only accept and legislate Syrian restriction of Lebanese liberties, but he went farther than Ghazi Kan'an and Rustum Ghazala. There are numerous stations and newspapers that were sued, shut down or threatened with closing by the "Salafi Future" current. This flows with Saudi official disapproval of criticism in Lebanon. Ibrahim Salama discusses this in his valuable book "Tomorrow We Will Enter The City"; voices can be silenced, opinions may be sold out, consciences may be rented, biographies may be transformed, but absolute rule is not possible.
You've changed dramatically, Minister Metri. Those who knew you in college say you're now an entirely different person. We won't discuss your choices; those are your business. However, you're subject to democratic accountability by any citizen. You're free to change, and that's up to you, but you have no right to change us or to change public opinion.
Walid Jumblat: the (former?) ally of the US
PS This will not be translated by MEMRI which only translates Jumblat's anti-Syrian statements, which have been diminishing.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Dubai miracle
Oranges
Race in the US
kindness
This is Zionism
Reading and writing
Anti-Semitism: Redefined (again) by Israel
no compulsion
Swine Flu in Lebanon
An Arab wife
When the New York Times writes history
Ticking bomb
Street fights
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Porn and fundamentalism
Oman fine
Dahlan, O Dahlan
American Exceptionalism
Good news from Rafah
PS As you know, the person who sends me the first picture of a cow in the tunnel, will receive Angry Arab super duper blender.
Defamation
Reprimanded
How dare they
Mistakes...mere mistakes
Learning from AIPAC
A Polish Spy: a record of lies
Ahmadinajad
Sudanese dictator
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Spies, collaborators, and terrorists:
Abbas Family Empire
Free potatoes for all
House of Obama and House of Saud
I told you so, damn it
Palestinian kids versus...Israeli terrorist soldiers
A Lebanonese at Harvard
Pigs Often Infect Farmers, Meatpackers
"Pigs have their own versions of influenza, and studies of farmers and meatpackers suggest that the animals fairly regularly infect people."
Bin Laden on the Hariri Ticket in Lebanon
An Arab leader
Friday, April 24, 2009
The Dangerous Man
Shiny
This is Zionism
87,215 Iraqis
All the news that fit...the ideology of AIPAC
Dubai miracle
Nakbah Denial
When the criminals investigate themselves
From the foreign editors of the New York Times
Sami Sharaf's memoirs
The Economist
Thursday, April 23, 2009
It is all clear now
Robert Worth on Lebanon
Review of my talk last night
Omar Charif
EU standards
Rhetoric versus actions
Zionism and pets
lying for Israel
I told you so, damn it
Armed historian
For you O Jamal Mubarak
Where is Abu Mazen?
UAE's royal torturers
`Abd-us-Sattar Qasim
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Ahmad Dallal: Provost of AUB
How the sons of...Abu Mazen "won" US contracts
Nothing
Dahlan o Dahlan
One house (or more) at a time
Talking about Blogging
Hariri tribunal update
Boycott calls in Canada
Another Lebanese genius: who "discovers" a cure for cancer
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Deposit him away from me
Zionism-IS-Racism
I never liked elections anyway
Israeli terrorist activities
Boo hoo hoo
I mean, come on
Mubarak and Gas
And the New York TImes is part of this scandal
1967 war
University Degree...and Lebanon
Lies and fabrications of MEMRI
Israeli Orientalism
Prince Sulstan and I
A fistful of dollars for dead Afghans
Monday, April 20, 2009
He is not happy
Signs of liberation
Zionist puppet
Arabs
Prevention
Puppets of Zionism
Friends of AIPAC
Zionist water
Six months for killing an Arab (he will be out in two)
Israel displeased
Model UN
Zionist propaganda
Insulting the Emir
With shoes
Adonis in Sulaymaniyyah
Colonial Power
Collaborators Watch: Serving Israeli collaborators and spies
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Israel's dirty hands
Dumb Zionism
Radical Leftists
He is Fired
Chaos and Revolution in Egypt? No way.
Ads
Tarsh Al-Bahr
The piano tune of normalization
Iraq:free, sovereign, and democratic
Good killers versus bad killers
The Mummified President
Karim kindly and quickly translated my latest article from Al-Akhbar.
The Mummified President: Or the Follower of the Follower.
The crisis between Hezbollah and the regime in Egypt has been branching out leading the Al-Arabiya channel to give the matter its own segment during its daily news slash propaganda a few days ago. The channel hosted the editor-in-chief of Rose-Ul-Yusuf along with the retired Lebanese colonel Hesham Jaber. To add a bit of “objectivity”, Saleh Al-Qellab was also invited, or perhaps to conciliate the opposing points of view.
Rose-Ul-Yusuf magazine, like all government aligned and (beloved) official Egyptian magazines and newspapers lost the attractiveness which it hasn’t known for decades now. For instance, it’s enough to compare Al-Ahram before the revolution and during the era of Nasser and the same Al-Ahram during the eras of Sadat and Mubarak. Who reads Al-Ahram these days at all, except those who want to find out who died from the obituaries section? The current Rose-Ul-Yusuf represents a familiar pattern found today in official Arab media outlets (or electronic media sites such as Elaph): A media that is in liberal disguise while it has in fact allied itself to autocratic and tyrannical regimes in return for many benefits. A media that uses sleaze and women as objects as well as rousing those repressed urges to attract readership. This magazine is an official outlet for the ruling party no matter what the latter does and no matter how many or who it murders. What’s also ironic is that both Sadat’s media and Saudi media are incessantly attacking Nasser for his role in oppressing the press, as if the current media either in Egypt or Saudi Arabia or Jordan is free and uncensored. Those in these medias mentioned above forget that Egyptian newspapers and publications in the days of Nasser were actually read and circulated: Al-Ahram had writers of such caliber as Mahfouz, Al-Hakim, Edris, Louis ‘Awaad, Ghali Shukri and many other talented writers. But who can point to even one talent in Mubarak’s media today? It is enough to show the mediocrity of such media by noting that Oussama Saraya is the current editor in chief of Al-Ahram. Any comparison in this regard between Mohammad Hasanein Haykal, for instance, and no matter what could be said about the man, and Oussama Saraya does not have a favorable outcome to Mubarak or Sadat….or Saraya himself. Al-Ahram used to employ a multitude of intellectuals and writers, while it’s crammed today with Jamal’s [Mubarak] gang as he relentlessly inflame sectarian and religious feelings. What this means is that the Egyptian media condemns in practice any sectarian agitation unless it is endorsed by its own institutions, be they governmental or media institutions. In the same manner, this media promotes a narrow form of country-wide nationalism and doesn’t invoke pan-Arab nationalism except in the context of countering the Safavid-Qajarid grand scheme.
In any case, the episode referred to, started with violent bashing coming from the editor in chief of Rose-Ul-Yusuf – the magazine that praises America and criticizes it in the same issue according to the needs of Hosni Mubarak and whether a report on human rights status in Egypt has been issued by an American official. But the Egyptian’s regime interest has been concurrent with that of the U.S and Israel for the past years; ever since the regime in Egypt discovered that it had made a mistake in thinking that the American administration – any administration – gives any weight to the status of human rights under any Arab regime. The Egyptian regime then settled down and dismissed its unfounded fears! Al-Qellab, who was supposed to be representing the neutral point of view in the discussion, was rather angered, indignant, threatening, furious and abusive! The little darling – as they would call him in the Levant – was previously the minister of information under the Jordanian regime. Usually, working for the Arab regimes of oppression is a lousy profession, but it becomes even lousier and more despicable if it’s a profession in the domains of either media or intelligence (with permission from Samir ‘Atalla the professional writer of praises to prince Muqrin and Jihad El-Khazen the professional writer of praises to prince Nayef). The sole function of the media under the Hashemite regime is to defend the financial and political collaboration with Israel, and to defend the massacres committed by the Jordanian army against the Palestinian people. ‘Adnan Abou ‘Odeh was for example, trained in Britain on the fundamentals of psychological warfare (as mentioned by Avi Shalim in his hagiographic biography of King Hussein) before taking up the task of defending the September massacres in the Jordanian media.
Al-Qellab appeared as an expert, yet even a Faqih in Shi’ite Jurispendence, who issued a fatwa in favour of Tyre’s expelled mufti Ali Al-Amin (a darling of prince Muqrin), and who volunteers in Egyptian and Saudi medias to adopt the stances of both governments – in addition to that of a third government in the region – including the policies of humiliating the Shi’ites and sectarian agitation against them. But counting on the expelled mufti of Tyre to win over the Shi’ite public opinion is like the American’s counting on Ahmad Al Shalabi in 2003 to lead Iraq and to sign a peace treaty between the “new” Iraq and Israel. Meanwhile, and as for Hesham Jaber, he is reminiscent of the token liberal guest in the right-wing Fox news network. It is widely known that Fox invites eloquent and staunch right-wingers while it invites a timid inhibited liberal guest. Saudi & Hariri-aligned media thus similarly invite someone like Hesham Jaber to defend the opposed point of view. Jaber expressed his deep respect for the profanity of Qellab and the Rose-Ul-Yusuf guest before also expressing his respect for the expelled mufti of Tyre. Jaber also mumbled some talk about his disagreement with Hezbollah when the viewer had assumed that Jaber was invited to represent the other point of view! But these are the criteria of diversity according to the media of the house of Saud.
The Egyptian campaign against Hezbollah is becoming fiercer as we speak, and is widening to encompass the media of Prince Salman bin Abdul-Aziz. The latter is anxious to be crowned king of Saudi Arabia, as I was told years ago by the former American ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Chas Freeman. This prince Salman is hasting to get more intimate with Zionists so maybe America would help him become King, as any reader can notice from reading his London-based newspaper.
Meanwhile, the Egyptian campaign in the media is not countered by Hezbollah’s media, which thinks that its silence is an intelligent outmaneuvering on its part. Nasrallah’s most recent speech was clear in explaining the party’s position towards the various Arab regimes. The party explained by saying that it is not against any of the Arab regimes, and declared that it will not wage any campaigns against any Arab regime. The guests of Al-Manar TV know that in the past few months all guests were asked to refrain from criticizing Saudi Arabia. But it seems that the party is unaware that it is the Arab regimes themselves that seek adversity and war with Hezbollah, even if the latter chooses the path of peace and reconciliation. The plot is already in place whether Hezbollah wants to acknowledge it or not, in the same manner in which the Jordanian regime discovered in a suitable moment (suitable to Israel of course) plots by Hamas to carry out bombings in Jordan.
Who said that it is only Ba’athist regimes that foil infernal plots in their countries? But Hezbollah did not attain the truth that George Habash and Wadi’ Haddad previously attained following the events of 1967: That the goal of liberating Palestine contradicts in both words and actions with remaining at peace with the Arab regimes (but the PFLP later abandoned this deduction). But Hezbollah can be excused in preferring not to go to arms with these regimes, because the card of sectarian embattlement being officially used by the Saudi camp, weakens Hezbollah. This is because the latter is easy to criticize as a result of its divisive ideological nature and sectarian constitution. For instance, the party can be blamed for not being interested in building a pro-resistance front similar to the pro-Palestinian revolution front established by Kamal Jumblat. The party can also be blamed for not being comfortable in allying itself with the secular-leftist branch of the resistance in Lebanon and outside of Lebanon. However it cannot be blamed for not wanting or not being capable of adopting a different ideology.
But the Egyptian regime is clueless in all matters. The whole issue – all of the issue – is the bequeathal of the presidency that the mummified president is working on with diligence and perseverance. Hosni Mubarak is the quintessential president of hazard just like his mentor Anwar Sadat was. If Sadat was a follower of Nasser (the pillars of power agreed on Sadat because he was the least dangerous follower, and was the living example of “Yes Sir!” in the era of Nasser, then Mubarak was raised as a follower of Sadat: He was the perfect follower of the follower. It was ironic that both Mubarak and Sadat named their firstborns “Jamal” after Nasser. Mubarak’s loyalty to Sadat was absolute, while many of Sadat’s foreign ministers abandoned their president because of his peace accord with Israel, including the Cigar puffer Ismail Fahmi, who was taken by “Dear Henri” [Kissinger]. Colleague Robert Springborg in his book about Mubarak’s Egypt nailed it in his analysis about Mubarak’s rule being a regime that depends on the domination by both military and intelligence institutions, with their involvement in different sectors of the “engorged” national economy. In addition, Mubarak, the veteran follower did not trust any follower and still refuses to appoint a vice president. When Abdul-Halim Abou Ghazaleh became too strong, he ousted him, and when Sh’eban Abdul-Rahim expressed his love for Amro Mousa, he isolated the latter in his post in the Arab league. Like Gilgamesh, Arab leaders suffer from the complex of immortality: They cannot comprehend why they are not immortal. Old age disturbs them so you see the octogenarian among them such as Mubarak or Abdullah entering their ninth decade with pitch black hair. Grey hair only happens to others from among the masses and not to the hair to rulers (Saddam insisted on dying his hair even under captivity). But Mubarak found a magical recipe that guarantees the bequeathal of his presidency: He discovered and much to his satisfaction that the American administration does not care about democracy or human rights, and that both issues are usually used to achieve further concessions for the interest of Israel, and further cooperation with America’s current global warfare. The black-haired man – the mummified president who competes with Pharaohs – that normalization with Israel can reduce any American (and European) criticism of his oppressive regime, and while also increasing Western support for his prodigal inheritor. What joy for Egypt, the “mother of all of the world”: Jamal Mubarak speaks fluent English, and secretly cooperated with Bush and supported the American invasion of Iraq. History will reveal once written that Arab countries formed secret parts of the coalition forces allied with America in its invasion of Iraq, specially that recent American reports described Jordan as “a secret” member in the coalition of occupation in Iraq. It is thus that Mubarak accelerated the pace of normalization, and it was thus that Egypt’s participation faltered in raising the (whispering) voice against Israel’s aggression and terrorism. It’s truly funny that Egypt’s official media is now hiding behind a repeated crisis threatening Egypt’s “national security”. But is there no one to tell these people that Egypt’s national security was over the day the first Sinai accord was signed? Are they jesting when talking about Egypt’s national security when Israel is besieging Gaza and bombing positions on the border with Egypt? Where was this so-called national security when the Israel government was in an emergency session to look into Egypt’s request for permission to send more Egyptian policemen on the Egyptian side of the border to protect Israel’s security no less? The truth is that Camp David treaty that included both public and secret items have dissolved the concept of an Egyptian national security and raised the matters of Israeli security above everything else. But the Egyptian government is following Sadat’s example: A racist chauvinistic mobilization of the people of Egypt in order for the latter to abandon the Palestinian cause (and making the latter seem like a burden on Egyptian interests) and that hides behind a sectarian mobilization, damaging the national unity in Egypt and unleashing violent Jihadist movements in the Sadat era, even if it satisfied the Arab liberals working for the Saud and (Shakhbout) families.
The media in Egypt does not mention the threat of the state of Israel, which invades, bombs and murders around the clock, to Egypt’s national security. This is while one member from Hezbollah in Egypt became a certain threat to Egyptian national security. The propagandists of Hosni Mubarak did not notice the humiliation incurred by the regime’s allegation about a conspiracy of Hezbollah’s sole member in Egypt. What country is that that is shaken by one man’s conspiracy (whether real or fictional)? The one man conspiracy would have made an excellent title for an Egyptian movie in the 70s. But the Egyptian government does what it must do in order to secure Jamal Mubarak’s succession of his father, and to garner American, Israeli and European support for this succession before any grey hairs appear in Hosni Mubarak’s scalp. Putting his house in order seems to be the priority of “Si Hosni” but he has one problem: his son lacks any legitimacy of any kind even if he is surrounded by fat cats. Jamal Mubarak cannot take any credit for the alleged October victory. The increasing intimacy between the Egyptian regime and Israel threaten the foundations of the legacy that will be handed by Mubarak to his son. The Egyptian media is aware of this, and is thus creating virtual deeds of heroism for Hosni Mubarak. While the Egyptian media was crammed with the news of the dangerous conspiracy planned and carried out by one member of Hezbollah, the Ahram newspaper and others carried headlines about Egyptian pressures and campaigns to resist the judaization of Jerusalem and opposing the building of settlements. Indeed, these are heroic acts by Mohammed Hosni Mubarak. But we heard nowhere about these Egyptian campaigns. Mubarak’s conmen are trying to remind us of the sacrifices by the Egyptian people for Palestine, but the people (in all Arab countries) are one matter and the regimes are another matter. In any case, if Arab regimes had well defended Palestine in 1948 and prevented the establishment of the usurping state, it would have saved its people many sacrifices be it dear or cheap, and many poems! But no doubt that the regimes of Sadat and Mubarak succeeded in building a narrow nationalist identity that previously withered under Nasser, with the latter having succeeded in mobilizing his people with slogans of a quasi-secular pan-Arab identity. Nasser did not separate between the fate of his people and the fate of Palestine, but he damaged both by handing over his army’s capabilities of the King of Drug-induced euphoria, the happy field-marshal. Nasser’s ability to promote a nationalist identity came from self-confidence and awareness of the true nature of his popularity, while both of his successors sought to strengthen their rule with narrow-minded foundations to capture the support of a hungry, tired, overpopulated, irritated and defeated country. It is for this reason that Sadat created the game of the crossing of the canal and the October victory. But of course, one cannot reduce the Egyptian people to the slogans of an unelected regime, but one cannot deny either the ability of regimes – all regimes – to promote countrywide nationalistic slogans such as “Jordan First” and “Lebanon First” or “Wahhabism First”. Even the Azhar’s religious authority was historically a pliable tool of even the British rule, issuing fatwas that urge sacrifices for the sake of Palestine a night before issuing a fatwa permitting the greeting of Shemon Peres as a form of respect. Inflating this narrow countrywide nationalist is an attempt by the regimes which have the support of 100% of all voters (even reaching numbers above 100% as declared by a Syrian interior minister from the fifties) to merge the regime with the dignity of the people, making any attack against the regime by anyone whether inside and especially if outside of the country, an attack against the pride and the dignity of the people. It is for this reason that the Egyptian regime insisted on making the criticisms against it and its declared collaboration, cooperation and even alliance with Israel during the past years, seem like an attack on Egypt itself. Sadat was proficient in playing such tricks, when he turned any opposition against his humiliating peace with Israel into a racist campaign against Egyptians, describing any Egyptians opposed to Camp David as spies and agents of a foreign country. In a similar context, Oussama Saraya is bellowing in a style that makes the Ahmad Sa’id’s remarks seem polite in comparison that “People far and wide know what Egypt does for the sake of Palestinians”.
First of all, notice how Hosni Mubarak becomes a personification of the whole of Egypt. Secondly, it is true that people far and wide know that the Egyptian regime turned the Palestinian cause, previously the corner stone of Egyptian foreign policy, into a marginal issue that falls under the jurisdiction of Egyptian intelligence. People far and wide also know that the Egyptian regime has become a collaborator (in the same manner in which the Jordanian regime was since its inception by British colonialism before being handed over to American colonialism when both the sun and the moon set on British colonialism) with the Israeli scheme to strike at the heart of the Palestinian cause by killing as many Palestinians as possible. People far and wide know that the suffocating siege on Gaza could not have taken place without the complete cooperation with the Egyptian government. But Saray’s pen slipped in his article where he yelled and denounced Hezbollah’s plot to antagonize Israel against Egypt. This is the true nature of the threat against the so-called Egyptian national security. Who would have imagined that a day will come where an Arab regime – especially in Egypt – would accuse Arab opponents of trying to ruin its relations with Israel? What can this ruin mean between an Arab regime and Israel? How is it possible to conciliate even a verbal defense of the bare minimum of the Palestinian people’s rights and the fear of ruined relations with Israel? Did Israel in its history ruin its relations with Arab countries when it invaded or bombed Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, Sudan, Iraq, Palestine, Jordan and Syria? The Israeli media is participating in Mubarak’s parade for the bequeathal of his presidency: Shemon Peres now issues decrees in Sunni and Shi’ite jurispendence armed with a Saudi and Azhari sponsorship. Israel respects the Egyptian’s caution not to ruin its relations with the Zionist occupations-state. This is while the Saudi media differs between one prince and another, but Hazim Saghiya (who considered the racism of Sa’id ‘Akl and his alliance with Israel and his invitation to kill Palestinians in Lebanon during the civil war some sort of entertainment) objected to the threats against Egyptian sovereignty, even if he had previously considered the American invasion of Iraq as not violating Iraqi sovereignty. This effectively means that to him, a Hezbollah’s member’s violation of Egyptian sovereignty is more dangerous than the violation of Iraqi sovereignty by the entire American army. Fuad Sanyyra happens to visit Egypt during the crisis: But his visit was private and not connected to the crisis at all. The phone call between Mubarak and Sanyura is not connected to the conspiracy of inducing the ruin of Egypt’s relations with Israel. Sanyura showed his understanding because he too did the impossible before Israel’s war on Lebanon and afterwards to not induce a severance between Lebanon and Israel. His famous tears were in grief over this. The official Arab regime is in consensus that the quarrel between itself and Israel is renounceable and must be avoided, but as for the regime’s bid to agitate sectarian warring and provoking a Palestinian civil war, that is condemnable. You have entered the era of peace and harmony, so lower your heads or bow them all together, lest they bump into the ceiling of National-Countrywide security.
Freedom and sovereigny in Iraq
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Birth of the Clinic: Discipline, Punish, and Torture
The torturers agonized and suffered: Poor torturers
Prisoners in Iraq
Torture in Iraq
Women and sexual violence of war
Walid Jumblat--unplugged
Now Hariri
Friday, April 17, 2009
The Mummified President
...off to Burlingame and then to NYC
My beloved Eggplant
Diet
US military assistance to Lebanon
Flash: the real Walid Jumblat
The real Lebanon
Women and children
Blocked
Where is your shoe when you need it
For Democracy
The Self-made Crook/collaborator: Abu Mazen's son
An arrogant Piano player who thinks he can teach the natives
All that you have done to our people is registered in notebooks
You bet
gifts
Lebanese...abroad
On the lies of the Zionist Entity
Oman-Saudi rift
US Military Aid to Lebanon
Thursday, April 16, 2009
The Prince of TV Sleaze
Corrupt royal families that you like
Hamas Repression
Killing civilians continue
War criminals can't be sued...if they are Israeli
The Mission of Killing Civlians
Take your piano and go
Bush-Obama Doctrine
Abu Mazen's Son and his fortune
Killed by Israeli terrorists in Gaza
FLASH: MEMRI is for Arab reforms
Only in Al-Akhbar
Saudi Prizes
Terrorists and torturers from the Shin Bet in the US
Obsessions
PS One of my readers guessed right regarding the origin of the term "Zionist hoodlums." It is of course borrowed from a famous speech by Vanessa Redgrave.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Unusual entries
Rafah Crossing
Peres analyzes
This Israeli political culture is more diseased than ever
Pirates
High
Aphorisms of Thomas Friedman
He is proud
Horrors-stan: Other side of Kurdistan
Invariably, detentions were carried out by members of the Asayish , without producing an arrest warrant, and those detained were then denied access to legal representation or the opportunity to challenge their continuing detention before a court of law or an independent judicial body, throughout their incarceration. Some detainees were subjected to enforced disappearance, including some whose fate and whereabouts have yet to be disclosed – typically, following their arrest by the Asayish or the intelligence services of the two main Kurdish parties, their families were unaware of their fate and whereabouts and were unable toobtain information about them, or confirmation of their detention from the authorities. Dozens of other prisoners, meanwhile, are under sentence of death having been convicted in unfair trials."" Of course, given Arab prejudices against Kurds, I don't want this to be blamed on the Kurdish people themselves or to be used to justify the denial of their legitimate rights. (thanks Joel)
Abu Mazen's Son: A Self-made Crook
Abu Mazen's son, the well-known crook Yasir (named after Yasir `Arafat before he labeled Abu Mazen as the "Hamid Karzai of Palestine") talks to Al-Arabiyya TV. He said that he collaborates with Israel because everybody collabroates with Israel "except those who live "on rain". He admittd that he is a millionaire but denies that he is a crook ("I am not a crook" he almost said) and said that he collected his fortune with his "sweats." He said that 25% of his business goes to the Palestinian Authority. He said that he started his company with a "modest capital." He said that he hit it big with Falcon Tobacco which became the official distributor of American cigarettes. (thanks George)
