Dispatch from Hummus Square in Beirut: My friend S. sent me this from Beirut:
"Yesterday, S. and I went to Sahet el-Hirriyyeh to attend a concert in support of siyadeh, hirriyyeh, isti’lal. There must have been around 400 people only, and the average age must have been 17. It was pathetic. The main reason we went was because S. wanted to see Sami Clark, “al-mutrib al-romansi” as he was introduced. The loudest slogans were “Abu Baha’, Abu Baha’”. The whole thing was downright stupid. They announced ‘El-Dactore Wadi’ ess-Safi’ was going to sing, and when the time came for him to appear, only his mule of a son showed up and started to bray like a donkey. After the romantic Sami Clark, we left and drank for five hours."

A sign that democracy has come to Afghanistan: "Gap between rich and poor widens in Afghanistan: Some buy watches for $4,000, others heat homes with dung"

By Egyptian artist Umar Najdi.

" Danish T-shirts 'to fund rebels'" (thanks Laleh)

"Why an Economic Boycott of Israel is Justified"

"The U.S. has sunk nearly $200 million into TV Marti's programming aimed at Cuba. But one scholar estimates it has 'nearly zero viewership." (We spend more on Al-Hurra TV)

"A former Defense Department analyst was sentenced to more than 12 years in prison yesterday for passing government secrets to two employees of a pro-Israel lobbying group and to an Israeli government official in Washington." (He will be out in less than a year, and will join one of the thinktanks in DC, and my even receive the Congressional Medal of Freedom later in life).

"Lessons Learned in Iraq Show Up in Army Classes: Culture Shifts to Counterinsurgency"

I see that right-wing Lebanonese advocate Michael Young is now writing for the Washington Institute. That is the logical place for him, and for all other Arab--I think that he is Phoenician--neo-conservatives.

Yes, but this is tied to the factional division within the Kuwaiti royal family--between the Salim and the Jabir branches, and not to some democratic impulse of Al-Qabas newspaper.

Apparently, Bush's public diplomacy aimed at winning hearts and minds of Muslims is working: "Thousands of demonstrators protested against a US missile strike yesterday that targeted al-Qaida leaders in a Pakistani village, chanting their support for holy war and burning effigies of George Bush."

You may not have read this; but when the incident occurred between members of the PFLP-GC and a Lebanese government employee (a Lebanese Forces member) in Na`mah, some supporters of Jumblat took to the streets in Na`mah, and among their chants were cheers for Saddam and for Zarqawi. The Washington Post and even Lebanese newspapers did not report that. They are busy covering the Hummus tent.

So former Iraqi puppet prime minister/car bomber/embezzler-in-Yemen/Saddam's henchman, Iyad `Allawi, lost 15 more seats in the new Iraqi parliament-under-occupation. This with all the US and Saudi support. Maybe he needed some Macedonian support.

Bin Laden's fulminations (and his Orientalism). In the past, I would read the text of Al-Qa`idah's speeches with an eye on their targeted audiences. I was always curious to know which audience the speaker is targeting. A pattern was established: Zarqawi addressed himself to Al-Qa`idah's kooky membership; Adh-Dhawahiri addressed himself to the Arab/Islamic community; while Bin Laden addressed both audiences (with the exception of the speech that talked about a truce with Europe). This speech was addressed by Bin Laden to...the American public. Shocking, but true. You have to understand the personality if the speaker. Bin Laden, like Saddam, is quite arrogant and conceited, and they seem themselves as skillful enough to know how to address Western audiences. After all, Saddam has a book (collection of speeches really) titled: How Should We Address the Western Mind). Bin Laden does the same here; he thinks that he can convince or persuade the American audience, or it could be a ploy, or a justification for future attacks after the fact, as Fisk offers. I heard the speech, and read the text. It is, from the standpoint of their propaganda or from the standpoint of what Adorno calls immanent critique (I should say that Adorno took that from Herman Dooyeweerd who first mentioned immanent critique back in 1922) , a lousy speech. I would say of all the Bin Laden's tedious speeches following Sep. 11, his first speech was the only effective one--for his own perspective--in reaching an audience, and in capturing the attention of many in the Arab/Muslim audience. He knew how to phrase it, and what buttons to push, and what chords to strike, and most importantly how to deliver it. It does not mean that those who were attentive to his speech back then necessarily agreed with Al-Qa'idah, or that they would endorse its violent deeds. But the rest of the speeches were largely ignored, and they were weak in composition and delivery. I also notice that the audio quality of the speeches of Dhawahiri and Bin Laden are not the same; Bin Laden's speeches seem to be taped and then taped and then transmitted via phone, and then taped ,etc. Does that mean that Dhawahiri feels safer his hiding place? But what was striking about the speech is the paragraph before last: he basically talks about Arabs and Muslims in the same hostile Orientalist fashion of Raphael Patai or David Pryce-Jones. I don't know which translation you read, but I am referring to the Arabic version here. He says: "we seek revenge forever, and days and nights will not pass until we take revenge..." Here, he basically reinforces the stereotypical assumptions of classical Orientalist with their focus on tribal structures and Bedouin lifestyles. But that is not surprising: many of the Islamic fundamentalist dogmas conform to classical Orientalist assumptions about Arabs/Muslims.

Today, many people in Washington DC (at AEI in particular) are crying. Ahmad Chalabi did not win a seat in the Iraqi parliament-under-occupation.

I read that Amnesty International official Claudio Cordone visited An-Nahar in Beirut, and offered his condolences and praised Jubran Tuwayni. Now, Claudio: please tell me whether you also visit victims of Israeli bombings in Lebanon? Or do you only visit rich and pro-US victims in Lebanon? Hope you have not changed over the years.

Gen. `Awn never got along with the US, even when he was commander-in-chief of the Lebanese Army (I can't write "Lebanese Army" without smirking for some reason) in the administration of Amin Gemayyel. Read the book Best Laid Plans. And `Awn would like to get US support for his presidential aspirations, but he came to a different Lebanon. US major allies in Lebanon are now Sunnis and Druzes, and the "new" Lebanon is very different from the one that he had left behind when he went to exile. He resents the close alliance between the US and mini-Hariri, and that explains this sectarian tone in his attacks on Lebanese Forces (the allies of mini-Hariri) today. (In a bizarre speech to his supporters that aired only on New TV, `Awn basically justified the kidnapping of American hostages in Lebanon in the 1980s by implying that they were all spies. I know for a fact that he is wrong; many of the American hostages had no ties whatever to the US government, and were innocent of that charge).

"Wilkerson calls Bush an unsophisticated leader who has been easily swayed by "messianic" neoconservatives and power-hungry, secretive schemers in the administration. In a landmark speech in October, Wilkerson said: "What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made." He is particularly appalled by U.S. treatment of enemy detainees, counting at least 100 deaths in custody during the course of the war on terrorism -- 27 of them ruled homicides. "Murder is torture," he says. "It's not torture lite." As for the invasion of Iraq? A blunder of historic proportions, he believes. This is really a very inept administration," says Wilkerson, who has credentials not only as an insider in the Bush I, Clinton and Bush II presidencies but also as a former professor at two of the nation's war colleges. "As a teacher who's studied every administration since 1945, I think this is probably the worst ineptitude in governance, decision-making and leadership I've seen in 50-plus years. You've got to go back and think about that. That includes the Bay of Pigs, that includes -- oh my God, Vietnam. That includes Iran-contra, Watergate."

Walid....Gemayyel (Jumblat?): I saw the interview with Walid Jumblat on Al-Mustaqbal TV. I could not believe this chameleon who shifts in positions sometimes over night. But today he sounded like Pierre Gemayyel in 1975; all his explanations, interpretations, and narratives of the civil war did not deviate from the account of Pierre Gemayyel. And he stuck to that script for the entire time. Personally I never liked or respected Jumblat. I never enjoyed him as a Syrian client for decades, and enjoy him even less as a client of the US enterprise in Lebanon. Also, did you notice when Jumblat's mind dozed off at one point? When he said that Ta'if accords (1989) killed his father (1977)? His interviewer had to remind him that Ta'if was long after the assassination of Kamal Jumblat.

The conscience of `Abdul-Halim Khaddam: Former Syrian vice-president wants you to believe that he was not bothered when the Syrian regime crushed the Hamah rebellion and killed some 10,000 Syrians; that he was not bothered when the Syrian regime killed many Lebanese and Palestinians when it intervened militarily in Lebanon in 1976 to support the right-wing sectarian militias; he was not bothered when the Syrian government established the Syrian-Lebanese security order; he was not bothered when the Syrian government killed many of its opponents in Lebanon; he was not bothered when the Syrian Ba`thist elite set up an oppressive regime in 1970 and it remains in existence. But his conscience really bothered him when Syria supported an extension of the term of Emile Lahhud. What a man of principle and humanity he is, that `Abdul-Halim Khaddam.

This is an actual headline from New York Times: "Iraqi Voting Found to Be Flawed but Mostly Fair" (And San Francisco is today sunny but mostly cloudy)

Nir on why US troops should leave Iraq now. "As long as the United States remains in Iraq, no Iraqi government will be viewed as legitimate. Sunnis will continue to view Shias as collaborators and boycott the government, fighting both Americans and their Shia accomplices. Iraqi militias allied with the United States will feel free to continue torturing and killing, knowing their American big brother supports them. Americans will continue to alienate more and more Iraqis through humiliation and killings, adding recruits to the resistance. Radical Islamist hostility to the occupation will increase. More foreign mujahideen will infiltrate Iraq, seeking to fight against “the Crusaders and Jews” in a battle to re-establish the caliphate that will end only on judgment day. The jihad will spread, as it already has, as veterans of the jihad in Iraq take their fight elsewhere."

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"

"France defends right to nuclear reply to terrorism" (But Chirac added that he will forgive terrorists in return for cash)

Kofi Annan regularly offers his own interpretations of UNSC 1559. Yet, he would never dare offer opinions or interpretations of UNSC 242.

"Iran and Syria behind Tel Aviv bomb: Israel's Mofaz" (Mofaz forget to add that Cuba, Venzuela, North Korea were also responsible)

Dahlan versus Hamas

"Nearly 90% of Italians call themselves Catholics, but two-thirds favour legal recognition for unmarried couples, says study."

These are difficult questions to answer: Is Hilary Clinton more unprincipled than Bill Clinton? Is Al Gore more boring than John Kerry?

The Syrian government has released some political prisoners, but did not release `Arif Dalilah. Dalilah is a victim of the wrath of the ruling family; he dared badmouth Bushrah Al-Asad (Bashshar's sister and a center of power in her own right inside the regime) in his prison cell in the presence of a government informant who posed as a fellow prisoner.

Human Rights Patriotism??? "U.S. Policy of Abuse Undermines Rights Worldwide" So in the report, Human Rights Watch says that the torture practices of the US government undermine "US interests." But why should a human rights organization worry about the interest of this governmnet or that, or this country or that? Does Human Rights Watch argue that Chinese torture practices undermine "Chinese interests"? This shows you the paradigm from which HRW operates. Full report is here; but why is Lebanon not included in Middle East?

"NY Times' Nonresponses to FAIR Alert"

"France defends right to nuclear reply to terrorism" (But will will give up weapons for cash for Chirac)

"I subsidize bread. I subsizide sugar. I subsidize everything." Husni Mubarak on Egyptian state TV, 2005.

"Men get greater satisfaction than women from seeing someone they dislike suffer pain shows a study of how people react when witnessing revenge. Scientists found highly significant differences between the genders in how male and the female brains respond."

This is Zionism: "Palestinian with Aids barred from Israeli hospital"

Peacekeepers??? "Five protesters killed as UN peacekeepers open fire in Ivory Coast"

"As scholars question the place of nudity in marriage, Islamic clerics are hotly debating exactly what sexual practices are acceptable" (That is what those Islamic scholars are busy debating. To wear or not to wear? That is the question for them).

From Jihad Al-Khazen in Al-Hayat. "There is the Angry Arab News Agency, by Dr. Asaad Abu Khalil, originally from Tyre, Lebanon. He teaches at the University of California and has a leftist slant, although he is an intellectual and his ideas are intelligent." ("Leftist slant?" Ultra-leftist, maybe?)

"UK accused of complicity in torture"

"Rightwing group offers students $100 to spy on professors"

...just came back. Too tired. Will not be able to update until tomorrow night after a long day of classes in Turlock and Berkeley.

...off to Washington, DC. Will return tomorrow night.

Flower Clouds, c. 1903. Odilon Redon.

"The U.S. Agency for International Development paints a dire and detailed picture of the Iraq security situation in its request for contractors to bid on its $1.32 billion, 28-month project to help stabilize 10 major Iraqi cities."