Worried Lebanese

If the title song doesn’t send U screaming out of the theater (luckily, my feet were aching), I’m sure U’ll find Eran Riklis last movie enjoyable and thought provoking (in a subtle way). Sure, the story has been told, but Riklis does it a bit differently. He doesn’t do the whole work for you. He offers all the elements - most of them we are familiar with - and it’s up to us to put them together. 

What he shows are two societies trapped in their mental systems: the Palestinians in their informal “intifada” mentality, the Israelis in their institutional “security obsessed” framework. Both societies speak different languages; and it’s not just about Hebrew versus Arabic, it goes deeper… it’s about institutional versus emotional, consumeristic versus economical survival, jewish-centric versus palestinian-centric…

This “linguistic” clash clearly comes across in the courtroom… the woman’s lawyer brings in a witness who tries to translate what he considers to be “key sentences” from Arabic to Hebrew. His language is poetic, he is appealing to the judge’s humanity. But the judge doesn’t hear him. She listens to the military lawyer’s arguments. They are factual, grounded in law, grounded in a law that allows the military complete powers on security matters, powers that even the Minister of the Interior doesn’t question. The Lemon tree are a security issue. But instead of uprooting the trees, as the military has decided, she decides it’s enough to trim them down to bonzaïs. 

This argument is similar to the one given by the Higher Court concerning the Wall. The Higher Court doesn’t question the opportunity of building a “security fence”/”separation wall” between the Palestinians from one side and the Israeli and Jewish settler population from another… It doesn’t try to balance short term “security” issues with humanitarian principles. It only tries to limit the “shocking” aspects of the israeli policy and its consequences. 

For years, the Lebanese political class (especially its christians side) has been obsessively sharing with anyone willing to listen to its babble, Pope John Paul’s unfortunate slogan: “Lebanon is more than a country it’s a message”. I personally would rather have more of a country than a message…  

This being said, I find it quite hard to understand how a country can be a message. I find it much easier to think of a country as a model, one that can be imitated or followed. But could Lebanon be one, with its many wars and its highly dysfunctional system? I believe it can. This obviously doesn’t means its political system should be copied elsewhere, but some of its elements have had positive results and it’s important to emphasise this. In order to achieve that, one shouldn’t look at the Lebanese political system as a whole, but distinguish its many principles and mechanisms (both formal and informal). After doing so, one might realise that the positive mechanisms could quite easily be transfered in similar societies.

I met a group of people today studying Hebrew and Arabic through a French organisation called “Parler en Paix” (Talking in Peace). They had a stand in the International Fair for Peace Initiatives that took place in Paris this weekend. A Lebanese organisation partook in the event too (for the first time it seems). Though every one was busy attending to his or her stand, some exchanges were possible, and they centered on two issues: the political situation in Lebanon and the Israeli-Lebanese conflict. I overheard some heated arguments, but on the whole, people from all sides discussed all issues very openly, and without taboos. It was rather nice for a change. 

I think two of the most interesting articles I read this year surrounding the 60th anniversary of Israel were penned by Bradley Burston, in the Israeli daily HaAretz : 

- We owe the Palestinians a state. 

- Sixty years of Nakba, 60 years of nothing.

Both articles are courageous and highlight very important things that were obliterated by the imposing celebrations of Israel’s independence day. What I most admired is what Burston terms Israel’s “tragic success”, and how he flips the coin to look at its other side. He invites Israelis to consider on that day what they owe the Palestinians. 

Lastly, he sums up the last two decades extraordinarily. During the 90s, “we lost our belief in the power of peace to solve our problems”, and “then we lost our faith in the power of war to do the same”.  

I just came back to Paris from a week isolation, cut off from the rest of the world: no telephone, no internet, no telly, no newspapers… And the first thing a fellow traveller tells me upon learning that I was Lebanese was “what do you think of the new president?”. I knew then that Michel Suleiman had become president. It didn’t really come as a surprise. He was the only candidate to the post. But I just couldn’t hide my disappointment. The disappointment only grew when I read his first presidential speech (first thing I did when I reached my room). Fuad Chehab was back, with a vengeance. 

Don’t be fooled by the picture you see in this post of a man in civilian clothes congratulated by his mother. What you see is the current commanding general of the lebanese army who stared at the warring parties during our short civil war, and who had stood by for two years while the islamist of Nahr el Bared and almost all the Lebanese parties rebuilt their militias… just like Chehab did in 1968. 

France has been honouring this year its 1968 revolution. Israel has been celebrating for over a week its 1948 establishment… Lebanon, strangely enough, will certainly not be commemorating the 50th anniversary of the 1958 civil war. Why?

How come so little is written about this year. How come so little research and analysis was done on it. Sure you can find a couple of good books on it, but they are usually descriptive and tend to show the war’s dynamics, and not it’s immediate and long term consequences on the Lebanese system.

People would argue that this is of little importance considering the present circumstances. But I’m not sure they are right. Comparisons are always interesting. They open up new perspectives and help you consider new paths of interpretation, and assists you in considering new possibilities and scenarios for your predictions.

One cannot help but see the similarities between 1958 and 2008: the international dimension (Cold war then, War on terrorism now), the regional dimension (Saudi and Syro-Egyptian rivalry then, Syro-Iranian vs Saudi-Egyptian now), and local dimension (pro and anti President now, pro and anti Prime minister now).

What about the differences? 

Bloomsbury Auctions in Mayfair will be selling tomorrow a letter written by Einstein in 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind. In it he speaks of religion and jewishness. In it, he claims that Jews “are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power”.

I found this sentence particularly interesting to ponder on, on a day like this, on May 14th, on the 60th anniversary of the creation of the State of Israel (celebrated last week, in accordance with the Jewish calendar). Alfred Einstein’s words were undeniably true before 1948, but how true were they when he wrote them, almost 8 years after the creation of the State of Israel? Israelis, as a nation, certainly do not lack power. As for the way their military exerts it, it seems rather reminiscent of that exerted by the neighbourhood bully. And as Israel declares itself a jewish state, the downfall of its actions reaches all jewish communities throughout the world.  

It took the Lebanese many years to name the war by its name. At first they called it “the events”. But when it started lingering on and stretching over a decade, they finally decided to call it a war. And then they started looking for adjectives… was it a civil war? a regional war? one war or a series of wars? Some started calling it the “other’s war”… or even the “war for others”… People still disagree on its name. but they do agree that it was a war, one war, and a bloody and destructive one. So much so that every time a spark sets out in Lebanon, people start crying “war, war”. 

But it isn’t war… at least not yet. It’s violence, a new form (or scope) of violence that fits in a larger dynamic that has been expanding for three years. It’s not the outburst of violence that is surprising but the extent of the restraint that has been exercised up to now. 

For several years now, a worldwide jewish movement has been voicing its rejection of the Israeli policy towards Palestinians, summing it up by the slogan “not in my name”.

I think we should do the same in Lebanon, replacing “my” by “our” because our political actors never refer to us as individuals, but express themselves as representatives of their communities. I personally don’t believe they represent their communities, and the responsibility of their acts certainly do not fall on their communities. It’s time they took on this responsibility themselves.  

Israel celebrated yesterday, it’s 60th anniversary. In a week, Palestinians will be commemorating the Nakba. It’s odd to see these two people commemorating the same event so differently  (and on two different dates, the Israelis follow the Jewish calendar while the Palestinians follow the international one) and regardless of what happened on the other side ever since.

There’s something obscene in the way Israelis (and the world press) are celebrating the establishment of Israel without even mentioning the plight of those who paid the highest price for it (and are still paying it till this very day). 

And to think that in a week the Palestinian will be commemorating the Nakba (the loss of their state and homes) fantasizing on their return as if time had stopped in 1948 and Israel is merely a mirage that would eventually disappear.  

If only there was a way to commemorate this event in its whole, in the same way the book “L’histoire de l’autre was written” (cover shown above).

Mohammad Kabbani, Future Movement MP, announced yesterday that it would only take 24 hours to open the Halat Airport. This announcement took me back to  the late 1980s when as a teen I used to watch on the LBC (Lebanon’s number one tv station, operated by the Lebanese Forces yet watched by almost two thirds of the Lebanese population until the 1990s). This announcement promised the imminent opening of the Halat Airport under the slogan “Halat Hatman”. The airport never opened.

Have you read the Spring 2008 Charter yet? You should. It’s the best teaser campaign that was ever made. You will find in it most of the values you believe in. The people who wrote it sure know how to please their audience. It’s exactly like the “I Love Life” campaign. But did you ask yourself who doesn’t love life? Did you answer this question by saying Hezbollah because they support a culture of death. How did you get to this conclusion? Does it have to do with their talk about the blood they’re ready to spill for their cause or all the portraits of martyrs you find in the Hezbollah dominated areas? Have you listened to the March 14th discourse (and counted the occurrences of “our sacrifices”, “the blood that rejuvenates”, “our martyrs”…) ? Have you looked at the posters of martyrs that they regularly print and flood the billboards and walls with? Just look at the giant poster that was hanged on the BIEL (c.f. Dubious Resurrection of the “Cedar Revolution” -1). But if you do not find a contradiction between what the Charter states and how the politicians are acting and will probably keep on saying and doing (because this is their understanding of politics and the source of their power), then there is a problem. 

I went back to the Paris book-fair today for a book reading and signing. Alon Hilu, an Israeli-Jew of Syrian origin was presenting his book, “Death of a Monk“. This work of fiction written in 2004 was inspired by the real historical event know as the “Damascus Affair”. This  affair occurred in 1840 and was triggered by the disappearance of Father Tomaso, an Italian monk, on the eve of Passover in the Jewish quarter of Damascus. It led to a blood libel against the Damascene Jews. The Damascus affair was much publicised in Europe and led to the mobilisation of European Jews who decided to come to aid of their brothers in faith by exerting pressure on their governments. This mobilisation induced the creation of the Alliance Israélite Universelle. 

It seems that this was the first blood libel against Jews in the Ottoman Empire. Some people present it as an example of imported anti-semitism. In his presentation, Alon Hilu spoke of the way the blood libel was distorted while imported: in Europe, the accusation revolved around a supposed ritual murder (sacrificial) of Christian children. In the Damascus affair, the supposed victim was an old man.

Through an odd coincidence, I had learnt about the book signing on Friday, minutes before noticing the cover of the French catholic newspaper, La Croix, that announced the death of Faraj Raho, the Chaldean Archbishop of Mossul. Many politicians and communal leaders condemned this murder. But what steps are they likely to take to protect Iraq’s rapidly declining christian population?

The “March 14th” coalition commemorated the third anniversary of the “Cedar revolution” equally dubbed the “Beirut Spring”. In a large ceremony organised at the BIEL, a group of minor politicians (Soueid, Jisr, Achkar, Mekattaf, Haddad, Abillama) adressed  an audience comprised of middle level and high level Lebanese politicians and their followers. The commemoration aimed at resurrecting the “March 14th” spirit. Fares Soueid (a former MP who lost his seat in 2005 to the FPM) read the “Spring 2008″ Charter. Samir Jisr, Future Movement MP, read out a speech meant to assess the actions of the “March 14th alliance up to now (some journalists called his verbal exercice a courageous act of self-criticism). The other politicians announced the coalition’s programme (conferences and workshops).One can easily be impressed by the Charter’s headlines and the speeches’ main arguments. They are meant to butter up the audience and the Lebanese public in general. The values that are upheld are those that a majority of Lebanese share (or think they share… that’s another story): commitment to liberalism, to pluralism and to republicanism (anti-communalism and the support of a strong centralised state). But how convincing are these headlines? The implementation of these ideas would not only damage the career of most the coalition’s members, but would certainly shock and probably enrage the Lebanese public: most Lebanese are conservative and are wary of individual and collective liberties; most Lebanese are attached to communal politics and clientelism; most Lebanese would rather have a weak state than one that is headed by a leader who belongs to another communal group. 

I went to the Paris Book-Fair today to listen to three authors who are amongst Israel’s most celebrated writers and intellectuals. Oz and Grossman were already familiar figures to me, but not Yehoshua. I was curious to hear them not only for their talent as writers, but because of their political involvement. They were involved in “Peace Now” for several years and they had supported Olmert’s government in its war against Hezbollah/Lebanon in 2006. They discussed three main themes: the relation to the other, their political involvement, the meaning of literature (and the writer’s role).  The talk was intelligent and funny. It was a real pleasure to hear them debate over such issues, and to see them confront their points of view.