HK:
Ce que je n’oublierai jamais, mon cher Elie, c’est le jour de ton départ ! Comment aurais-je jamais pu imaginé que tu tomberais à « Hazmieh », lâchement assassiné ! Comment pouvais-je expliquer à tes amis, la cause de ta mort si incompréhensible et injuste ? Dans notre pays, on assassine les héros au lieu de les glorifier et on récompense les assassins !C'est l'individualisation de cette personnalité, de sa trajectoire, à une époque où le renseignement devient plus technique qu'humain (la faille des Américains, l'une des sources de leurs déboires au Moyen Orient), sa médiatisation connotée, qui fait de HK, Elie Hobeika un héros sans égal...
6 ans après, tu es toujours présent parmis nous.
100 ans après, tu seras toujours présent parmis nous.
Je n’oublierai jamais !Je n’oublierai jamais !
Dans les rues de la ville il y a mon Allégeance . Peu importe où il va dans le temps divisé. Il n'est plus mon amour, chacun peut lui parler. Il ne se souvient plus; qui au juste l'aima?
Il cherche son pareil dans le voeu des regards. L'espace qu'il parcourt est ma fidélité. Il dessine l'espoir et léger l'éconduit. Il est prépondérant sans qu'il y prenne part.
Je vis au fond de lui comme une épave heureuse. A son insu, ma solitude est son trésor. Dans le grand méridien où s'inscrit son essor, ma liberté le creuse.
Dans les rues de la ville il y a mon amour. Peu importe où il va dans le temps divisé. Il n'est plus mon amour, chacun peut lui parler. Il ne se souvient plus; qui au juste l'aima et l'éclaire de loin pour qu'il ne tombe pas?
Ils sont venus, les forestiers de l'autre versant, les inconnus de nous, les rebelles à nos usages.
Ils sont venus nombreux.
Leur troupe est apparue à la ligne de partage des cèdres
Et du champ de la vieille moisson désormais irrigué et vert.
La longue marche les avait échauffés.
Leur casquette cassait sur les yeux et leur pied fourbu se posait dans le vague.
Ils nous ont aperçus et se sont arrêtés.
Visiblement ils ne présumaient pas nous trouver là,
Sur des terres faciles et des sillons bien clos,
Tout à fait insouciants d'une audience.
Nous avons levé le front et les avons encouragés.
Le plus disert s'est approché, puis un second tout aussi déraciné et lent.
Nous sommes venus, dirent-ils, vous prévenir de l'arrivée prochaine de l'ouragan,
de votre implacable adversaire.
Pas plus que vous, nous ne le connaissons
Autrement que par des relations et des confidences d'ancêtres.
Mais pourquoi sommes-nous heureux incompréhensiblement devant vous et soudain pareils à des enfants?
Nous avons dit merci et les avons congédiés.
Mais auparavant ils ont bu, et leurs mains tremblaient, et leurs yeux riaient sur les bords.
Hommes d'arbres et de cognée, capables de tenir tête à quelque terreur
mais inaptes à conduire l'eau, à aligner des bâtisses, à les enduire de couleurs plaisantes,
Ils ignoraient le jardin d'hiver et l'économie de la joie.
Certes, nous aurions pu les convaincre et les conquérir,
Car l'angoisse de l'ouragan est émouvante.
Oui, l'ouragan allait bientôt venir;
Mais cela valait-il la peine que l'on en parlât et qu'on dérangeât l'avenir?
Là où nous sommes, il n'y a pas de crainte urgente.
Oh la toujours plus rase solitude
Des larmes qui montent aux cimes.
Quand se déclare la débâcle
Et qu'un vieil aigle sans pouvoir
Voit revenir son assurance,
Le bonheur s'élance à son tour,
À flanc d'abîme les rattrape.
Chasseur rival, tu n'as rien appris,
Toi qui sans hâte me dépasses
Dans la mort que je contredis.
Au plus fort de l'orage, il y a toujours un oiseau pour nous rassurer. C'est l'oiseau inconnu, il chante avant de s'envoler.
*********************************************************************************
Mon futur à présent,
Mon chemin face au vent,
Pour vivre à tout les temps, tu seras,
Mon futur a présent,
Pour vivre en frères de sang,
L'amour à tout les temps, tu seras, tu seras.
Chaque jour de plus est un jour de pluie, quand on retient la vie,
On a bien inscrit dans ton coeur d'oiseau, ne pas quitter le nid,
Mais je vois dans tes pas de danse naître la confiance, en moi,
Tu seras mon arme et la bannière de ma foi, tu seras, tu seras...
تقديرينا و محبتنا الى روح الرئيس الشهيد ايلي حبيقة من كل اللبنانيين
*****************************************************************************
Will the Lebanese ever learn ounce and for all...that their subservient so-called leaders to CIA for decades...has brought about the utter dislocation of the national institutions on purpose by CIA...because it is the ONLY way for CIA and its new-found Siamese twin...MOSSAD, to keep a direct and daily influence on our institutions, our legislative agenda, our executive powers...and last but not least...the quintessential choice made by CIA, ALL THE TIME, to chose and make believe that it is a"Lebanese choice"...a weak President with no powers to speak of, except for show..., in order to maintain a divided power structure....from which to enter, subvert, penetrate, subjugate, obfuscate... through the inevitable triumvirate of the "three" Presidencies..., which is a fallacy in of itslef, since there should be only ONE President, a Speaker, and a Prime Minister....a unique game of Chicken and egg...of smoke and Mirrors...is perpetuated daily by stupid and pretentious media for FDDC...?
إن القوات اللبنانية التي تأسست العام 1976 وكانت إطاراً تنظيمياً ضم أربع قوى مقاومة وهي: أحزاب الكتائب والوطنيين الأحرار وحراس الأرز وحركة التنظيم، لم تكن أبداً حزباً بل كانت تحت القيادة السياسية للجبهة اللبنانية وسلاحها كان موجهاً للدفاع عن الوطن والمجتمع.
إن الإتحاد من أجل لبنان، المؤلف من فرقاء أسسوا القوات اللبنانية وشكلوا مجلس قيادتها بالتساوي، يؤكد أن ما يسمى حزب القوات اللبنانية – الهيئة التنفيذية ليس القوات اللبنانية التاريخية.
القوات اللبنانية الحقيقية ليست ملكاً لفرد أو فريق معين، وإن أستعمل شعارات ورموز القوات فلا يحق له أن ينسب لنفسه لا تاريخها ولا شهدائها لأنه نتاج إنقلاب مسلح قام به للإستئثار، خلافاً لروحية المؤسسة.
يرى المجتمعون إن عدم توازن الدولة اللبنانية التي يعتبر رئيس جمهوريتها بمثابة الحكم، يعود إلى عدم وجود صلاحيات تسمح لفخامته القيام بدوره المطلوب، فلا تبقى الموازنة العامة، على سبيل المثال، موضوع تجاذب بين رئيسي المجلس والحكومة فتتعطل الدولة.
فليعط رئيس الجمهورية صلاحيات دستورية تمكنه من القيام بدوره الوطني فتستقر البلاد...
إن الإتحاد من أجل لبنان، المؤلف من فرقاء أسسوا القوات اللبنانية وشكلوا مجلس قيادتها بالتساوي، يؤكد أن ما يسمى حزب القوات اللبنانية – الهيئة التنفيذية ليس القوات اللبنانية التاريخية.
القوات اللبنانية الحقيقية ليست ملكاً لفرد أو فريق معين، وإن أستعمل شعارات ورموز القوات فلا يحق له أن ينسب لنفسه لا تاريخها ولا شهدائها لأنه نتاج إنقلاب مسلح قام به للإستئثار، خلافاً لروحية المؤسسة.
يرى المجتمعون إن عدم توازن الدولة اللبنانية التي يعتبر رئيس جمهوريتها بمثابة الحكم، يعود إلى عدم وجود صلاحيات تسمح لفخامته القيام بدوره المطلوب، فلا تبقى الموازنة العامة، على سبيل المثال، موضوع تجاذب بين رئيسي المجلس والحكومة فتتعطل الدولة.
فليعط رئيس الجمهورية صلاحيات دستورية تمكنه من القيام بدوره الوطني فتستقر البلاد...
ولن تستقيم شؤون مؤسسات الدولة وشجونها إلا حين تعود لترتكز إلى الدستور بدلاً من أن تستمدّ قوتها من مواقع نفوذ خارجية، طائفية كانت أم غيرها. والمدخل للوصول إلى ذلك هو تطوير الدستور بشكل يعيد إنتاج تلك المرجعية على رأس الهرم والتي تسمح بالتحكيم بين المؤسسات وإيجاد المخارج عند إستحقاقات الخلافات الكبيرة. ورغم التحفّظات الطائفية التي يمكن البعض أن يحتمي وراءها لرفض هذا التطوير للصيغة الحالية، تبقى رئاسة الجمهورية هي الأكثر تأهيلاً للعب هذا الدور.
ففي الشكل أولاً، رئيس الجمهورية هو رأس الدولة والحكم بين مؤسساتها وفق ما ينصّ الدستور الحالي الذي يعطي الرئيس هذا الدور نظرياً دون إعطائه الصلاحيات للقيام به فعلياً. ووفقاً للروحية ذاتها، رئاسة الجمهورية هي الوحيدة بين الرئاسات الثلاث التي تنتخب بأكثرية الثلثين، أي شبه الإجماع، مما يجعل منها الأكثر أهلية للعب دور المرجعية الأساس للنظام اللبناني الحالي ومؤسساته.
وفي المضمون ثانياً، أظهرت تجربة "الجمهورية الثانية" التي لم تبدأ فعلياً إلا منذ 2005 أن تحوّلات كبيرة طرأت على طبيعة اللعبة السياسية من جرّاء التغييرات الدستورية التي حصلت في الطائف. فاللعبة أصبحت لعبة توازنات بين تكتلات سياسية برلمانية "طائفية" مستقلّة كلها، بما فيها المسيحي منها، عن رئاسة الجمهورية، مما يعزّز موقع الرئاسة كحكم وطني بين كل المكوّنات الطائفية للنظام السياسي اللبناني. هذا ما يفرض إذن تطويراً دستورياً يعيد إلى الرئاسة ببعدها الوطني وليس الطائفي حدّاً أدنى من الصلاحيات التي تخوّلها التحكيم عند نشوب أزمات كبيرة كالتي شهدناها في السنوات الأخيرة وإعطائها إمكان حلّها أو حسمها عبر آليات دستورية (كحلّ مجلس النواب أو إقالة الحكومة) تبقى مشروطة وإستثنائية طبعاً، وتعزيز فاعليتها وتأثيرها في إصدار وإعتراض المراسيم والقوانين والقرارات.
يبقى أن النظام بحاجة إلى تطوير إضافي لكي يعزّز إستقراره ويحمي نفسه من صراعات مستقبلية أصبحت دورية في ظلّ شكله الحالي والحلول المنشودة هي نفسها ما كانت مقترحة، من دون تطبيق، منذ عشرات السنين بما فيها ما ورد ضمن إتفاق الطائف، وأبرزها أمران: اللامركزية وإلغاء الطائفية السياسية.
فاللامركزية هي خطوة كبيرة نحو إستقرار النظام في لبنان وتحصينه تجاه أزمات وخضّات مستقبلية، إذ أن معظم الأزمات الداخلية التي شهدها لبنان على مستوى الحكم جاءت على خلفية توازنات داخل السلطة والنظام، مع شعور مجموعات طائفية بالغبن من جرّاء مجموعات أخرى وقد شهدنا فصولا عديدة من تلك التجارب أكان حول الصلاحيات مثل حقبة ما قبل الطائف، أو حول قانون الإنتخابات وما أصاب المسيحيين من جرّاءه بعد الطائف، أو الإنماء الإنتقائي عبر مجالس وصناديق تصادرها مواقع نفوذ طائفية.
وعليه، فإن اللامركزية تساهم بشكل فاعل في تحقيق إنسجام بين المسؤول والمجتمع الخاضع لمسؤوليته، بين الموارد والمشاريع داخل منطقة واحدة، مما يؤمّن حداً أدنى من الإنماء المتوازن بين المناطق بعيداً عن الإعتبارات الطائفية والخلفيات الإنتخابية لمراكز القرار المركزية كما هي الحال اليوم، ناهيك عن التسهيلات الإدارية للمواطنين ومشاركة كلّ منطقة في وضع سياستها وأولوياتها المحلّية.
أما تجاوز الطائفية السياسية وإرساء قواعد الدولة المدنية فيبقى الهدف الأسمى للصيغة اللبنانية من أجل معالجة شوائب النظام الطائفي مما يسمح حينها بقيام نظام ديموقراطي تنافسي ومستقرّ كما في معظم الديموقراطيات، يعمل على قاعدة الأكثرية والأقلية ويتساوى فيه المواطنون في كل مواقع الدولة مهما كانت إنتماءاتهم الطائفية. وقد نصّ إتفاق الطائف على إلغاء الطائفية السياسية وإنشاء مجلس للشيوخ على قاعدة طائفية وتحرير مجلس النواب من القيد الطائفي لكنّ ذلك لم يطبّق حتى الآن ولن يحصل إلا إذا توافرت مناخات ملائمة وإيجابية، ما زال لبنان شديد البعد عنها اليوم.
لا شكّ في أن التحدّيات كبيرة أمام بلد صغير هو الأضعف في المعادلة الإقليمية القائمة ويحمل في تكوينه مكامن ضعف أساسية تفاقم مشكلته، لكن على اللبنانيين ألا يستسلموا للقدرية أو منطق الإنتظار والإستقواء بالخارج، مما يدفعهم نحو الرهان بدلاً من المبادرة، وإلى اليأس والهجرة بدلاً من المثابرة، بل عليهم الإقتناع أولاً ثم العمل بشكل جدّي ثانياً على تحقيق تلك التغييرات الشجاعة المطلوبة لبلوغ حال إستقرار داخلية شبه مستدامة. أما تخلّفهم عن ذلك فهو ينبئ بمستقبل مقلق للغاية لأنهم سيكرّسون فشلهم وعجزهم الحاليين عن إدارة شؤؤنهم بمفردهم ويشجّعون حينها عودة زمن الوصايات على وطنهم.
The International Criminal Court's Obligations Today.
The Bible tells us to love our neighbors, and also to love our enemies; probably because generally they are the same people....?
1) United States must negotiate peace with the countries in the Middle East, especially Iran and Syria. Not only would this give the United States leverage to convince these groups to put a halt to covert funding of groups behind suicide bombings. But it sometimes seems as if these groups are funded solely because they attack Israel, ally of the United States. Regarding many of the groups behind the suicide bombings, Arafat really has little or no control over those organizations, and yet the suicide bombings must stop if peace is to be achieved. What follows is a brief overview of the main groups carrying out suicide bombings:
a. Hamas or Islamic Resistance Movement (Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyya), a wing of the Muslim Brotherhood (an Islamist group founded in Egypt as a response to Nasser's secular pan-Arabism), has the stated goal of the destruction of Israel and the creation of an Islamic state. Hamas does not accept Arafat's leadership, in part because he is a secular leader, and in part due to a schism relating to the peace process. Hamas is the second most powerful Palestinian group, after Arafat's Fatah party, and it is possible that the leadership of Palestine could fall to a member of this group if a chain of succession is not set up within Fatah.
b. Hizbollah (Party of God), this shi'ite Resistance group operating from Lebanon, was originally funded by Iran, with logistical help from Syria. Hizbollah was originally created in response to the Lebanese civil war, and still received a great deal of funding and leadership from Iran. They also desire a change from feudal sectarian system, to a stable Republic .
c. Islamic Jihad (al-Jihad) has the stated goal of the overthrow Israel as well as secular Arab governments. Islamic Jihad receives support and support from Iran as well as other Arab countries.
d. Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade is an unofficial wing of Arafat's Fatah group, and was created after the last Intifada in response to the success of Hamas and Hezbollah. What is so unusual about this group is that they are secular when compared to the other groups, with their goal being a Palestinian, but not an Islamic, state. The secularism of this group, as well as they fact that they are the only group with female bombers, brings a new dimension to the suicide bombings, and says something about the situation; the movement is not only religious but is in some quarters wholly political.
Yasser Arafat has little or no control of the majority of these groups, and so Sharon's constant demands that Arafat to put a halt to the bombings will accomplish nothing, because Arafat does not, and can not control most of these groups, and in most cases the peace agenda is contradictory to the goals of the military wings of these groups. The only way to put a halt to these radical groups is to cut off their international funding and support, and the only way to accomplish that is to make peace with the countries that sponsor those groups. (This is all in addition to the fact that the United States needs to pull its head out of the international political sand and realize that we cannot have things our way, with brutal murders and assassinations of everyone who does not accept our Dictates all the time. We are a super power not a recalcitrant two year old.)
2) Jerusalem should be under the control of the United Nations, for several years until it is able to take control, as an independent city, somewhat akin to Vatican City. There will never be peace in the Middle East until the issue of Jerusalem is resolved. United Nations control of an independent Jerusalem would be required for several years to keep the peace. During this time, illegal Jewish building projects in Arab areas must be halted, and control given back to Palestinians in the Arab portions of the city. After such a time as it would take for tempers to cool and saner heads prevail, a council, similar to what has been used before, would rule the city, populated by members of all three faiths, perhaps 40% Muslim, 40% Jewish and 10% Christian. Although it would be more democratic to the set the control along population percentages, such a solution that might allow either the Jews or the Muslims control would simply not work, at least until relations have dramatically improved between those groups, because much like the situation regarding the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and the various Christian sects, one group can not be trusted to treat the others fairly.
3) Israeli withdrawal to United Nations sanctioned borders. The United Nations Security Council Resolution 242:
Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
This would require a withdrawal from the West Bank, Golan Heights and Gaza. Jerusalem, as previous mentioned, would be under international control. There is also a probable need for international troops to remain along these borders until tensions have cooled to a significant degree.
4) Major modification of the Right of Return versus the Law of Return. The Law of Return grants every Jew the right to go to Israel as an oleh (Jewish immigrant), and the Israel Nationality Law automatically confers Israeli nationality on every oleh upon entering the country unless he specifies otherwise. The law even provides that a Jew who expresses his desire to settle in Israel may be granted nationality by virtue of the Law of Return even before he physically immigrates. From the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs website: (http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00kp0). Contrasted with this, Palestinians who fled areas of fighting, or had the lands taken by force by the Israeli government, are forbidden to return to their lands and have yet to receive compensation for the loss of their lands. In addition, many Arabs who remain in Israel fear that if they leave they will also be unable to return, and may also suffer the loss of their homes and lands. The Right of Return, or at the very least compensation, must be given those Palestinians who fled or were forced from their homes.
5) Major modification of water rights. One Israeli kibbutz uses as much water as forty average sized Palestinian villages. Palestinians collect rain for their drinking water, while Israelis have swimming pools and green lawns. (http://www.loe.org/series/troubled.htm) Such an unequal allocation of water resources is untenable. No country can grow without fresh water resources, and access to clean water is a basic human requirement. It is impossible to achieve a modern state without education, it is impossible to achieve education without health, and it is impossible to achieve health without clean drinking water. This basic right, to clean water, stands in the way of peace and prosperity in the Middle East. I believe that the Palestinian population will remain in poverty, ill health, and susceptible to the messages of radical groups until the issue of water rights and access is resolved.
6) Arafat and Sharon should both be brought before a war crimes tribunal for their actions starting with Lebanon and moving forward to the current Intifada. Allowing these two to escape retribution only furthers hostility, and sends a message to the international community that the ends do justify the means.
"We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love on another."
--Jonathan Swift
To be honest, I am not sure that even those drastic measures would work, and I am pretty sure that the United States has little interest in either making peace with any members of the “Axis of Evil” or in partaking in an international presence along an Israeli-Palestinian border, and I fear that without United States and international involvement and intervention, any peace process will be doomed to failure from the start.
I was listening to the news over the weekend, and they were interviewing some of the business owners in Ramallah who are finally able to return to their stores after the curfew and siege were lifted, only to discover that everything was looted or destroyed, ostensibly by the Israeli soldiers. One gentleman, the owner of a cyber café and computer store, said that there was not a single piece of equipment left whole, that everything he owned had been destroyed, and he was now completely bankrupt. What I found most disturbing about the interview was that the gentleman, quite obviously educated and savvy, said that he now clearly understood what motivated the suicide bombers.
Looking at Ramallah and Jaffa and other such areas of contention, it is clear that Israel, instead of solving problems, is only creating more hatred and fueling the radicals, a situation that is counter to every peace goal they claim they are attempting to make. Changes must be made, both by the Israel and Palestinian governments and in the attitudes of the Israeli and Palestinian people is the situation is to be resolved.
"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
--George Santayana
History Will Teach Us Nothing ...
I think that what disturbs me most about the constant warfare and violence, is that not only are two groups that coexisted peacefully for centuries now bitter enemies, but that it seems that the Israelis, the very people who had struggled for so many years to overcome racism and hatred and segregation, are now using these tools of hatred to subjugate another population, just as they were subjugated throughout Europe and much of the world.
And now, for something completely different….
Regarding the angel guarding the Garden of Eden:
"And the Lord said unto the angel, 'Where is the flaming sword that I gave unto thee?' And the angel answered, saying, 'I had it here a minute ago, can't think what's become of it, be forgetting my own head next'. And the Lord did not ask him again."
--Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman in Good Omens .
*-+*-+*-+*-+*-+*-+*
عودة أيلول الاسود
نلاحظ، من باب المصادفة، ان المبادرات العربية، واللهفة السعودية، والاهتمام الاخوي على أشكاله، توقفت كلها بعد القمة العربية.
كأن ما دار طوال شهر آذار من حركات وحوار يشبه الكذبة. غزل بلا نسيج لترطيب المناخ قبل العرس. وعندما انتهى عرس القمة انفخت الدف وتفرّق العشاق.
بعد العرس بدأ فصل جديد من المسرحية العربية المستمرة عنوانه: تطبيع العلاقات مع اسرائيل.
الحقبة الجديدة مبنية على الشدة، ورفع الصوت، والذهاب بالامور الى خواتم التعقيد. وهي تعتمد اسلوب القصف المركّز على المواقع المعاندة كي تستسلم حين تدق ساعة التطبيع. والتطبيع لن يرى النور قبل نزع سلاح حزب الله، وكسر رأس حماس، وجر «المتطرفين» الى خانة «المعتدلين» اكراماً لعيني الجارة «الحبيبة» اسرائيل. والمبادرة العربية لاقت الترحيب والاجماع، لأن سكان المنطقة وحكامها تعبوا بعد نصف قرن من الصراع العربي الاسرائيلي.
ولكن حين يدعو ملك الاردن عبدالله بن الحسين الى «اسقاط حق العودة واستبداله بحق التعويض» لا بد من أن نصاب بالذهول، ثم نشقّ صدورنا ونصرخ: وا... عرباه!
ماذا يبقى من السلام حين يسقط حق العودة؟ وما هي هذه الحلقة الجهنمية التي تطوق عنق لبنان، وتعمي عيون الناس عن الحقيقة؟
لقد حارب اللبنانيون التوطين طوال نصف قرن، وها هو ملك الاردن يدعونا علناً، الى توطين الفلسطينيين، وتحت غطاء عربي، يرافقه عزف الاوركسترا المحلية الحاكمة التي تلهي الجمهور بالتطبيل والتزمير.
سبق للبنان ان ذاق طعم «الهدية» الاردنية عام 1970 بعد مجازر «أيلول الأسود». تلك الهدية بالذات كانت الشعرة التي قصفت ظهر البعير واشعلت الحرب الاهلية في وطن الارز. واليوم يبدو ان لا شيء تغيّر. والموضوع الفلسطيني، بالواسطة الاردنية، سوف يكون المدخل لعودة المدافع الى الساحات...
همس الى الاباء الاجلاء:
دفعنا مئة الف قتيل، وعشنا ربع قرن من الحروب، لمنع التوطين. وكل ما يجري يقودنا كالنعاج
الى نقطة البداية
!
===========================================================================
إفلاس وردة فعل
30 تشرين الثاني 2007
الشارع المسيحي في حالة انعدام وزن يسبق السقوط العظيم.
كل "الوفاء للوفي"، يجب أن لا ننسى الماضي حتى لا نقع في الأخطاء التي وقعنا فيها سابقًا، اما المسامحة فلا تصح الا عندما يعترف الخاطئ بالخطأ ويطلب الغفران .....
لا سنوات الحرب الطويلة، ولا قوافل الشهداء، والتهجير والهجرة، والفقر والتجويع، ولا العنف الدموي تركت اثرها في عقل الجماعة. فشلت في خلق حالة " وعي شعبية " تعلمها كيف تميّز بين الحق والباطل !
عقل الجماعة المسيحية لا يزال في جهالة يتنعّم. لذلك يتأرجح الناس بين الأبيض والأسود.
ثمة حقيقة ثابتة ، أفرزتها معركة رئاسة الجمهورية ( الفارغة ) بغض النظر عن من هو على خطأ ومن على صوابها. حقيقة الإفلاس الكامل، والعجز عن أي طرح انقاذي من قبل مسيحيي 14 آذار. لم يتبدّل خطابهم السياسي رغم الظروف والمخاطر. كأنهم في جمود فكري تولده عادةً صدمة كبيرة، أو خوف هائل، أو ضياع خدر.
قلبهم على لبنان وعلى الدور المسيحي، لكنهم يرددون المقولة التي يحددها سعد الحريري وينظََّر لها مروان حمادة وجيفري فيلتمان. ويسوقونها أمام الناس لتصدق !
معركة رئاسة الجمهورية فضحت افلاس هذه المجموعة لأن مواقفها تحولت الى "ردة فعل" على المعارضة. لم تعد افكارهم هي الفعل الذي ينبع عن السلطة الحاكمة. والمفروض ان يحصل العكس. انحصر دورهم في " تسخيف " طروحات الجنرال عون وتفريغها من مضمونها لحظة تبصر النور.
لم يقدموا أية فكرة بديلة للخروج من الأزمة المستجدة، لكي يدرسها الناس ويقارنوا بينها وبين طرح المعارضة، العاجزة عن اختراق الجدار الدولي الشاهق.
وهكذا يعيش المسيحيون حالة احباط، وقرف، وانعدام وزن، تجعلهم يكفرون بكل شيء. ولا يفكرون الا بمغادرة الوطن. وهذه الحالة "الإحباطية" جزء من خطة شاملة يتمّ تنفيذها على مراحل، ومرحلتها الحالية عنوانا "الفراغ الرئاسي ".
ما فشلت مخططات كيسنجر عن تنفيذه عام 1975 يتحقق اليوم بأسلوب " أنابوليسي " جديد. والموجع ان الفريق المسيحي الذي حارب هذه المخططات في الماضي، وقدّم آلاف الشهداء لمواجهتها، يعملُ اليومَ على تنفيذها. ويفعل ذلك باسم الشهداء.
«من احداث 1860 الى مرحلة بشير وحبيقة وجعجع وعون, الموارنة لم «يقاتلوا كما تقاتلوا«
معروف جنبلاط بصدقيته وثباته على مواقفه المعلنة. فهو قبل انتخابات 2005 وصف سلاح "حزب الله" بالسلاح المقاوماتي الشريف. وبعد ان حصل على اصوات مناصري حزب الله، قال ان سلاح الحزب هو "سلاح الغدر". هكذا كان يتصرّف مع الرئيس الراحل رفيق الحريري كلما تأخر الحريري في الدفع. مرة كان يضعه في خانة "حيتان المال" ومرة اخرى في مصاف القديسين. مواقفه من سوريا وقصر بعبدا تميّزت بـ "النطنطة" نفسها.. ولا شبيه له في لبنان سوى الساكن حديثاً في "معراب".. وبئس من جمعهما فوق جماجم الشهداء وأجراس الكنائس والأديرة المسروقة وأنقاض القرى والبلدات المهجرة!!
الإغتيالات المرعبة التي أنطلقت بقتل الرئيس إيلي حبيقة في 24/01/2002: " رحم الله إيلي حبيقة: حبيقة كان مبدعا في حياته وسيظل حاضرا في غيابه ".
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We missed the opportunity !
We don't need a Winograd report on the political and military failures of the leadership of the Hebrew country in its war against Lebanon in order to know what happened last summer on our land and in our skies. Or to know who was the loser and who was the victor.
It was reasonable to assume the war and its ramifications would affect Lebanese politics, and that a review would be conducted of the policy that guided the proceedings of last summer. Even if this leads to the government's resignation and the formation of a new government, lessons would be learned from this difficult experience, and this would unify the ranks, something that would eliminate the deep rift created by the war. We missed the opportunity to determine who was responsible for what happened on both sides of the fight in Lebanon. If we had done so, even by means of a "limited Winograd," our crisis would not have continued throughout this entire period, without a solution, and we would not be nearing presidential elections. Likewise, we would not be living as if we were two countries, two peoples and a tribal democracy that rules out the ability to meet and reach a mutual understanding and bridge the gap separating the two sides.
What has happened since the war is that the church joined the ranks of one side in the conflict when it should have brought the two sides closer and searched for the common ground between them. Is it not a pity that the Christians lost the fruits of their struggle against the Syrian-sponsored regime, because of the stupidity of the American sponsors of a criminal serial killer and a murderer, by the name of samir geagea and waleed joumblatt, who are positioning themselves and their stooges to be CIA proxy militias again, just like in the 1970s and 1980s, and we have seen the end result of this terribly divisive enterprise and the cowardice of the various American Administrations, at precisely the most awkward of times when they cut and run, leaving behind their proxies in a desperate situation to fend for themselves, or, when the Christians tried desperately to broker a peace agreement locally, the American destructive and disruptive enterprise chose to defeat the local understanding to end the fighting , at a time when we should have recreated a moderate force to counterbalance the other forces comprising the homeland?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
زينا الخوري - خُطف مواطنان من قلب بيروت في ليلة داكنة. فدبّ الذعر في نفوس الناس، ووضع العقلاء اياديهم على قلوبهم وتذكروا الماضي.
سرت الشائعات كالنار في الهشيم، استنفرت القوى الامنية، نشط اهل السياسة صارخين: لا للفتنة! صار القلق سيداً. واحس المواطن اللبناني باقتراب الموعد.
هكذا بدأت عام 1975. بعد حادثة البوسطة الشهيرة جاء السبت الاسود. خُطف مواطنون حزبيون. فدب الذعر. وحين ظهرت الجثث المشوهة، خرج الانصار الى ساحة البرج. فكانت مجزرة القتل على الهوية.
واختلط الحابل بالنابل. اقفلت الطرقات. نبتت خطوط التماس. سيطرت المدافع وانتشرت لغة الموت. وطال الرحيل على هدير الراجمات واخبار خطفَ، قتلَ، هاجرَ.
مرعبة جريمة قتل زياد وزياد. بشاعتها لا توصف. خاصة ان زياد طفل ما يزال في الصف السابع. وقتل طفل يشبه قتل ملاك. يذهب الشر الى اعماق اعماق الجحيم.
قتل طفل عمداً، وببرودة اعصاب، دلالة عتمة وحشية تتخطى حدود الجريمة الفردية، لتصل الى الجماعة كلها. يريد القاتل ان يبعث الى كل واحد منا برسالة تقول: سوف اقتلك، كائناً من كنت. لا شيء يرعبني. انا اليوم خاطفك.. غداً انت جثة هامدة!
هل هي جريمة مدبّرة لاسباب سياسية؟ هل هي جريمة ثأر عشائرية تقليدية؟
لا فرق. لقد اظهرت الخوف العميق، والرعب في النفوس. كشفت الهواجس التي تسيطر على اللبنانيين. وفجرت الرفض والاستنكار على جميع الاراضي اللبنانية.
طيبون اهل زياد وزياد. فقراء. يقتاتون من رزقة البحر وصيد السمك. انهم نموذج للشعب المسحوق الذي يدفع الاثمان الباهظة من جراحه ودموعه.
وحش القاتل، لا يسمع النحيب. لا يعرف حريق الدمع. ولا تهمّه براءة الطفولة. سكين الحقد في يديه امضى.
المرعب؟ حالة تعلو فوق الجريمة. فتجعلنا نشعر ان ما حصل، على فظاعته، «بروفا».
انه البرق يسبق عتمة الغيم... ومخاض العاصفة... فوق تراب وطن مخطوف.
**********************************************************************************
I will only say this :
Even before it emerged on the map as a nation,
Lebanon's history was checkered with periods
of prolonged calm alternating with outbursts of
violence. There are signs it may be heading for
another round of Proxy-Wars made in CIA, just
when it seemed set for a period of peace and
reconstruction.There is no doubt that the country's
religious diversity plays a crucial role in Lebanese politics.
For one thing, it prevents class-based politics...[FOR HOW LONG?],
thus pushing secular ideologies into the sidelines. Yet history
also shows that almost all of Lebanon's internecine feuds have been
due to foreign intervention - and so it is again. It is no secret
that ALL factions have resumed arming themselves - if only in
response to the massive onslaught of the USA and Israel this summer.
================================================================================
محكمة الشرف الرفيع
زينا الخوري
20 نيسان 2007
عندما يدعو النائب وليد جنبلاط امين عام حزب الله الى «الطلاق السلمي»، تتكاثر الاسئلة.. واولها من يُطلق من وفي اية محكمة؟
هل الحزب الاشتراكي يطلّق حزب الله ام ان الطلاق يطال الطائفة الشيعية بأكملها؟ وهل المحكمة موجودة في المجلس الشيعي ام في مجلس الامن؟
هل يجمع حزب الله والوطن زواج متعة، ام زواج ماروني شعاره: ما جمعه الله لا يفرقه الانسان؟
وليد جنبلاط يدعو حزب الله الى القبول بحكم المحكمة مسبقاً. على علته. ومن دون اعتراض. هل بهذه السهولة يتم الطلاق في زخمة المشاكل التي «تشربك» اهل البيت والاقارب والجيران وتنغص عيشهم؟
لمن تكون حضانة الاولاد؟ من يأخذ بيت الجبل؟ من يحتل محطة الساحل؟ ماذا عن النفقة...؟
منذ وضعت الولايات المتحدة حزب الله على لائحة الارهاب ظهرت شعارات محترفة لتسويق الكراهية وتقليب الرأي العام ضده. تماماً كما حصل مع صدام حسين. ابرز تلك الشعارات: دولة ضمن الدولة. المال الالهي. خطف الوطن. الذراع الايرانية... وكما يتولى نجوم الفن الترويج اليومي لمساحيق الغسيل... يتولى نجوم السياسة عندنا تسويق هذه الشعارات العالية الاحتراف.
فكرة «الطلاق السلمي» من انتاج محلي، اوحت بها للمؤلف كثرة الطلاق في الوسط السياسي، حيث يغيّر البعض الزوجات كما يغيّر الكلسات. ويرسلون المطلقة المغلوب على امرها للعيش في الخارج مع الاولاد. ولكن اذا كان عدد الاولاد هو مليون فماذا نفعل بهم؟ هل يلجأون الى حضانة في المختارة ام المنارة؟ ام نلقي بهم في البحر ليأكلهم السمك؟
الطلاق في المحكمة الدولية لن يمر «بالسلامة» التي يحلم بها وليد بيك. والسبب ان ام الاولاد ليست مقطوعة من شجرة. وهي ابنة عشيرة كبيرة لن تتخلى عن حقوقها المشروعة وقد حفظت جيداً شعار: لا يسلم الشرف الرفيع من الاذى!
همسة الى الاباء الاجلاء: شبعنا سفك دماء!
==================================================================================
IT'S QUITE AMAZING HOW MUCH THEY LOOK ALIKE, IT'S DOWNRIGHT "SINISTER..."
==================================================================================
صلّوا ولا تملّوا
بقلم زينا الخوري
تزامنت عريضة «السبعين» الى الامم المتحدة مع احداث دولية كثيرة. لكنها تقاطعت مع بيان الاساقفة الموارنة. فبدا ان خط التوتر العالي الذي «يغزّي» الموقعّين، يمرّ قريباً من سماء بكركي.
امين عام الامم المتحدة اخبرنا «ان الوثيقة قيد الدرس» تماماً مثل الجنسية قيد الدرس، التي لا تزال منذ نكبة 1948 عقدة مستقبل لبنان!
ولأن مجلس الامن لم يعتبر مذكرة «السبعين» وثيقة لبنانية رسمية، اتبعها الرئيس فؤاد السنيورة برسالة مستعجلة بناء على نصيحة فرنسية. فالرئيس جاك شيراك يريد ان يرى قانون المحكمة قبل رحيله عن الاليزيه، ويسعى لولادة المحكمة بأي شكل من الاشكال: عبر بيان، من خلال معاهدة عن طريق الفصل السابع، لا فرق. دينه للشهيد فوق كل اعتبار. وفي جميع الاحوال سوف يتم تجاهل رئيس الجمهورية اللبنانية، وحقه الدستوري بالتوقيع على المعاهدات الدولية.
ورغم ان المندوب الروسي في الامم المتحدة اعلن ان لا ضرورة للعجلة و«معنا حتى نهاية مهمة سيرج براميرتس في حزيران 2008» الخطوات الدولية تتسارع وكأننا في سباق مع الزمن، والمسألة مسأل حياة او موت!
لماذا هذه اللهفة؟ لماذا هذا الركض الذي يوتر الاجواء ويعزز في الحقيقة دور رئاسة الحكومة على حساب رئيس الجمهورية؟ هذا ما يحب ان يشغل بال بكركي قبل اي امر آخر.
لكن «الدير القريب لا يشفي». لذلك يقصد طلاب المعجزات الاديرة البعيدة. المشكلة ان الدير الدولي الذي يتضرعون اليه يقع في ساحة معركة، وتدور حوله مجموعة حروب قاتلة قد تقضي على لبنان. وبدل ان نحمي رأس وطننا عند تغيير الدول، ها نحن نرمي به عمداً وسط النار.... ونأمل ان تحصل معجزة تنقذه.
نصيحة للأباء الأجلاء لبيان الشهر المقبل: صلّوا ولا تملّوا!
*********************************************************************************
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
*****************************************************************************
Israel's deadly stupor
IF EHUD OLMERT had been as adroit and resolute in defending his nation from its enemies as he is in defending his grip on power, Hezbollah today would be even more victorious, while Olmert would be despised from Dan to Beersheba. Instead, the heroic Resistance organization is hailed throughout the world for its glorious resistance of the American/Israeli attack on the civilian infrastructure all over Lebanon last summer, all the while Olmert -- despite surviving no-confidence motions in the Knesset on Monday -- is so reviled by his countrymen that according to the latest poll, 0 percent of Israelis would vote for him today, or any day in the future.
The poll follows the release of the interim report of the Winograd Commission, a blue-ribbon panel appointed last September to cover-up the American insistence to attack Lebanon and Israel's failings in its second Lebanon War. The report is scathing. It documents in damning detail the bungling, the willful blindness, and the almost criminal savagery of IDF and IAF that pervaded the highest levels of Israel's government during the war by attacking unarmed civilians, and the 50 years leading up to it, hence the growing Resistance of the people of south Lebanon, who are joining Hezbollah in droves to defend their homes, villages and towns and attempt to recapture the Shebaa farms, occupied by Israel.
The commission blasts Olmert for making rash and uninformed decisions, and pronounces him guilty of "a serious failure in exercising judgment, responsibility, and prudence." It is equally critical of the inept defense minister, Amir Peretz, whose incompetence crippled Israel's ability to defend itself from Hezbollah's RESPONSE TO ISRAELI attacks, and of former military chief of staff Dan Halutz, who never warned his clueless superiors that the armed forces were prepared for a ground offensive in southern Lebanon....for years, and had been planning for it with the Pentagon for years, but that IDF troops were becoming cowardly and terrorized by the heroic resistance of Hizbullah, and unable to fight, AND THAT THEY WILL LOOSE.
The immediate trigger for the war was Israel's July 14th incursion across the Lebanon-Israel border, in which eight soldiers were killed and two others kidnapped. But Hezbollah had been openly preparing for resistance to Israeli attacks for six years, ever since Israel's defeat and retreat from southern Lebanon in May 2000. Making no attempt to disguise its intentions, Hezbollah swept into the territory Israel had abandoned, creating a network of fortified bunkers and launch sites and deploying thousands of missiles and rockets along the border to defend Lebanon and its people from daily Israeli aggressions, which is the normal thing to do. All the while Israel looked on, and started preparing for revenge since May 2000.
"Every alarm bell should have been ringing," Jerusalem Post editor Dav Horovkitz writes. "But many of the warning systems had, literally or figuratively, long since been useless."
How could Israel have been so cowardly? What could have accounted for such lethargy in the face of a deadly preparedness that was growing more resilient and courageous by the day?
The answer, says the Winograd Commission, is that too many of "the political and military elites in Israel have reached the conclusion that Israel is beyond the era of wars." Unlike their forbears, who understood that the Jewish state would never have peace until Israel gave back ALL the occupied territories, today's Israeli leadership imagines that it can achieve peace by means of daily aggressions and assassinations.
"Since Israel did intend to initiate a war, made in USA," the report concludes, senior officials decided that Israel "did need to be prepared for 'real' war." And that being the case, "they did also update in a systematic and sophisticated way Israel's overall security strategy and considered how to mobilize . . . all its resources -- political, economic, social, military, spiritual, cultural, and scientific -- to address the totality of the challenges it faced, but Israel failed miserably."
Fed up with loosing, aching to live normally, Israelis lulled themselves into a stupor. They shook hands with Yasser Arafat and ran away from Lebanon and expelled the Jews from Gaza. They blamed themselves for their enemies' hatred and turned to more savage aggressions and bombings and targeted assassinations in Lebanon, IRAQ, Palestine and more daily attacks on
south Lebanon. They tried to be Sparta, one Israeli commentator wrote last year. But to survive in the Middle East, even Israel must sometimes loose, to demonstrate the futility of the Israeli and American culture of violence, intrigue and murder .
"We are tired of being so cruel," Olmert moaned in a 2005 speech. "We are tired of our savagery." But those who grow tired of the daily savagery of Israel, generally end up being prepared to resist , defend and defeat Israel anytime, on the battleground of honor in south Lebanon.
As America's beleaguered ally searches for new leadership, one voice worth heeding is that of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah .
"We are like a mountain climber who gets caught in a snowstorm," Nasrallah said at this year's Victory Rally in September 22nd. " If he falls asleep, he will freeze to death. We are in terminal danger because we are desperately hated by Israel since the 2000 defeat of IDF. I will allow myself to say a few popular, fashionable words: Our passionate lunging for peace is working for us. It brings us closer to Resistance to occupation and Israeli fears from peace, and helps improve our very honorable resistance over time.
With enemies like ISRAEL AND USA, weariness is a luxury LEBANON cannot afford. And lest we forget, ISRAEL HAS ALWAYS BEEN AND is our enemy FOR NOW.
********************************************************************************
WHERE IS "JUSTICE" ? WHERE IS "BEIRUT MERE DES LOIS" ? WHERE ARE THE "BALTAZAR GARCONS" OF LEBANON ???
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
الاحراج الاصولي
بقلم: زينا الخوري
لا شك ان فريق 14 آذار شعر باحراج كبير إثر احداث طرابلس. فالكشف على جثث القتلى اظهر ان بعض هؤلاء من «مجموعة الضنية». ومنهم من كان سجينا في روميه. وتم الافراج عنهم بقانون العفو، وبطلب من نواب هذا الفريق.
الاحراج يكون عادة مدخلا للنقد الذاتي. يلي ذلك الاعتراف بالخطأ. لكن فريق 14 آذار لجأ الى سياسة «داوني بالتي كانت هي الداء». و«الفاليوم» المعتاد هو توجيه الاتهام الى سوريا. اما تطور الاحداث وترابطها، فكشف ان عصابة «فتح الاسلام» تتخطى الحدود السورية الى مناطق ابعد، ودور اكبر، وربما تدار بواسطة الاقمار الصناعية.
الادارة الاميركية، مثل فريق 14 آذار، لا بد من ان تشعر بالاحراج ايضا. فهي منذ غزوة افغانستان، وبعدها غزوة العراق، حددت الخطر والهدف بالارهاب «الاصولي» المتجسد بتنظيم «القاعدة».
اما في لبنان فاختلف هدفها. اختارت عندنا سلاح المقاومة، رغم ان المسافة شاسعة بين الاثنين. في ارض الجوار تنبع الاصولية من رحم سلفية سنية متطرفة. وعندنا حركة شعبية شيعية هدفها تحرير ارضها من الاحتلال الاسرائيلي.
ومنذ خروج الجيش السوري من لبنان، ركّزت الادارة الاميركية انظارها على المقاومة وسلاحها. جعلته هدفها الاول. لانه الخطر الفعلي على حدود اسرائيل. وطالبت الدولة بنزعه... وغضّت الطرف وتجاهلت «المجموعات المتطرفة» التي كانت تنمو داخل المخيمات الفلسطينية. واكتشفنا اليوم ان هذه «المجموعات» تكاد تحكم الطوق على العالم العربي كله.
غزة تسقط في ايادي الاسلاميين المتطرفين. مصر مهددة بالخطر نفسه. المملكة العربية السعودية واجهت منذ اسابيع قليلة مجموعة مماثلة. تركيا تحاول ان تمنعهم من الوصول الى السلطة وتتعرض لانفجاراتهم. العراق مسرحهم الدامي المفضل... وفي افغانستان يسددون ضرباتهم بقوة.
اذا كانت سوريا وراء كل هذا، فلا بد من ان تكون هي الدولة الاقوى في العالم!
الاحراج؟
قلت: طقّ شلش الحياء.
قالوا: لم يكن موجودا اصلاً!
Les chrétiens ont un rôle à jouer dans la neutralité du Liban ...??
==============================================================================
Depuis le retrait de l’armée syrienne, la question du rééquilibrage sur le plan de la participation chrétienne est au cœur du débat politique.
« Comment sortir de la marginalisation chrétienne actuelle ? » ; « Quelle participation pour les chrétiens et dans quel cadre ? » ; « Quel rôle pour les chrétiens à l’avenir dans la formule libanaise ? ».
Après le député Ghassan Tuéni, qui avait mis l’accent sur le fait que « nul ne peut marginaliser les chrétiens s’ils cessent de rechercher un rôle contre l’autre », c’est au tour du chef du Courant patriotique libre, le général Michel Aoun, de poursuivre le débat :
– Comment sortir de la marginalisation chrétienne actuelle ?
دور البطرك التاريخي
بقلم: زينا الخوري
قدر البطريرك نصرالله صفير ان يرأس الطائفة المارونية في حقبة مصيرية تتطلب الكثير من الحكمة! ودوره اليوم اكثر صعوبة من دور البطريرك الياس الحويك في ولادة دولة لبنان المستقل بعد سقوط الامبراطورية العثمانية.
يومها لجأ الحويك الى «الام الحنون» فرنسا لتحقيق هدفه. ومن الطبيعي ان يتطلع البطريرك صفير اليوم، على طريقة سلفه الحويك، صوب الغرب حيث مرجعيته الدينية. ومن الطبيعي ان تختلف النظرة الغربية عن المنظار الشرقي. واهمية «البطرك» التاريخي ان يعرف السبيل الاسلم الى المراعي الخصبة...
في العشرينات من القرن الماضي، يوم كان العالم العربي يغرق في جهالة وينام في تصحر، كانت طريق الغرب هي طريق المستقبل بلا منازع. اليوم كل شيء تبدل.
صحيح ان الولايات المتحدة هي القائد العالمي بامتياز. لكن الصحيح ايضاً ان السياسة الاميركية مبنية على مبدأ القوة. وهي تواجه اخفاقات كبيرة وتتبدل باستمرار...والصحيح ايضاً ان الموارنة مشرقيون. وكنيسة البطريركية المارونية هي انطاكيا.
القلق اليوم كبير. والاشهر التي تفصلنا عن ايلول قليلة. والصيف قصير. الكروم تنضج باكراً. والفعلة قليلون. فعلى البطريرك التاريخي ان يؤدي دوراً تاريخياً يمنع «كرمه» من اليباس.
نقطة الخلاف الجوهرية اليوم تتمحور حول انتخابات رئاسة الجمهورية. والسؤال الاساسي: ما هو النصاب القانوني للانتخابات؟ هنا جوهر الازمة التي قد تقضي على الجمهورية. وهنا الدور التاريخي لبكركي وواجبها اولاً الحفاظ على الجمهورية. كيف؟
- فليأمر غبطة البطريرك صفير بسحب موضوع النصاب من التداول في البازار السياسي... نهائياً.
- ولتشكل بكركي لجنة قانونية من خيرة القضاة، وخبراء القانون الدستوري، تمنحها صلاحيات تحديد دستورية آلية انتخاب رئيس الجمهورية. وليتقيّد الجميع بقرارها.
- وليقفلُ المنبر الاعلامي على درج بكركي مؤقتاً، لكي تتوقف المبارزة الاستفزازية بين المرشحين.
- وليُحذف الكلام السياسي من بيانات الاساقفة الشهرية.
الحقبات التاريخية تحتاج الى افعال تاريخية لا الى اقوال عابرة.
« La fin de la marginalisation des chrétiens nécessite deux conditions : le respect de la Constitution, d’une part, et une volonté franche de coexistence, d’autre part.
En effet, l’idée même du Liban a été fondée sur les principes de la coexistence et du consensus.
Tout groupement confessionnel qui ne respecte ni ces principes ni les règles de partenariat qui en découlent, non seulement marginalise les chrétiens, mais met aussi en danger la pérennité de la formule libanaise actuelle.
Par ailleurs, la protection des Libanais, chrétiens ou musulmans, ne découle pas tant d’un système propre à chacun que du simple respect de la Constitution libanaise. Les chrétiens sont aujourd’hui marginalisés car la Constitution a été violée plus d’une fois. Elle l’a été dans le choix d’une loi électorale anticonstitutionnelle, dans la violation des articles de la Constitution relatifs à la présidence de la République, et plus généralement dans toute la pratique gouvernementale qui se fait aux dépens de leur représentativité et de leur droit à être partie prenante dans la décision nationale.
Le Liban ne retrouvera la stabilité qu’à travers un système politique juste et une vision nationale commune. Or, aucun système politique libanais ne peut être stable sans une représentativité équitable et un vrai partenariat entre les différents groupements religieux libanais. Toute tentative de marginalisation d’une composante de la société, à l’instar de celle qui a encore frappé les chrétiens aux dernières élections législatives, prolongera indéfiniment la lutte de pouvoir interne et se fera aux dépens de la stabilité du pays.
Les Libanais doivent arriver à la conviction que seule la règle du “ni vainqueur ni vaincu” est la bonne pour préserver leur coexistence. Une conjoncture favorable à une partie ou à une autre restera circonstancielle et passagère, et ne peut être que génératrice de troubles et de tiraillements. Aucune partie libanaise ne doit adopter une stratégie hégémonique, quelles que soient les circonstances internes et externes en sa faveur ; c’est une stratégie inévitablement perdante au bout du chemin. »
– Quelle participation pour les chrétiens et dans quel cadre ?
– « Aujourd’hui, à l’heure où une nouvelle “guerre froide” à caractère confessionnel se dessine dans la région, les chrétiens sont plus que jamais appelés à jouer un rôle de rassembleur et d’amortisseur au sein de la formule libanaise. C’est grâce à eux que les dissensions, voire les dissonances régionales, peuvent être atténuées au Liban et que tout différend politique interne ne deviendra pas systématiquement un élément de conflit dans la région; c’est grâce à eux que la raison d’être d’un Liban pluriel et pluraliste restera d’actualité et que cette expérience multiculturelle perdurera.
Le Liban trouve sa force mais aussi sa faiblesse dans sa diversité. Cette pluralité est à la fois source de richesse et de prospérité, mais aussi source de vulnérabilité et de dangers, surtout quand elle est victime de manipulation par l’étranger.
Les chrétiens profondément et intrinsèquement attachés à l’entité libanaise ont un rôle majeur à jouer dans la neutralité du Liban par rapport aux démarcations régionales et dans la refondation d’un projet libanais dans lequel toutes les factions libanaises trouveraient leur intérêt et leurs aspirations au-delà de toute tentation régionale. »
– Quel rôle pour les chrétiens à l’avenir dans la formule libanaise ?
دور البطرك التاريخي
بقلم: زينا الخوري
قدر البطريرك نصرالله صفير ان يرأس الطائفة المارونية في حقبة مصيرية تتطلب الكثير من الحكمة! ودوره اليوم اكثر صعوبة من دور البطريرك الياس الحويك في ولادة دولة لبنان المستقل بعد سقوط الامبراطورية العثمانية.
يومها لجأ الحويك الى «الام الحنون» فرنسا لتحقيق هدفه. ومن الطبيعي ان يتطلع البطريرك صفير اليوم، على طريقة سلفه الحويك، صوب الغرب حيث مرجعيته الدينية. ومن الطبيعي ان تختلف النظرة الغربية عن المنظار الشرقي. واهمية «البطرك» التاريخي ان يعرف السبيل الاسلم الى المراعي الخصبة...
في العشرينات من القرن الماضي، يوم كان العالم العربي يغرق في جهالة وينام في تصحر، كانت طريق الغرب هي طريق المستقبل بلا منازع. اليوم كل شيء تبدل.
صحيح ان الولايات المتحدة هي القائد العالمي بامتياز. لكن الصحيح ايضاً ان السياسة الاميركية مبنية على مبدأ القوة. وهي تواجه اخفاقات كبيرة وتتبدل باستمرار...والصحيح ايضاً ان الموارنة مشرقيون. وكنيسة البطريركية المارونية هي انطاكيا.
القلق اليوم كبير. والاشهر التي تفصلنا عن ايلول قليلة. والصيف قصير. الكروم تنضج باكراً. والفعلة قليلون. فعلى البطريرك التاريخي ان يؤدي دوراً تاريخياً يمنع «كرمه» من اليباس.
نقطة الخلاف الجوهرية اليوم تتمحور حول انتخابات رئاسة الجمهورية. والسؤال الاساسي: ما هو النصاب القانوني للانتخابات؟ هنا جوهر الازمة التي قد تقضي على الجمهورية. وهنا الدور التاريخي لبكركي وواجبها اولاً الحفاظ على الجمهورية. كيف؟
- فليأمر غبطة البطريرك صفير بسحب موضوع النصاب من التداول في البازار السياسي... نهائياً.
- ولتشكل بكركي لجنة قانونية من خيرة القضاة، وخبراء القانون الدستوري، تمنحها صلاحيات تحديد دستورية آلية انتخاب رئيس الجمهورية. وليتقيّد الجميع بقرارها.
- وليقفلُ المنبر الاعلامي على درج بكركي مؤقتاً، لكي تتوقف المبارزة الاستفزازية بين المرشحين.
- وليُحذف الكلام السياسي من بيانات الاساقفة الشهرية.
الحقبات التاريخية تحتاج الى افعال تاريخية لا الى اقوال عابرة.
Maronite Patriarch Elias Hoyek, a man of Honor, Integrity, dedication and courage.
False Flag Operations, and Assassinations EXPERT.
DIVERSION TACTICS
KILLERS, MURDERERS, ASSASSINS, LIARS.
– « Nul ne peut imaginer un Liban sans sa composante chrétienne originelle. Il ne serait alors qu’un clone de certains pays de la région dans leur quête d’identité et à l’avenir incertain, tel l’Irak, pris dans un tourbillon de violence et d’instabilité. Le Liban que nous connaissons ne pourrait jamais survivre à la disparition de l’un de ses piliers fondateurs.
Les chrétiens continueront de jouer leur rôle pilote dans la nation libanaise sur tous les plans : culturel, économique, social et politique. Si le Liban est resté un pays unique et admirable malgré tous les drames qui l’ont frappé au fil des dernières décennies, c’est grâce à sa diversité culturelle et religieuse dont la dimension chrétienne est une condition sine qua non. »
*********************************************************************************
Lessons from Israel's Lebanon war resonate globally...
A new report provides a window into an increasingly insurmountable task facing democracies: winning war, regardless of military superiority.
By Ilene R. Prusher | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
As Israelis continue to absorb the impact of a stinging report indicating that the country's leaders "severely failed" when leading the country in a war against Hizbullah last July, it became increasingly clear that the conflict will be absorbed in the public mind as an almost complete fiasco.
This despite – from a strictly military point of view – the devastating losses imposed on Lebanon. Israeli military experts also say that several key goals – "degrading" the military capabilities of the Iranian-backed Hizbullah and getting the international community to keep a closer eye on Lebanon – were unrealized.
But last week's Winograd Commission report on the war provides a window into what may be an increasingly insurmountable task facing modern democracies: winning war, regardless of military superiority.
Both Israel and the United States are face to face with religious militants and insurgency groups – organizations that are committed to an idea but not necessarily a country or its leadership. From Hizbullah in Lebanon to Al Qaeda in Iraq and around the world, victory is in the eyes of the beholder.
Each group has the Internet at its fingertips and an increasingly sophisticated public-relations machine to strike at the home front, from Hizbullah's slick marketing proclaiming "Divine Victory" after the Lebanon war to Al Qaeda's professional video-distribution network.
The traditional scorecards used to tally winners and losers, experts say, were designed for a battlefield that is fading into obsolescence.
"None of our paradigms apply today. All of our models are becoming irrelevant," says Michael Oren, a senior fellow at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem and the author of several books on the Middle East.
One of the key changes emerges from the reality of facing off against nontraditional combatants. Those opponents find it easier to hide amid civilians and engender the loss of innocent life. "If you're compelled to fight an un-uniformed enemy, he's also forcing you to inflict civilian casualties. The irregulars know this, and that it will find its way onto TV sets, and it will affect your ability to fight them any further," Mr. Oren says.
The media's role
Although newsreels once drove home some of the horrors of World War II and viewers saw disturbing images of the war in Vietnam through network television footage, the media today can bring tragic scenes to the public eye in minutes, swaying opinion with the alacrity of an e-mail.
"The media isn't only more intense; it's more instantaneous, and everyone with a cellphone with a camera on it is a virtual reporter," Oren adds. "War is fought in real time now, and that greatly limits your latitude if you're fighting someone like Hizbullah."
After five weeks of war, Hizbullah's top leadership survived, claiming victory.
Hizbullah was able to herald Israel's retreat – following its reoccupation of positions in south Lebanon – as capitulation. Meanwhile, many in Israel decried the wanton loss of both Lebanese and Israeli life, as others argued that their leaders sent in reservist soldiers unprepared for battle, making the war particularly ill fought.
"There's no question that whether it's the insurgency or Hizbullah, the victories are Pyrrhic," says Oren. "The impression is created that they have won, and this is rife with implications."
US-Israeli parallels
The Israeli decision to go to war against Hizbullah in Lebanon – a decision which, the commission charged, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made hastily – bears remarkable correlations to President Bush's Iraqi venture.
Each leader was relatively quick to take his country into a war for reasons that looked convincing enough at the time, and which, when first launched, prompted mostly tepid reservations. Each leader stands faulted for not having been more adept at planning, for not having anticipated what would go wrong, and for either under-utilizing or disregarding entirely the advice of some of their own best experts.
Each also faces quickly dwindling public support and mounting pressure from lawmakers and rivals. In the US, this has crescendoed in the congressional challenge to Mr. Bush in demanding a timetable for drawing down troops in Iraq, tied to a spending bill. And in Israel, this has Mr. Olmert's political peers abuzz, waiting for an appropriate moment to unseat him without having to endanger their own positions in government.
"The heart of the failure is this kind of intellectual laziness," says Ari Shavit, an influential columnist for Haaretz newspaper. "It's like, 'Oh, let's have it easy,' " he says with a dismissive air. " 'Let's just send the planes and let them solve the problem.'"
His reference is to the approach Israel took at the start of the war, which has primarily been blamed on Israeli army Chief of Staff Dan Halutz, who has since resigned. Israelis blame Mr. Halutz, an airman, for relying too heavily on air superiority and not sending in ground troops until very late in the war.
A commander sending his soldiers to do house-to-house operations knows he's sending them on a perilous mission. But fighting from the air often causes a great deal of "collateral damage" and doesn't necessarily put any of the goals within reach.
By comparison, the US faced a similar dilemma in the Iraq war, which got the post-Hussein period off to a disastrous start. Amid disagreements among top Army brass over whether there were going to be enough "boots on the ground," then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld argued for the most conservative – and least expensive – estimates.
Today, few would argue against the understanding that there were not enough troops to secure Iraq from the start, which quickly unleashed unrest.
To be sure, the differences are almost as remarkable as the parallels. Washington's goals in Iraq were largely based on the regime's supposed weapons of mass destruction and Mr. Hussein's oppressive rule, while Israel said it was focused on getting its soldiers back that had been captured by Hizbullah, and, at the same time, inflicting heavy damage on Hizbullah's increased military capacity.
Robert Blecher, a fellow at the Center for Human Rights at the University of Iowa and an editor of Middle East Report, says that ideally, the Winograd Report should provide a chance for reassessing whether diplomacy could have played a more prominent role last summer. The report faults the prime minister for not involving his own foreign ministry in the decision making process.
"The Winograd Report [is] as a potentially watershed moment in how national decision making is done," says Mr. Blecher, an expert on Israeli and Palestinian affairs. "There needs to be a better calibrated mix of military and diplomatic means to achieve the goals."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Harvard's Twisted Report on Israel's Invasion of Lebanon
May 11, 2007
FRANKLIN LAMB - First it was (and is) that would be tenure-denying, torture-justifying, Israeli occupation apologist, opponent smearing, Alan Dershowitz. I could deal with Alan.
But now it's Marvin Kalb! A boyhood hero of mine!
When I spent a year at Harvard Law School, studying the Chinese Legal System a while back, Dershowitz did not appear particularly out of control.
Neither did Marvin Kalb when we chatted at a Washington NBC function and who seemed reasonable enough as moderator of Meet the Press. So the problem for sure has got to be Harvard! Or maybe it's just me!
Currently a Senior Fellow at Harvard's, Joan Shorenstein Center, (no hard feelings that it's paid for by Walter Shorestein-AIPAC's favorite member and Californian fundraiser or that its DC office is very cozy with the nearby AIPAC office), Kalb recently published a 'study': The Israeli-Hezbollah War of 2006: The Media as a Weapon in Asymmetrical Conflict. He was joined by Carol Saivetz. So far so good. I'm all for 'academic studies.
The JTA news desk featured Kalb's work on May 3, 2007 and AIPAC is now busy flooding Congress with this "academic study" as they attempt to intimidate the fourth estate with shrieks of "See we told you so! You guys are anti-Israel and maybe closet anti-Semites! We have Harvard scholarship to back it up!"
Some Harvard scholarship!
I won't nit pick Kalb's heavy duty sources for his tome: Fox News, Bill Kristol's, Weekly Standard, Anderson Cooper's " Hezbollah is still a Secretive Organization"( I hope they are or I'm in trouble!) The Jewish Press's Media Monitor, and as Kalb assures us "interviews with many Diplomats", none of whom he names. Forget about the DC Madams phone records, I am more curious about Kalb's secret 'Diplomats" and my concern is about what Harvard publishes as 'scholarship' these days....
Kalb doesn't tell us how much time he or his sources actually spent in Lebanon doing research during or since the July war, but there were many solid journalists there, and while they don't need me to defend their work, I would offer Marvin a couple of fact-checks and an observation or two.
Kalb's Abstract of his 'research paper' succinctly presents his thesis: During the Hezbollah-Israel "summertime war" (as in picnic, I guess) "the media moved from being objective to becoming "fiery advocates (of Hezbollah) and thus "a weapon of modern warfare".
Kalb claims the media gave Hezbollah, which he calls "a closed sect" (that doesn't sound too good) "total control of the daily message of journalism and propaganda" and this fact "victimized Israel" because the latter is 'an open society" whereas Hezbollah is " a closed society, that engages in " undemocratic control of the media", is militant, secretive, a religiously fundamentalist sect, a state within a state, sub-national (not good)'Party of God", , resisting 'the infidel' and seeking 'divine victory' and supported by Iran and Syria (!) )and, if that is not enough, is similar to the Mahdi army. Kalb never mentions that Israel is supported by the US to the tune of 15.1 million dollars a day or 300 times more than the CIA claims Hezbollah gets in foreign aid each year and receives 83% of its weapons from the US, to the tune of tens of Billions of USD, for decades.
Kalb's first problem with the media focuses on the UN media website. His research reveals that the much maligned UNIFIL observers, who Israel have bombed and shelled 15 times in the past quarter century, posted on its media web site Israeli cross border incursions that took place each preceding day. The same job the UN has been tasked with doing since 1978, as it has documented more than 18,000 Israeli violations of Lebanese territory including its air and sea space. Remarkably Kalb's 'research' in this respect is identical to that of AIPAC's Lori Lowenthal Marcus,
"What Did You Do during the War, UNIFIL?" in The Weekly Standard of mid-august. Kalb and Marcus claim that Hezbollah fighters, if they had laptops with internet connections (there was no electricity in the south after the first few hours of Israel's bombing) Hezbollah fighters learned something about where the Israelis were and hence got "a gift" from the UN which became an extremely valuable intelligence asset for Hezbollah, and Hezbollah exploited it."
Fact check : Kalb and Harvard's Shorenstein Center may want to know that Hezbollah fighters, organized in groups of two or three (sometimes five depending on the weapons used) know every inch of their assigned areas in South Lebanon, in fact, much better than the UN does. They were born in these villages, have fought the Israelis in this hilly terrain since the 1970's and on July 12th knew exactly which 3 entry points (out of a possible 24) the IDF was going to use to invade Lebanon and they were waiting for them. Hezbollah also had a fairly good idea where every Israeli was at any given time during the conflict. Israel's problem was that they could not find Hezbollah until they wanted to be found whether it was at Maroun al Ras, Eita Al-Chaab, Bint Jbeil, Yarun, Khiam or anywhere along the 'blue line'.
The Harvard study complains that the UN did not report on Hezbollah movements, thereby exhibiting anti-Israel bias.
Fact check : Excuse me Marvin but if the IDF with the latest US technology and night vision equipment, scores of cameras mounted on Israeli Heron, Searcher Mk II, or Hermes 450 drones, and close up satellite imaging could not find Hezbollah fighters, the UN observers along the blue line dodging Israeli shells were unlikely to. (On July 26 Israel did bomb the UN post near Khiam killing four UN observers-Canadian, Chinese, and Finnish) Moreover, the UN mission is to report crossings of the 'blue line' (only Israel was doing that), not to survey what is going on inside Lebanon.
Moreover, blaming the UN for doing its job, which Israel has done for 25 years, and claiming Hezbollah fighters, under a blitz in a free fire zone, including an estimated 4.8 million cluster bombs, were running around with laptops and relied on the UN website for Israeli movements is patent nonsense. His conclusion that "the UN media gave Hezbollah an extremely valuable intelligence asset which they exploited" is fantasy. "Tink tank" 'researchers' really should get out to the field more often and learn the lay of the land, so to speak.
Kalb is troubled by what his research revealed:
"They (the Israelis) couldn't keep a secret. Hezbollah, on the other hand, controlled its message with an iron grip. It had one spokesman and no leaks. Hezbollah did not have to respond to criticism from bogglers, and it could always count on unashamedly sympathetic Arab reporters to blast Israel for its "disproportionate" military attack against Lebanon during the 2006 summertime war in the Middle East, it was Israel versus Hezbollah, led by the charismatic Hassan Nasrallah, and because Israel did not win the war, it is judged to have lost."
Fact check : Hezbollah operated an efficient press information office with several spokesmen and plenty of backgrounders and volunteer staff who answered every question they could and who did help the media. Nasrallah gave no interviews during the 33 day conflict but did issue statements. With virtually the whole Israeli military after him,pounding a block of flats with 23 Tons of high explosives in 2 minutes, whenever they thought Nasrallah was there, he was lying low....
Kalb's research found that "the media showed too much destruction of Lebanon and in its reporting did not credit Israel's argument that international law allowed Israel to bomb civilian areas if soldiers were hiding within these homes." Israel used this same argument during its 1978, 1982, 1993, 1996, invasions, as it does in Palestine today. In the summer of 2006 it was very easy for the media to find evidence in Lebanon. 950,000 civilians were bombed out of their villages and the 132,000 homes destroyed or partially damaged ,and were crowded into public parks in Beirut and schools or received in private homes all over Lebanon and Syria. The media had lots of eye witness sources regarding the destruction of Lebanon and they properly reported what they learned.
Kalb cites Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni's statement to the New York Times, following the slaughter at Qana, "When you go to sleep with a missile, you might find yourself waking up to another kind of missile" as authority. Israel later admitted there were no missiles fired from Qana, and no Hezbollah in the area, but that it had made a deliberate mistake in killing those 38 civilians hiding in the shelter. Kalb might want to inform diplomat Livni that none of the 10 adults or 28 children had gone to sleep with a missile at Qana, and the same thing happened in the first Qana massacre of 1996, when IDF massacred 95 civilians near a UN post in QANA.
Fact check : Again, researcher Kalb seems not to understand how the war was being fought on the ground here in South Lebanon. Hezbollah was not hiding from Israeli forces among the civilians. Contrariwise, they were eager to engage Israel every chance they got. Typically Hezbollah fired their missiles from camouflaged areas such as banana groves, orchards, dense foliage, bunkers, holes in the ground, sides of rocky hills and valleys not from houses or towns. They knew very well that Israel would not hesitate to bomb civilian houses which they have been doing since the late 1960's. After a particular mission, Hezbollah fighters would ditch their weapons and try to sleep. Only rarely making their way back to their villages to check on their families or property.
With respect to Israel's admitted "mistake" of bombing the Qana shelter, according to NGO-Lebanon, Israel made 6,979 'mistakes' in bombing during the 33 day July War. Maybe Kalb finds that statistic acceptable given that Israel launched more that 17,000 attacks at more than 8,000 targets, including 300,000 artillery shells and approximately 4.8 million cluster bombs. The juggernaut international Israeli press operation did. Most of the media did not.
Kalb's research also finds it problematical that "not only diplomats but the media forgot about who started the war and focused on Israel's "disproportionate response." (Kalb's quotation marks imply that his research found no disproportionate response which puts him at odds with virtually all the world's media including Israel's)). So they did and should have. The applicable principle of international law is simple enough. When one side trespasses, captures soldiers or commits a hostile act that does not allow the other side, in retaliation, to slaughter hundreds of civilians and destroy much of the country. The related principle of international law is the obligation to discriminate between civilian and military targets. Israel's responsive killing of more than 1,450 civilians, nearly 1/3 of them children, many fleeing in convoys waving white flags, or following Israeli orders to flee, or hiding in cellars with no fighters in the area, was indeed disproportionate to the capturing of the two soldiers. The international media properly reported these war crimes.
Kalb's research revealed that "Supporters of Israel's position, (including scholars) tend to dismiss the proportionality/disproportional debate as misleading and foolish". He may be right regarding the first group but he's dead wrong regarding the second.
Kalb fails to mention the reams of available material on the subject of Israel's illegal "disproportionate" bombing, which he denies occurred, including many testimonies from the Israeli military to the effect that Israel "lost it" early in the conflict, after being repeatedly ambushed and not being able to locate Hezbollah fighters and in a vengeful frenzy carpet bombed much of south Lebanon, and many other parts of Lebanon, especially south Beirut and Baalbek, creating a free fire killing zone.
"What we did was insane and monstrous, we covered entire towns in cluster bombs, we fired 2,800 cluster bombs, containing over 1.2 million cluster bomblets" (IDF head of just one rocket unit quoted in Ha'aretz on 9/12/06)
"In the last 72 hours we fired all the munitions we had, all at the same spot, we didn't even alter the directions of the gun. Friends of mine in the battalion told me they also fired everything in the last three days-ordinary shells, clusters, whatever they had." (Israeli reservist in an artillery battalion, quoted in Ha'aretz on 9/8/06)
Kalb, admits that Israel has tough military censorship laws, which did not allow reporting, for example, of the weapons stores and bases in northern Israel that many of Hezbollah's missiles were aiming at, rather than targeting civilians, but his media research criticized Hezbollah for restricting movement during Israel's bombing in Lebanon. Hezbollah press aids did sometimes suggest, during intensive bombing that for safety reasons, reporters might want to watch the action on Al Manar TV. The reason is that Hezbollah films most of its battles live, because over the years Israel undercounts its causalities and over counts Hezbollah's (Kalb uses Israel's claim of 600 Hezbollah killed in the July war when the actual figure is 264).
Fact check : Al Manar viewership is often higher in Israel during conflicts than Israeli stations because Israelis have greater confidence in Al Manar for truthful reporting than their own government fed stations. Despite this well known fact, scholar Kalb, perhaps recalling his days as a reporter in the USSR, smears Al-Manar: "for reports and information about the war, Al-Manar was to Hezbollah what Pravda was to the Soviet Union." Israeli TV viewers don't agree....
Kalb finds a media 'clash of civilizations' problem when Newsweek did not run a gruesome photo and Arab media did. His research concludes: "Two value systems were clearly in collision: one didn't go with the gruesome photo, one did go with it, in fact deliberately spread it far and wide, wanting nothing more than to use any and every weapon of "information" to defeat Israel", while Israel and the DOD
in the US, " Pentagon" spend hundreds of millions of USD on FDDC, to spread lies and dis-information worldwide, to cover their horrendous murders in Lebanon, Iraq and elsewhere, and cover the fact that the war on Lebanon in 2006, was a joint US/Israeli operation wall to wall, made in the "culture of Violence" of DOD and Tal-Aviv.
Interestingly Kalb's conclusion is nearly word for word, the one that appeared on AIPAC's website, before Kalb completed his own 'study'.
To paraphrase Alan Dershowitz's statement on his website ("I like Carter") re President Carter, just before he trashed him, I want to say: "I like Marvin Kalb". And I won't trash him. But if he'll come to Lebanon I'll show him around and help him with additional sources for the next printing of his 'study'....
Franklin Lamb's just released book, The Price We Pay: A Quarter Century of Israel's Use of American Weapons in Lebanon is available at Amazon.com.uk. His volume, Hezbollah: a Brief Guide for Beginners is due out in early summer, 2007. He can be reached at fplamb@gmail.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
قبل أن يصبح المسيحيون وراء المحيطات !
17 نيسان 2007
ريما فرح - أميركا «صديقة» للبنان، وكذلك فرنسا، فشكرا لهما على «صداقتهما». ولا يسعنا نحن اللبنانيين المسيحيين تحديدا الذين نشأنا على «رعشات» قبلة أنظار اسلافنا التي هي الغرب، ونمونا بفضل «الرضاعة الطبيعية» من ثدي أمنا الحنون فرنسا، واستمرينا في الرضاعة حتى بعد ان تخطينا عمر الفطام، من وقفة تقييم لهذه «الصداقة»، ولمفعول هذه «الرضاعة»، وما هو مردودهما على المسيحيين في لبنان، لنتبيّن، ولنبيّن للآخرين ونضع اصبعنا في عيون كل من يواجه بعضنا بالتعييب، ربطه لمصيرنا بالمشروع الأميركي وحليفه الفرنسي الشيراكي في المنطقة.
فماذا يعني ربط المسيحيين في لبنان بالمشروع الأميركي في المنطقة؟
الاستنتاج يتوضح في هذا المسار:
في العام 1975 اندلعت الحرب في لبنان، في الوقت الذي بدأت فيه الولايات المتحدة عبر وزير خارجيتها آنذاك هنري كسينجر سياسة السلام المنفرد بين اسرائيل والدولة العربية المحيطة بها، بدلا من سياسة الحل الشامل، وتزامنت مع توقيع اتفاق سيناء الثاني بين مصر واسرائيل الذي مهد لاتفاق كامب ديفيد. ويستشم من هذه السياسة، لا بل يتخطى الأمر حاسة الشم ليتأكد بالفم الملآن، والعين المجرّدة، والعقل المتزن، وأصبع توما، ان مشروع توطين الفلسطينيين اللاجئين الى لبنان هو جزء بارز وعامل أساسي في خطط هذه السياسة... فكانت الحرب ضد التوطين وشكل رأس حربتها المسيحيون...
تطورت الحرب واستفحلت، وكان وقعها على المسيحيين قاسيا. هجرة الى الخارج وتهجيرا من الداخل الى الداخل، وتورطا بعلاقات عسكرية «انقاذية للوجود» مع اسرائيل، والأم الحنون فرنسا مكتفية بدور المتفرّج، الى آن جاء ترياق النصيحة للحل من الصديقة اميركا عبر دين براون (سفير سابق للولايات المتحدة في الأردن) الذي استعان به كيسنجر ليبلغ القادة المسيحيين (سليمان فرنجية وكميل شمعون وبيار الجميل) انه لا يمكنهم توقع الانقاذ على يد البحارة والجنود الأميركيين كما في العام ,1958 وليقنعهم انه ليس أمام المسيحيين سوى الهجرة والرحيل، وان البواخر الأميركية مستعدة لنقلهم الى كاليفورنيا ومنحهم تأشيرات دخول واقامة كيان لهم.
وتوالت رعاية اميركا لاتفاقية وادي عربة بين اسرائيل والأردن، ثم جاء اتفاق اوسلو، وموضوع حق عودة الفلسطينيين الى بلادهم يبتعد أميالا، وتوطينهم في دول الشتات وفي المقدمة لبنان، يقترب بسرعة الضوء.
في العام 1983 وغداة انسحاب الجيش الاسرائيلي من الجبل، أي بعد عام على الاجتياح الإسرائيلي الصديق لأميركا، للبنان، اندلعت حرب ضارية بين الدروز والمسيحيين هناك، فكانت النتيجة تهجيرا كبيرا للمسيحيين من هناك وضحايا كثيرين وتدميرا شبه شامل، ونيوجرسي (البارجة الأميركية العملاقة) تنظر عن قريب من مياه لبنان الاقليمية، ومعها كل المارينز.. وكرت هذه السبحة في درب جلجلة المسيحيين، لتشمل الشحار الغربي واقليم الخروب وشرق صيدا وساحل جزين في العامين 1984 و1985 في أحداث مماثلة.
«ضبضب» الأميركيون وجودهم وحوائجهم، وغادروا تاركين المسيحيين لمصيرهم المحتوم بعدما توصلت «والية» العالم اليوم، الى تفاهم ما، مع السوريين والإسرائيليين، كان سبقه ما عرف ضمنا باتفاقية الخطوط الحمر...
في العامين 1989 و1990 اندلعت حربا التحرير والإلغاء، فدمرت مناطق المسيحيين عن بكرة أبيها، بعدما انحشروا جراء التهجير برعاية الأميركيين والإسرائيليين وسواهم وتحت انظارهم، بين كفرشيما والمدفون، كما دمر اقتصادهم ومعه آلتهم العسكرية، بعدما كان الأميركيون أنفسهم وحلفاؤهم الإسرائيليون، بما لهم من «مونة»، قد اسقطوا الاتفاق الثلاثي في العام .1985 الى ان جاء الطائف المرعى غربيا وعربيا، ولزم الملف اللبناني تباعا للسوريين، فكان ما كان من احباط عند المسيحيين، واستأثر بالسلطة من استأثر من الطوائف التي ما زالت تستأثر اليوم في زمن التحرير والسيادة!، كما في زمن الوصاية!، حتى ان أولئك، وباستقواء الوصاية مارسوا كل ما يكمن على قادة مسيحيي تلك المرحلة لمنعهم من قيام مرجعية مسيحية فاعلة...
واليوم، نرى البعض من المسيحيين يهلل للمشروع الأميركي الجديد القديم، والذي أولى ركائزه ما عبّر عنه جون بولتن قبل عام من انهم ينظرون الى الشرق ومنه لبنان، على انه مكوّن من عنصرين سني وشيعي، والمسيحيون فيه حالة ثقافية، وهذا يعني ان المسيحيين ليسوا في معادلة هذا الشرق، ولن يكونوا فيه شركاء او اصحاب قرار. ثم واولى نتائجه هجرة 800 الف مسيحي من العراق والحبل ع الجرّار. وإذا ما قدر للمشروع الأميركي النجاح في سوريا كما هو مرسوم، والذي عليه يُعوّل المتهورون، فإن مصير مسيحيي سوريا سيكون مطابقا لمشهد مسيحيي العراق، من دون ان ننسى مسيحيي فلسطين الذين لم يبق منهم في أرضهم سوى 2٪.
أما مسيحيو لبنان اصحاب «الدور الرائد» في الكيان وفي بناء حضارة الشرق، فماذا ينتظرهم؟.. في حال نجح المشروع الذي يراهن عليه البعض، رجاء اتبعوا السيناريو التالي: توطين للفلسطينيين في لبنان، هي نفسها القضية التي قاتل لمنعها المسيحيون منذ العام 1975 وسقط لهم بسببها وما تلاها اكثر من مئة الف قتيل، وهُجر حوالى 300 الف، وهاجر الى الخارج عدد مماثل، ودمرت معظم بلداتهم وخارج كانتونهم الذين حشروا فيه بعد العام ,1985 وقُضي على معظم مواردهم واقتصادهم هناك... ثم في أسوأ الأحوال دويلة وفق نظام فدرالي، او دويلة بعد التقسيم، وكلاهما لا مقومات لدولة فيهما ومن خلالهما... لكن فيها بالتأكيد، خسارة المسيحيين لأهم مواردهم الاقتصادية والانتاجية، تهجير جديد، وهجرة متزايدة الى الخارج، هذا إذا استبعدنا احتمال الوقوع في التجربة ثانية او ثالثة او رابعة.. وعاد بنا الحنين الى الصراعات الداخلية بين الأخوة والرفاق وابناء «الصف والخط والقضية» على «قيادة المجتمع»!.
وهذا يكفي، ومن المستحسن وقف سياق السرد عند هذه الحدود، كي لا نفجع المؤمنين بالنتيجة: «سلام على الدور الرائد والفاعل، وعلى كرسي انطاكية وسائر المشرق»، والى اللقاء وراء المحيطات...، لكننا سنتواصل عبر الانترنت...
*********************************************************************************
لقد تحالف التيار مع حزب الله انطلاقاً من ورقة تفاهم شاملة اعتبرها المدخل الصحيح لمعالجة الازمة اللبنانية من جذورها. بينما تتهم القوات اللبنانية حزب الله «باقامة دولة داخل الدولة» والتسبب بحرب تموز.
في الواقع السياسي الفعلي: القوات اللبنانية، المتحالفة مع تيار المستقبل ووليد جنبلاط، تسير في خط السياسة الاميركية حتّى... «العضم». وهي تؤمن ان القوة الاميركية سوف تنتصر. ومن مصلحة المسيحيين ان يسيروا في ركابها.
ولم يقطع الجنرال شعرة معاوية مع الاميركان، لكنه يؤمن ان السلم الداخلي الناتج عن التحالف مع حزب الله، هو الضمانة الفعلية، والحقيقية، للحفاظ على وحدة البلاد. ولولا هذا التحالف لما مرّت حرب تموز من دون انعكاسات داخلية خطيرة جدا...ولكانت نتائج الصراع الداخلي اكبر ضررا على لبنان من العدوان نفسه.
والخلافات الشعبية مع النازحين كانت احدى الاوراق التي راهنت عليها اسرائيل. وقد اسقطها تحالف التيار مع حزب الله. والحزب يحفظ للتيار هذا الموقف.
في بكركي قال الدكتور جعجع انه يقف على طرف نقيض مع الجنرال عون... فالى اين يتجه المسيحيون في الاشهر المقبلة؟ واي دور تلعبه بكركي؟
ميليشيات جعجع وجنبلاط تتلقى تتدريبها في إسرائيل
قالت صحيفة «الوحدة» الاردنية: إن مجموعة مكونة من 42 من عناصر ميليشيا سمير جعجع ووليد جنبلاط تتلقى تدريبات عسكرية في معسكرات خاصة داخل اسرائيل تستمر ثلاثة أسابيع .
ونقلت الصحيفة عن مصادر مطلعة قولها: إن هذه هي الدفعة الثالثة التي وصلت الى اسرائيل جوا للتدريب العسكري عن طريق عواصم أوروبية بجوازات سفر من دون تأشيرات دخول حتى لا يتم كشفها.
وقد وصل مع هذه المجموعات أربعة من مسؤولي ميليشيات جعجع وجنبلاط وعادوا الى بيروت عن طريق باريس بعلم السلطات الفرنسية.
الثلاثاء، 10 نيسان
2007،
********************************************************************************
فأس الغضب
بقلم: زينا الخوري
على طريقة الاستشهاديين صوّر الطالب الكوري الجنوبي Cho Scung Hui (تلفظ حسب الواشنطن بوست: جوه سونغ - وي) نفسه، ثم مضى في مهمته الانتحارية. قتل 32 طالباً في جامعة فرجينيا من بينهم لبنانيون في عمر الورود.
ارتدى قبعة بايسبول سوداء، ادار وجهها الى الوراء، فبدت كالرباط الذي يلفه «الجهاديون» على جباههم قبل العمليات، وحمّل اميركا مسؤولية الحادثة فقال:
«ايها الفاسدون... المتعجرفون... الاغنياء! كان امامكم مئة مليار فرصة لتفادي هذا اليوم. لكنكم قررتم اراقة دمي، حشرتموني في زاوية وتركتم لي خياراً واحداً فقط. كان القرار اصلاً قراركم انتم. اليوم اياديكم ملطخة بالدماء. لن تُغسل الى الابد...!»
غاضب. مضطرب. محبط، قليل الكلام. هكذا وصفه رفاقه، لكن طالب الادب الانكليزي، الذي يكتب اشعاراً مليئة بالموت، ابن المهاجر الكوري الجنوبي صاحب المصبغة، كان قنبلة بشرية غاضبة على المجتمع الاميركي، والطريقة الاميركية، والحلم الاميركي...
ارتكب مجزرة. لكن نظراته بقيت هادئة، بلا اضطراب. وفي عينيه لمعة حزن اكثر من شراسة جنون.
اما عبارة «Ismael AX»، «فأس اسماعيل» التي وشمها على ذراعها، ووجدتها الشرطة على اوراقه الخاصة، فتدعو الى الحيرة، وتوجب التساؤل العميق عن السبب الحقيقي للجريمة. خاصة ان الشريط الانتحاري تضمن عبارة نافرة موجهة الى يسوع: «يسوع يُحب ان يصلبني، كان يعشق ان يزرع السرطان في رأسي، ويرعب قلبي، ويمزق روحي...»
لن يعرف احد ماذا كان يدور في رأس «سونغ» لحظة نفّذ جريمته المرعبة. لكن لا بد ان يتوقف عندها الاميركيون طويلاً ومعهم العالم. ربما يفهمون ان صور الانتحاريين في الشرق تنتقل الى الرؤوس في الغرب. و«الارهاب» الذي جاؤوا ليحاربوه شرقاً، تحمله الرياح في كل اتجاه.
غاضب واحد قتل 32 بريئاً في اميركا عندما طفح كيله. فماذا يفعل مليون غاضب في بلد صغير مثل لبنان؟
همس الى الاباء الاجلاء: أكسروا فأس الغضب!
#######################################################################
This is MADE in "GeaGea and Jumblatt's land" since 1983 until present and counting.....Their AIM IS FOR THE LAST CHRISTIAN TO LEAVE Lebanon FOR GOOD...
**************************************************************************************************
WALEED IN DESPERATE NEED OF HIS DOSE...
++++++++++++++++
Ce qu’on peut apprécier de la part du criminel Joumblatt, c’est sa facilité à rappeler le passé des autres sans jamais se souvenir du sien, ainsi que des rôles de ses alliés terroristes durant ce même passé.
Je ne peux oublier dans le passé récent, cette accaparation d’une révolution populaire, celle du 14 mars 2005 en parti politique. C’était le peuple et non des politiciens qui appellent ensuite au retour aux maisons pour continuer la ratatouille politicienne habituelle.
“rentrez chez vous maintenant, on s’occupe de tout”, avait à l’époque déclaré le sieur de Moukhtara. On voit bien aujourd’hui ou cela nous à mener, avec une alliance “électoraliste” pour obtenir Baabda Aley et les sièges de Saïda, convergences d’intérêts puis la divergence qui a amené à l’éclatement de cette même coalition gouvernementale en 2006 et la paralysie qui en a suivi.
Une personne qui aurait vraiment le sens des responsabilités commencerait avant tout non pas par attaquer ses adversaires mais par les comprendre, à répondre à leur inquiétude pour trouver un moyen de s’en sortir en cas de situation aussi grave que celle que traverse le Liban.
Ainsi, nos politiciens devraient répondre à des questions tels que:
* Quelles garanties peut on aujourd’hui avoir vis-à-vis de sa propre personne, lui même ne s’était-il pas allié à Hafez el Assad et même aujourd’hui à Khaddam qui ont trempé dans l’assassinat de son propre père? Au nom du tribunal international, ne devrait on pas juger tous les fouteurs de guerre en commençant par ceux de la guerre civile et ainsi promouvoir une réconciliation réelle entre libanais?
* Ne devons nous pas éviter toute provocation qui pourrait ramener au pire, à savoir au conflit, ayant conscience aujourd’hui que le principal danger est celui d’une déflagration entre sunnites et chiites?
* Quelles réformes peut on faire au système politique pour que celui ci soit plus homogène et non paralysable au premier problème venu.
* Quelles relations peut on avoir avec nos voisins?
Bien sur que d’autres questions se doivent d’être posées, la liste est non exaustive....
**********************************************
WHOLESALE TRAITORS FOR DECADES, Yesterday to Syria & CIA, Today to AWKAR, CIA, DGSE and KSA etc.
IF YOU OPEN THE COURT CASE AGAINST ME The BATRAK, [SUITCASES OF CASH IN MY PRIVATE JET AT LE BOURGET...] THEY WILL OPEN YOURS...AFTER YOU LEAVE OFFICE:SWARKO IS MY NEO'CONN BUDDY...]
I DID NOT DO IT; IT SO HAPPENS THAT IT WAS THERE IN MY JET. AND I was told that FRENCH CUSTOMS WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO FIND IT ...YA AKHI...? So I got caught with lots of CASH in my suitcases, but most people know by now, especially people who have been close to me for decades... that I have a Malignant Self Love - I am Narcissistic by nature... despite all these books written about me telling my flock that I care so deeply about them..., In Lebanon, we write books full of falsehoods, we clean the record of the assassins, and we destroy the credibility and wonderful record of the HEROES.
.jpg)
THERE IS NOTHING I CAN DO ABOUT HIM, THE VATICAN'S HANDS ARE TIED BY CIA, THE NEOCONS AND "OPUS DEI"...
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1983/07/willbedone.html
LOVERS AT FIRST SIGHT and More..."Sannioura is Stooge Nr.: 1 "
هنا السؤال نوجهه الى الاكثرية والى الرئيس السنيورة: هل هم يعتبرون ان هذه القيمة العالية التي قدمها لبنان في الدفاع عن نفسه عبر المقاومة هي قيمة عالية تمتلكها الاكثرية والحكومة ام هم يشاركون واشنطن في انها عبء عليهم ولا بد من العودة الى النقاط السبع كمدخل لبحث موضوع المقاومة.
الاشارات كثيرة بأن الرئيس السنيورة والاكثرية لا يريدون المقاومة وهم منحازون ضد فئة كبيرة من شعبهم لصالح القرار الاميركي وبعض الاوروبيين ويظهر ذلك من خلال تصريحات زعماء الاكثرية وتصريحات الرئيس السنيورة كما ان الاشارة الاهم هي ان لبنان تلقى مساعدات نقدية بعد العدوان الاسرائيلي بلغت مليارين ومئة مليون دولار ويكفي ان نرى كيف يحبس السنيورة هذه الاموال ولا يدفعها حتى الان بكامل حسابها للمتضررين من العدوان الاسرائيلي كي نتأكد ان الرئيس السنيورة غير مهتم بقدرة الصمود لدى شعبنا في وجه اسرائيل.
في 15 ت2 انهت اسرائيل دفع كل التعويضـات وقـدمـت كل المساعدات في مناطق شمال فلسطين بسبب حربها وبسبب القصف الصاروخي للمقاومة على تلك المناطق.
بينما الرئيس السنيورة الذي امتلك القرار المالي لم يدفع سوى 30% من المساعدات التي جرى تقديمها للبنان نتيجة العدوان الاسرائيلي وما زال يحتفظ بالمبالغ بينما الناس في حاجة لها ولو دفع الرئيس السنيورة المليارين ومئة مليون دولار في 15 ت2 2006 كما فعلت اسرائيل لكانت الملياران دولار شكلت دورة اقتصادية هامة في البلاد خصوصا انها اموال لا تخرج من الخزينة بل دفعتها دول عربية واوروبية وصناديق مالية ومتبرعون لبنانيون وعرب ومن كل العالم.
السؤال هو هل يحق للرئيس السنيورة ان يأخذ من شعبه اللبناني ما لم تستطع اسرائيل اخذه من اللبنانيين بالقوة وهل يحق للرئيس السنيورة بقرار من الاكثرية اضعاف قدرة الصمود لدى شعبنا اللبناني امام اسرائيل فيما المطلوب تعزيز قدرة الصمود لدى شعبنا خاصة ان الاموال وردت من دول للتعويض على المتضررين من العدوان الاسرائيلي يحتجزها اي السنيورة في حسابات مجمدة بدل دفعها للناس المتضررين.
صعب ان ينظر اللبناني الى رئيس حكومة يضعف قدرته على الصمود في وجه العدو الاسرائيلي. ومن الموجع والمؤلم ان نرى اقتراحات من رئيس حكومة لبنان بشأن النقاط السبع لا تصب الا في خانة اميركا واسرائيل ويبقى السؤال هل الرئيس السنيورة رئيس حكومة لبنان ويهمه لبنان ام هو مساعد لكوندوليزا رايس ام اغراه الغداء مع الرئيس بوش والجلوس على طاولة البيت الابيض؟
ونحن رأينا كم من زعيم عربي واسلامي تغدى على طاولة الرئيس بوش في البيت الابيض بينما شعبه لا يحترمه ولا يقدره.
المزارع المرهونة
بقلم: زينا الخوري
عشية وصول امين عام الامم المتحدة بان كي مون الى دمشق، توجه الرئيس فؤاد السنيورة الى القاهرة.
حين تتقاطع الزيارتان تبدو محطة القاهرة بدلاً عن ضائع. السنيورة يبحث فيها عن فرصة اضاعها في بيروت، او عن «زمور» عجز عن شرائه من الشام.
قد تكون معظم المشاكل التي يواجهها لبنان اليوم ناتجة في الاساس عن القطيعة بين «الحكومة» ودمشق. لقد حرص السنيورة على وصفها «بالشقيقة» وهو يوجه اليها اللوم في القاهرة فقال: «إزاء عدم تعاون الاخوة السوريين في موضوع مزارع شبعا بات الحل الامثل ان توضع تحت وصاية الامم المتحدة».
ووصاية الامم المتحدة تشبه الخصخصة. مرفق حيوي بعد الآخر. هنا المحكمة اولاً ثم المزارع، يتبعها البحر... وسهلنا والجبل.
فالمحكمة والمزارع نقطتان ساخنتان تحشران الحكومة السنيورية في زاوية، وتضعان لبنان كله على حد السكين. والهدف في النهاية هو الوصول الى مصب واحد: نزع سلاح حزب الله، عن طريق انتفاء وجود «مبرر» للمقاومة.
وكأن ما تمنّع عنه الجيش السوري، وعجز عنه الجيش الاسرائيلي، يستطيع الفريق السنيوريّ ان ينفّذه على طريقة «شبيك لبيك». علماً ان سحب المزارع، كما المحكمة، من التداول، لا يحل المشكلة الداخلية.
الحركة السنيورية باتجاه مزارع شبعا، هي في الوقت نفسه محاولة لتسديد دين سياسي، الى الداعمين الغربيين، الذين بدأوا يوجهون اليه العتب. فقد قال مصدر اميركي رفيع المستوِى لوكالة اسوشيتيد برس: «ان انتقال المحكمة الدولية الى مجلس الامن يمثل اخفاقاً سياسياً كبيراً لحكومة فؤاد السنيورة....!».
من هنا تبدو زيارة القاهرة محاولة لجدولة الديون السياسية، او دفع الفوائد. وكأن «الاكثرية» تحاول ان ترهن مزارع شبعا في مصرف الامم المتحدة لتحصل على قرض سياسي جديد، تواجه به حزب الله.
لا عجب! منذ عقود يقوم الاسلوب السنيوري على الاستدانة. والرجل يعشق الديون لانه لا يسددها....
اما الشعب اللبناني «المعتر» فيدفع عنه الفواتير!
MADE IN USA AND ISRAEL FOR LEBANON'S CHILDREN, for 40 years and counting...
IDF, IAF, in action, 'COURAGE' only over civilian areas in Lebanon.
I JUST TOOK 6 MILLION US DOLLARS FROM BANK AL-MADINA FROM RANA, I DON'T
WANT TO GIVE IT BACK.... PLEASE, MAKE ME PRESIDENT FOR LIFE...
LIARS LIARS...WE LEARNED FROM OUR BUDDIES THE SYRIANS...YOU KNOW;
WE KILL, MURDER... THEN WE COME TO THE GRAVE TO MOURN, and "pray" for that we
shall not be discovered so soon....
I AM A LIAR AND I CAN PROVE IT .... THANKS CONDI, WE KNOW THAT FOR SURE
MORE ABOUT LIARS, IT'S HER SPECIALTY
MARWAN IS ALWAYS: CIA, CIA , CIA, He is the Biggest "HAKHAM", the
highest "o...priest"
I KNOW THAT MY HANDS ARE BOTH IN THE COOKIE JAR FOR YEARS, DAMN THESE
POOR LEBANESE....WHAT A CURSE...THEY ARE SO DEMANDING OF MY TIME...
IF YOU OPEN THE COURT CASE AGAINST ME [SUITCASES OF CASH IN MY PRIVATE
JET AT LE BOURGET...]THEY WILL OPEN YOURS...AFTER YOU LEAVE OFFICE:
SWARKO IS MY NEOCONN BUDDY...]THE CASH IS FOR MY MASTER HARIRI...who is offering me a residence after the Elysee Palace, and protection...I ONLY GOT A BIG BIG CUT...
مرتجع مع الشكر
19 نيسان 2007
زينا الخوري
قبل ان يغادر الاليزيه يصر الرئيس جاك شيراك ان يقدّم المحكمة الدولية «هدية وداع» الى الشعب اللبناني. كتب عليها: عربون وفاء لصديقي الشهيد رفيق الحريري.
من حق الرئيس الفرنسي، ومن حقنا قبله، ان نعرف القاتل لنسوقه الى العدالة. لكن حياة لبنان كله مرهونة اليوم في مجلس الامن من اجل «الهدية». وهي لن تصل الى بيروت الا عبر البوابة الروسية. والبوابة مقفلة. لذا يحاول «الصديق الوفي» ان يفتحها بشتى الوسائل.
بحثاً عن المفتاح الروسي تأتي زيارة خبير القانون الدولي نيكولا ميشال، الذي لاقاه الى بيروت السيد الكسندر سلطانوف في محاولة اخيرة، ويائسة، للخروج من المأزق. المشكلة ان المفتاح الروسي الضائع قد يكون سقط قرب الحدود وليس في قلب العاصمة. لذا يتوجه السيد بان كي مون الى دمشق بعد ايام قليلة.
فالأمين العام للامم المتحدة، الذي يعني اسمه بالانكليزية «مفتاح القمر»، يحمل في اجندته مفاتيح كثيرة، لكنها بالنسبة للقضية اللبنانية تصلح لاقفال الابواب... وتعجز عن فتحها.
إنه يسافر الى الشام تحت عنوان «مكافحة تهريب الاسلحة من سوريا الى لبنان». وهذا البند يعرقل صدور تقريره حول القرار 1701، بسبب اعتراض بعض الاعضاء في مجلس الامن، وفي طليعتهم دولة قطر!
و«تهريب السلاح» امر مهمة اسرائيلي، ولازمة تتكرر على ألسنة كثيرة للتسويق. أما المطلوب فعلياً فهو «وجود دولي» ما على الحدود بين لبنان وسوريا، كمقدمة لمشاريع الحلول التي يتوقف عليها مصير المنطقة. والامين العام يحمل اقتراحاً جديداً لهذا الوجود هو: «لجنة مراقبة مدنية».
سوريا ترفض اي شكل من اشكال التواجد الدولي على حدودها مع لبنان. واعلنت مراراً انها سوف تقفل هذه الحدود في حال حصوله.
سبق للبنان ان ذاق طعم «العرقلة» على الحدود... اما الاقفال فطعمه «حاجة تانية».
«هدية الوداع» قد تتحول الى قنبلة. ليتنا نكتب عليها: مرتجع مع الشكر!
I AM MR. BUSH. I AM HERE TO TELL THE LEBANESE THAT WE DID IT;
"THE TERROR CAR BOMB JANUARY 24TH 2002, THEN WE DID IT AT VALENTINE's
because RAFIC IS OUR FRIEND, SO WE MADE IT VERY SOPHISTICATED FOR HIM";
TO HK ELIE HOBEIKA, we did it WITH SHARON AND SHAWKAT, THEN WE DID IT
AGAIN FOR RAFIC HARIRI, MY FRIEND..., JUST BECAUSE WE BECAME
SO GOOD AT IT, AND WE WILL DEFINITLY DO IT AGAIN SOON....
THIS IS FOR SERGE BRAMMERTZ FROM GWB... FOR DNA TESTING II
I AM THE EMPEROR OF THE UNIVERSE AND I SPEAK TO GOD FROM ABOVE...
I JUST HELP MR. bush's friends, buddies and agents, and I Help
MOSSAD and the Syrians,WITH ALL THE MONEY THEY NEEDED, TO "OIL" THEIR
"ROGUE" INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS, and I help myself, AND MY FRIENDS AND
LOVERS, AND THEY ARE LEGIONS,EXCEPT FOR ONE: HE IS SOOO GOOD, I MARRIED
HIM IN PARIS OF COURSE...Please keep me in RIO DE JANEIRO...
I am a thug, an IDIOT, and I love the Maameltain WHORES...
French Government is the most hypocritical institution, they are training
Iranian Intelligence in Normandy France, all the while claiming to be
"supportive" of UN actions and Embargo... towards IRAN....
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iran/index.html
صندوق المهجرين يمول التظاهرات الفرعية الداعمة للحكومة
بطاقات توصية لدفع طلبات ترميم منجز لحامليها أكانوا من المرممين أو المهجرين أم لا
.................................................04 نيسان 2007
ملف أزلي ينتقل مع حكومات ما بعد الطائف ولا يبدو أن الحل قريب والسبب معوقات كثيرة ليس أولها اقتصادي ولن يكون آخرها السياسي والنتيجة واحدة: عشرات آلاف العائلات هجرت بعد أن ذبح أبناء لها واحتُلت بيوتها وقراها في الجبل وشرقي صيدا وجزين والزهراني ما زالت ممنوعة من العودة الى قراها
وما زالت كلمة "عودة" بمثابة حلم انتقل من الآباء الى الأبناء. مئات الملايين من الدولارات صرفت في سبيل هذا الملف الذي لم يقترب بعد من خاتمته. فالأموال دفعت وتُدفع لكن للجميع الا لأصحاب العلاقة. والتغني بالمصالحة التاريخية في الجبل بعد زيارة البطريرك مار نصر الله بطرس صفير الى الجبل وتحالف الفريق المسيحي في 14 شباط مع النائب وليد جنبلاط لم يثمر نتائج على أرض الجبل حيث لم تتعدَّ نسبة العودة 17 %. ولم ينسَ اللبنانيون بعد أن أهالي كفرمتى في انتخابات 2005 النيابية أدلوا بأصواتهم في صناديق وُضعت على مدخل البلدة.
ويبدو أن من أولويات السلطة في الآونة الأخيرة أن تدفع طلبات الترميم المنجز بدلاً من تخصيص أموال الصندوق المركزي للمهجرين لعودة من هجروا قسراً وأجبروا على ايجاد البديل لمنازلهم التي أخذت منهم. وفورة الترميم المنجز في الآونة الأخيرة تأتي بالتزامن مع التظاهرات التي تنظمها الموالاة في المناطق بعد أن بدأت المعارضة اعتصامها المستمر حتى اليوم. وهذا التزامن ينسب دائماً للصدفة. فإلى متى سيظل الملف عالقاً وأبناء الجبل مهجرين؟
مسؤول ملف الهجرين في التيار الوطني الحر المهندس سيزار أبو خليل يجمع الوثائق والدلائل التي ستشكل له ملفاً سيتم تفجيره في المستقبل القريب ويظهر بالرسومات البيانية والأرقام والتواريخ كيف تزامن دفع مبالغ الترميم المنجز مع التظاهرات وكيف عاد بعدها ليختفي.
ويخبر أبو خليل أن واحداً من جماعة الأكثرية أرسل شخصاً ببطاقة توصية الى رئيس صندوق المهجرين لقبض طلب ترميم منجز. وبعد أن تم كشف هذا الأمر وعرضه في جريدة الأخبار، أصدر الصندوق بياناً ينفي فيه الموضوع، ولسخرية الصدف تم الدفع للشخص نفسه يوم نشر البيان في الجريدة نفسها.
ويقول أبو خليل: "ملف المهجرين يعنى بالتهجير الذي حصل بين عامي 1983 و1985 في سبعين قرية في قضاء الشوف و51 قرية في قضاء عاليه و27 قرية في قضاء بعبدا وحوالي تسع قرى في المتن الشمالي و67 قرية في شرقي صيدا وجزين والزهراني. عدد العائلات التي تعرضت للتهجير 150 ألفاً وحوالي 3 آلاف قتيل.
التيار الوطني الحر لطالما اهتم بها الملف لكن في السابق كان هناك الاحتلال السوري الذي طغى على نشاطنا. وبعد أن تخلصنا منه بدأنا التركيز على أحد الأمراض المزمنة التي نعاني منها وهي التهجير. والجميع يذكرون أن الرئيس العماد ميشال عون في تموز 2005 وفي اولى جلسات المجلس النيابي أثار الموضوع وعرض للاجئين اللبنانيين الى اسرائيل وداخل لبنان والمعتقلين في السجون السورية. وبعدها جاء البيان الوزاري لحكومة الرئيس فؤاد السنيورة الذي أخذ على عاتقه في البند السادس إنهاء ملف المهجرين وإقفاله إقفالاً تاماً. وعملاً بأصول الممارسة الديمقراطية أعطينا الحكومة الجديدة التي تعهدت بإنجاز الملف، فرصة لتنفذ ما وعدت به. لكن بعد مرور سنة من عمر هذه الحكومة وأكثر من 17 سنة على ما سمي وثيقة الوفاق الوطني التي كان أحد بنودها عودة المهجرين، وبعد مرور 13 سنة على تأسيس وزارة المهجرين، وبعد دفع أكثر من أربعة أضعاف الموازنة الأصلية التي رصدت لإقفال الملف والتي كانت بقيمة 400 مليون دولار وبعد دفع أكثر من مليار و600 مليون دولار، كانت النتيجة أن 17 % فقط من المهجرين عادوا الى القرى التي شهدت مصالحات وخمس قرى ما يزال أهلها ممنوعين من العودة إليها وهي بريح، كفرمتى، عبيه، عين درافيل وكفرسلوان. في المقابل، في شرقي صيدا ناهزت العودة 45 % من عدد العائلات الأصلي. ورغم أن العدد غير مرضٍ ونريده أن يصبح تاماً إلا أن التفاوت في النسبة مع قرى الجبل سببه وجود عامل في الجبل غير موجود في الجنوب وهو النائب وليد جنبلاط. الانتماء السياسي للعائلات المهجرة يسهل تحديده من خلال الانتخابات النيابية الأخيرة التي نلنا فيها في هذه المناطق 81% من أصوات المسيحيين المهجرين.
ما يحصل في الجبل جريمة تطهير إتني يفوق ما حصل في أي مكان في العالم. فما معنى أن يتم ارتكاب مجزرة وتهجير من نجوا منها ومن ثم منعهم من العودة؟ ما توصيف هذا الأمر بغير التطهير الإتني؟ ومن ناحية أخرى، عندما ندقق في الموضوع يتبين لنا أن الأموال كانت تدفع بالتوازي مع الانتخابات النيابية الأخيرة. والمحتل قبض بأقل تقدير، ضعف ما قبضه المهجر الذي ترك منزله قسراً وأمن البديل على مدى 25 سنة. هذا عدا عن المدفوعات الوهمية، إذ دفع في القرى حيث يوجد ثلاثون بيتاً 330 إخلاء. والأمثلة والدلائل عرضناها في مؤتمر عودة الحق الذي نظمناه في 30 أيلول 2006 وكان من المقرر أن ننظمه في تموز بعد مرور سنة على تشكيل الحكومة والبيان الوزاري، لكنه تأخر بسبب حرب تموز. وعندما عقدنا هذا المؤتمر وأظهرنا كل هذه التجاوزات، تحركت جماعة النائب جنبلاط الذي استدعى على عجل وخلافاً لكل الأصول، لجان العودة في قرى الشحار وتم نوع من مصالحة صورية يوم السبت 30 أيلول بالتزامن مع المؤتمر ووعد نواب اللقاء الديمقراطي ومن بينهم النائب فؤاد السعد بأن الدفع سيتم يوم الإثنين الواقع فيه 2 تشرين الأول 2006. واليوم وبعد أكثر من ثلاثين إثنين من ذاك الاثنين وبعد اجتماع المصالحة، لا هذه الأخيرة وُقعت ولا التعويضات دفعت ولا المهجرون عادوا. وأكثر من ذلك، نرى نواباً أحزابهم ممثلة في الحكومة يظهرون أنفسهم كرواد للديمقراطية ويطالبون بإنجاز الملف. ونحن نخبرهم أن من أبسط القواعد الديمقراطية وجود موالاة ومعارضة. والاطراف الممثلون في الحكومة ليس دورهم المطالبة
ما يحصل في الجبل جريمة تطهير إتني وفي شرقي صيدا مؤامرة تساعد على التوطين
بل وضع برنامج مفصل بالوسيلة والمهلة والكلفة المحددة لإنجاز أمر ما، والمعارضة هي التي تطالب. وإذا كان عاجزاً عن ذلك عليه الاستقالة من الحكومة والانضمام الى صفوف المعارضة للمطالبة. لا أفهم كيف يمكن لوزير أن يطالب في حين عليه هو أن يحل المشكلة. هذا كله حصل بعد مؤتمر العودة الذي سألناهم بعد انتهائه لماذا لم تتم المصالحات فأجابونا أن العائق مادي. بينما نرى الدفع بالمليارات في طرابلس وبيروت للترميم المنجز. وهنا لا بد من شرح هذه العبارة ليفهمها الجميع. فمن تضرر بيته في الحرب وأعاد ترميمه على نفقته الخاصة ولا يملك الإثبات على ذلك، يتقدم بطلب يتضمن افادة عقارية بملكية العقار وإخراج قيد وثمة مئات الآلاف من هذه الطلبات التي لا يمكن أن نعرف الصحيح منها مما يقبض مالاً سياسياً أو ترضية سياسية. وحالياً أعمل على تحضير ملف جديد ويتضمن معطيات ورسومات تظهر كيف يتم الدفع بالتزامن مع التظاهرات التي تنظمها الموالاة دعماً لحكومة السنيورة في مواجهة اعتصام المعارضة اللبنانية. ففي تظاهرات طرابلس تركز دفع طلبات الترميم المنجز على طرابلس وضواحيها لابتزاز الناس ودفعهم للمشاركة في التظاهرات. وفي تظاهرة دير القمر تم الدفع للقرى المحيطة وكذلك الأمر في بيروت خصوصاً عندما كانت الوفود تقصد السراي الحكومية وكان الدفع يتركز في الحي أو المحلة التي تزور السنيورة. هذا فساد مضاعف فهم لا يشترون فقط أصوات الناس بل ويدفعون لهم من أموال المكلفين اللبنانيين وبغض النظر عن أحقية هذه التعويضات. وحتى حيث تكون محقة هم يبتزون المواطن ليعطوه حقه. الدفع يتوازى زماناً ومكاناً مع التظاهرات الفرعية الداعمة لحكومة السنيورة. وهذه ليست المرة الأولى التي تستعمل فيها أموال المهجرين والمكلف اللبناني كمال سياسي. ففريق الحريري- جنبلاط مارس هذا الأمر في انتخابات 1996 و2000 النيابية. وهذا ما أظهرناه في مؤتمر حق العودة الذي تم بعده دفع أكثر من 20 مليار ليرة وهذا المبلغ لا يعد شيئاً تجاه الافين والمئتي مليار التي دفعت سابقاً لكنه يشكل دفعة أولى من أي مصالحة لأن المصالحة تحتاج بين أربعين وستين مليار بحسب كل قرية من القرى التي لم تشهد بعد مصالحات. لذا يجب التركيز على اولوية دفع التعويضات لعودة المهجرين وليس للترميم المنجز فالمهجر ما زال خارج منزله على عكس الترميم المنجز.
وبالنسبة لشرقي صيدا والقرى التي لا تقع ضمن نطاق عمل صندوق المهجرين بل ضمن نطاق مجلس الجنوب، ما زالت التعويضات أقل منها في جبل لبنان الجنوبي. والقانون 362 الصادر في العام 2001 ويذكرنا به باستمرار رئيس الحكومة ووزير المهجرين ويتيح للحكومة الاقتراض للدفع للمهجرين، وينص في المادة الخامسة منه على مساواة التعويضات في هذه القرى بقرى جبل لبنان الجنوبي، وهذا المطلب ينسحب على المناطق اللبنانية كافة. فالبيت في الضاحية الجنوبية الذي تضرر في حرب تموز 2006 أقر له مبلغ ثمانين مليون ليرة مقابل ثلاثين مليون في الجبل وعشرين مليون في شرقي صيدا علماً أن مهجري المنطقتين الأخيرتين ظلوا خارج منازلهم مدة أطول بكثيرمن مهجري الضاحية الذين عادوا فور انتهاء الحرب. وفي شرقي صيدا لا تزال هناك أراضٍ في المية ومية محتلة من قبل فلسطينيين رغم صدور أحكام قضائية تقضي بالإخلاء. و الفريق السياسي المتسلط في هذه المنطقة يحول دون تنفيذ هذه الإخلاءات ربما لأن ذلك يشكل خطوة الى الأمام في اتجاه التوطين الذي يظهر للعلن أنهم رواده ويتعهدونه في لبنان.
لماذا لم يعد المهجرون بعد؟
لأن العودة تحتاج الى مقومات سياسية وأخرى مادية. يجب أن يعود المهجرون بكرامتهم السياسية وأمنهم السياسي وبدون أن يكونوا مذلولين لوليد جنبلاط أو أن يتعرضوا للاضطهاد والمضايقات. ومن الناحية المادية ليس بإمكان الجميع اقتصادياً أن يعيدوا بناء منزل بعشرين ألف دولار، فهذا المبلغ لا يكفي لإنشاء الأساسات. من لديه الامكانات اعاد ترميم بيته لكن من لا يملكها قبض الدفعة الأولى وهي عشرة آلاف دولار ولم يكمل البناء. والقرى التي جرفت وهجر أبناؤها لا يقتصر العمل فيها على دفع التعويضات لأن الخسارة تفوق هذا المبلغ بأضعاف، بالاضافة الى الحياة التي قطعت وتيرتها والأعمال التي زالت. وهنا أيضاً ليست مقررات مؤتمر العودة مجرد إنشاء لاختتام المؤتمر، بل نعمل في التيار على مشاريع عدة لتثبيت الناس في قراهم.
أحياناً يتذرعون بأن الناس ليسوا في قراهم بسبب هجرة الريف. فكيف نفسر مجيء ابن دقون التي تبعد 20 دقيقة عن بيروت من بلونة التي تبعد عنها 45 دقيقة؟ فيما دقون تقع ضمن نطاق بيروت الكبرى ويمكن اعتبارها إحدى ضواحيها الجنوبية الشرقية. هناك عامل يمنع الناس من العودة وهو وليد جنبلاط وصندوق المهجرين ووزارة المهجرين وهؤلاء غير موجودين في شرقي صيدا حيث تبلغ نسبة العودة ثلاثة أضعافها عن الجبل. لكن من تداعيات ورقة التفاهم بين التيار الوطني الحر وحزب الله حل المشكلة في المناطق المسيحية التي تقع على حدود المناطق الشيعية، الا أن المشكلة تبقى اقتصادية. القانون 362 أقر بمساواة التعويضات لكن من الممسك بوزارة المالية منذ 1992 حتى اليوم؟ الصرف ليس في يد نبيه بري أو حزب الله. فلطالما تباهى فريق السلطة بأنه يمسك بالملف الاقتصادي فيما الملف الأمني مع رئيس الجمهورية وملف المقاومة مع الشيعة. أنا لا أدافع عن مجلس الجنوب لكن ما من أموال تحول إليه. فمنذ سنوات نعمل وفقاً للقاعدة الاثني عشرية وما من موازنة.
ما رد فريق السلطة على كل هذه الاتهامات خصوصاً مسألة دفع تعويضات الترميم المنجز؟
الاجابة دائماً تكون استيعابية وهم لا ينفون الأمر لكنهم يؤكدون أنه من قبيل الصدفة. والتسمية لم تعد متصلة بشيء حدث بل بكمية من المال يريدون تقاسمها وتوزيعها على الطوائف. في مؤتمر العودة أظهرنا تجاوزات كثيرة وطلبنا اعتبار الأمر اخباراً لكن حتى الآن لم يتحرك أي من هذه الملفات ولم يتم تحويلها الى المحاكمة، لا بل هناك جرائم تسقط بمرور الزمن الثلاثي وأخرى بعد عشر سنوات واضاعة الوقت هذه تسقط الكثير من الجرائم وهم اتخذوا القرار بعدم الرد. هم على انقطاع تام مع الرأي العام اللبناني فأكثر من نصف الشعب اللبناني نزل الى الشارع وكأن شيئاً لم يكن. لقد نصبوا أنفسهم علينا وكأنهم منزلون إلهياً. لذلك لا يمكن إصلاح الموجود لأنه فاسد بل يجب أن نغير لنصلح النظام. كل ما يخرج منهم ويردون به على اتهاماتنا أن الأمر من قبيل الصدفة. فما هذه الصدفة أن يبلغ الدفع أوجه في العام 2000 ومن ثم يعود ليصبح صفراً في الأعوام 2001 و2002؟ صادف الدفع الانتخابات ثلاث مرات لكنهم ما كانوا يقصدون ذلك. بالاضافة الى ذلك، يطل علينا وزير المهجرين ليطمئننا الى أنه يشتغل بتوجيهات النائب جنبلاط لكن هذا التطمين يعطي مفعولاً عكسياً لأن خلال 13 سنة لم يعد المهجرون ولم تدفع الأموال والنهب والسرقة على أوجهما. ومن ثم يفخر بإنجاز كبير تم في مصالحة بعورتة- دقون التي وقعت في حزيران 2005 في عهد حكومة الرئيس نجيب ميقاتي والوزير عادل حمية. وهناك طرف آخر أراد تبني مصالحة كفرمتى التي تمت قبل شهرين من خروجه من السجن. بات من عاداتهم تبني انجازات الآخرين. ومصالحة دقون- بعورتة لا أراها انجازاً لأن أهل بعورتة الذين احتلوا دقون قبضوا عشرين مليار ليرة فيما نال أهل دقون عشرة مليارات الذين تهجروا وأمنوا البديل عن بيوتهم طوال سنوات.
بعد أن حرك التيار الوطني الحر الملف ظهر الكثير من الغيارى على الموضوع وهذا لا يزعجنا لأن ما يهمنا هو أن يعرف الرأي العام اللبناني من يثير الموضوع لأهداف سياسية ومن يثيره لأهداف انسانية وحقوقية. ولا بد من أن نشير الى أن أحدهم قال إنه لم يعد بإمكاننا الحديث عن مجازر الجبل بعد مصالحة الجبل وتحالف القوات مع جنبلاط. فهؤلاء الذين لا نعرف كيف ماتوا وأين ألا يجب أن نكتشف حقيقتهم؟ نحن طالبنا بكشف المقابر الجماعية لأن هذا يحل الكثير من مشاكل المفقودين. كما أننا لا يمكن أن نعفو عن جريمة لا تزال مستمرة. وكما قال العماد عون :" الغفران لا يجوز اذا لم يتم الاعتراف والاعتذار". والجريمة مستمرة فبماذا تختلف جرائم الابادة والتطهير العرقي عما يحصل في الجبل؟ الناس لم يعودوا بعد أي أن الجريمة تكمل، فهناك أناس ارتكبت في حقهم مجازر وهجروا واليوم يمنعون من العودة. أليس هذا تطهيراً عرقيا؟ ننصح من يريدون اقفال الملف بعد مصالحة الجبل الشهيرة والحلف المسيحي- الدرزي هل انتهت الجريمة؟ بحكم الوكالة الكبيرة التي منحنا اياها الناخبون في مناطق التهجير حيث تجاوز حجم التأييد 80%، تترتب علينا مسؤوليات كتيار لملاحقة مصالح شعبنا وإيجاد الحلول. عملنا يتخطى توثيق المخالفات التي ترتكبها الوزارة والصندوق في هذا الملف الى دراسة الحلول في قرى معينة وفي جبل لبنان الجنوبي ككل".
الحقيقة : بيشمركا كردية في لبنان لمساندة ميليشيات 14 آذار
********************************************************
مئات المقاتلين من بيشمركة البرزاني بتصرف " 14 آذار" في بيروت .. غب الطلب !أسابيع قليلة تفصل عن المواجهة "الحاسمة " أو المصالحة " الدائمة "
مشروع التوطين في " القريعة "(*) وشريط " جزين ـ مغدوشة " الصيداوي يسير قدما بهمة ملايين الدولارات السعودية لدار الافتاء و ضابط مخابرات " فتح " المفتي محمد علي الجوزو !؟
ليئا أبراموفيتش ( تل أبيب ) ، ترجمة " الحقيقة " وخاص بها : وصل الرئيس اللبناني الأسبق أمين الجميل إلى كردستان العراق في 29 تشرين الأول / أكتوبر الماضي دون أي إعلان أو إشارة مسبقة . كانت الزيارة مفاجئة للجميع ، داخل لبنان وخارجه . فلم يعرف سابقا عن آل الجميل أنهم أقاموا أي علاقة ، من أي نوع ، مع الحركات الكردية . يضاف إلى ذلك أن الحركة الكردية وقفت تقليديا مع القوى اللبنانية المناهضة لما عرف بـ " اليمين المسيحي " الذي مثلته دائما القوات اللبنانية والكتائب ، فضلا عن حزب الأحرار وآل شمعون . أكثر من ذلك ، لعبت الحركات الكردية دورا عسكريا ، وإن على نطاق محدود ، في دعم ما عرف خلال الحرب الأهلية اللبنانية بـ " الحركة الوطنية " . ولم يقتصر هذا الدعم على المجتمع الكردي الموجود في لبنان ، بل تخطاه إلى استقدام مقاتلين أكراد من سوريا والعراق لدعم حركة فتح الفلسطينية في جنوب لبنان . ويمكن أن نذكر في هذا السياق ما قام به الزعيم الكردي السوري صلاح بدر الدين الذي كان مقربا من ياسر عرفات . وتشير مصادر إسرائيلية معنية بالشأن اللبناني أن صلاح بدر الدين ، الذي يعيش الآن في ضيافة مسعود البرزاني في إربيل ، استقدم خلال الثمانينيات مئات المقاتلين الأكراد الذين تمركزوا في قلعة الشقيف جنوب لبنان ، وشاركوا في التصدي للقوات الإسرائيلية في العام 1982 . وقد زار صلاح بدر الدين رام الله مرات عدة منذ قيام السلطة الفلسطينية مبعوثا في مهمات سرية خاصة من قبل الزعيم البرزاني لمقابلة عرفات ثم أبو مازن .
لكن هذا الوضع تغير الآن . ومنذ ذلك الحين ، أو على الأقل منذ الاحتلال الأميركي للعراق ثم اغتيال الحريري ، جرت مياه كثيرة من تحت جسور التحالفات في المنطقة . فالزعيم " الدرزي " اللبناني وليد جنبلاط ، الذي يخوض معركة حياة أو موت بالنسبة له مع النظام السوري وامتداداته في لبنان ، أصبح حريصا ، بمناسبة ودون مناسبة ، على التذكير بأصوله " الكردية " ، وهي القصة ـ اللغز التي لا يعرف أحد الآن كيف ومتى حصلت طالما أن " التبشير الدرزي " توقف منذ ألف عام ، وأقفلت أبواب الطائفة بـ " الضبة والمفتاح " ، كما يقول المصريون ، منذ وفاة الحاكم بأمر الله الفاطمي ! وتعتقد مصادر إسرائيلية التقت جنبلاط خلال العام الأخير أكثر من مرة على هامش ندوات ومؤتمرات دولية أنه بات مقتنعا بـ " الصيغة العراقية " التي أسفر عنها الاحتلال الأميركي باعتبارها " الحل الأمثل" للبنان . و قناعته هذه ليست وليدة تصور نظري كما يمكن أن يتكهن البعض ، وإنما ذبذبات الموجات القصيرة التي يصعب على غيره التقاطها .
يدرك جنبلاط من خلال زياراته الخاصة إلى واشنطن أن الإدارة الأميركية باتت ترى تقسيم المنطقة إلى " معازل وكانتونات طائفية " ، وإن ضمن حدود فيدرالية ، هو الطريقة الأمثل من وجهة نظرها للخروج من المستنقع الذي وجدت نفسها فيه بعد احتلال العراق . وليس لبنان خارج تصورها هذا ، إن لم يكن في القلب منه . وكان بإمكان جنبلاط ، وغيره ، ملاحظة ذلك منذ أن بدأ بعض الأصوات الأميركية يعلو بما كان " محرما " الحديث عنه حتى وقت قريب ، لاسيما ما يتصل بتقسيم العراق إلى ثلاثة كانتونات : شيعي وسني ، فضلا عن الكردي القائم بقوة الأمر الواقع . وقبل ذلك ، وبالتساوق معه ، حديث أكثر من مسؤول أميركي سابق عن الأمر نفسه فيما يخص لبنان ، وهو الأمر الذي اضطرت الولايات المتحدة في الماضي لأن تبرم معاهدة غير معلنة مع الأسد الأب لمنع حصوله في هذا البلد رغم أنه كان المطلب الأساسي لحلفائها اللبنانيين ، لاسيما " القوات اللبنانية "!
من الواضح أن ثمة تيارا قويا في " الاستابلشمنت " الأميركية ، بشقيها الجمهوري والديمقراطي ، بات يدفع باتجاه " عرقنة " الوضع اللبناني . وليس هذا أمرا مزعجا بالنسبة لجنبلاط الذي طالما اعتقد أن أي انصهار وطني في لبنان سيكون على حساب نفوذه المذهبي . ومن يراقب مناوراته وتطور خطها البياني منذ مصرع الحريري بإمكانه أن يلحظ ذلك بسهولة . ولم تكن ردة فعله " العدوانية " تجاه تحالف عون ـ حزب الله إلا التعبير المكثف عن ذلك ، بغض النظر عن كل ما قاله وما سيقوله عن هذا " التحالف " لجهة أنه " سيعيد الوصاية السورية " إلى لبنان . وهو يبذل جهودا استثنائية لمنع أي تقارب سني ـ شيعي لاعتقاده أن أي تقارب من هذا النوع لن يسدد أحد فاتورته إلا هو شخصيا .
بالتساوق مع ذلك ، ركب جنبلاط موجة الحملة المذهبية التي تقودها " السنية السياسية " الشرق أوسطية ضد إيران وحلفائها من داخل غرفة عمليات مشتركة يرابط فيها على مدار الساعة قادة السعودية ومصر والأردن ، ومن وراء الستارة قادة واشنطن وتل أبيب . وقد أصبحت تعابير من مثل " الفرس" و " المجوس " ، رغم ما تنطوي عليه من مضمون ونبرة عنصريين يذكران بخطاب صدام حسين خلال حربه على طهران ، مكونا أساسيا من مكونات خطابه السياسي . ويبدو جنبلاط في هذا السياق صادما ومذهلا في قدرته على ممارسة نمط من السياسة غير مسبوق في بذاءته وانتهازيتة الأخلاقية والسياسية . فالجميع يعرف " أنه زار طهران أكثر مما زارها حسن نصر الله شخصيا " حسب ما يقول مراقب إسرائيلي معني بالشؤون اللبنانية . ويضيف هذا المراقب " إن عدد زيارات جنبلاط إلى إيران منذ قيام الثورة الإسلامية بلغ أكثر من تسع عشرة زيارة ، بينما لم يزرها حسن نصر الله أكثر من إحدى عشرة مرة حسب ما تؤكده مصادر الاستخبارات إسرائيلية . هذا على الرغم من أن معظم زياراته (نصر الله) أحيط بالسرية لأسباب أمنية " . يضاف إلى ذلك ، والكلام لم يزل للمراقب ، إن جنبلاط كان يتلقى حتى وقت قريب جعالة مالية سنوية من طهران تتراوح ما بين 20 إلى 30 مليون دولار بتوصية من حزب الله وحركة أمل ، على أساس أنه يشكل ظهيرا سياسيا داخليا لا غنى عنه للحزب في تأمين الغطاء السياسي الداخلي لمعركته ضد إسرائيل و سلاحه في آن معا " !
يدرك جنبلاط ، والقول لم يزل للمراقب ، أن الفشل الأميركي في العراق دفع واشنطن واليمين الإسرائيلي إلى " مذهبة " المواجهة الدائرة في الشرق الأوسط لتصبح " سنية ـ شيعية " . فالولايات المتحدة أدركت أخيرا أن انتصارها على الساحة العراقية بات مرهونا باستقطاب أوسع تحالف شعبي ورسمي في وسط " السنية السياسية " رغم النكسة التي أصيب بها هذا التحالف في حرب إسرائيل الأخيرة ضد حزب الله ، والتي لم تسفر سوى عن رفع صور نصر الله في حرم الجامع الأزهر وشوارع عمّان . وهذا آخر ما كان ينتظره المحافظون الجدد وإيهود أولمرت ، ومعهما ملكا السعودية والأردن والرئيس المصري ، وإلى حد ما أبو مازن في رام الله ! ويعتقد جنبلاط ، وقد يكون محقا في ذلك ، أن انتصار التحالف الجديد هو الوحيد الذي يضمن مستقبله السياسي . ولهذا وضع بيضه كله في سلته ، وحرق جميع مراكبه التي يمكن أن تؤمن له عودة مأمونة في حال فشل رهاناته . وتجاوز في ذلك جميع الخطوط التي كانت بالغة الإحمرار بالنسبة له حتى وقت قريب ، مثل المواجهة مع إسرائيل ومستقبل القضية الفلسطينية ، ومسألة التوطين التي تشكل المسألة الأكثر حساسية في لبنان . أو على الأقل هذا ما كان يعلن عنه دوما . وتفيد مصادر إسرائيلية وثيقة الصلة بالساحة اللبنانية أن جنبلاط أبلغ مؤخرا أكثر من مصدر أوربي وأميركي أنه بات مقتنعا بأن " توطين حوالي نصف مليون فلسطيني في لبنان هو السلاح الأمضى للتغلب على معضلة الأكثرية الديمغرافية الشيعية في لبنان مرة واحدة وإلى الأبد ، على اعتبار أن معظم هؤلاء ، باستثناء أقلية مسيحية اندمجت مع مسيحيي لبنان منذ وقت مبكر بعد حرب العام 1948 ، هم من المسلمين السنة " . لكن جنبلاط يعرف أن التوطين في لبنان مسألة قد يكون من المستحيل إنجازها قبل حصول حرب أهلية ولو على نطاق محدود . إلا أنه ، في المقابل ، يدرك أن هذه المسألة التي كانت تفتقر إلى أي دعم محلي أو عربي في الماضي ، بل ومن المحرمات ، باتت اليوم حديث الأروقة السياسية في أكثر من عاصمة معنية ، وفي أوساط قيادات " السنية السياسية " اللبنانية ومرجعيتها السعودية . وتسجل مصادر استخبارية إسرائيلية عدة وقائع حديثة العهد في هذا المجال ، لعل أهمها التالي :
ـ قرار السعودية منح جنبلاط تلك المبالغ السنوية التي كان يتلقاها من طهران حتى قبل سنتين ، لقاء السير في مشروع التوطين ؛
ـ قرار السعودية منح دار الإفتاء اللبنانية ، المرجعية الروحية لسنة لبنان ، مبلغ 15 مليون دولار لمساعدتها على شراء أراض في مناطق تابعة لمنطقة " القريعة " (1) قرب مدينة صيدا تضمها إلى أراضي الوقف التابعة لها . وهو أكبر مبلغ تتلقاه دار الإفتاء في تاريخها . على أن يكون ذلك جزءا من عملية أوسع نطاقا لشراء المنطقة بكاملها وبناء مجمعات سكنية حديثة لفلسطينيي المخيمات في الجنوب بتمويل أوربي ـ سعودي لحكومة السنيورة و " تيار المستقبل" . وتؤكد مصادر إسرائيلية أن مبلغ عشرة مليارات دولار أصبحت متوفرة لإقامة هذه المشاريع السكنية ولتسديد أثمان الأرض المشغولة الآن بالمخيمات الفلسطينية . وتشير أحدث المعلومات المتداولة في الأروقة الإسرائيلية وأروقة السلطة الفلسطينية برام الله إلى أنه تم شراء أكثر من مئة عقار كبير مساحتها تقارب مليوني متر مربع خلال الأشهر الأخيرة وحدها في المنطقة الممتدة بين بلدة جزين الجنوبية شرقا و شاطىء البحر غربا . وطبقا للمعطيات التفصيلية ، فإن العقارات التي تم شراؤها من قبل مسؤولين لبنانيين في " تيار المستقبل" و دار الإفتاء تشمل خراج بلدات وقرى قبيع ، روم ، كفار فالوس ، جنسنايا ، بيصور ، حيداب ، مكنونية ، حسانية ، المجيدل ، طنبوريت ، زغدربا ، عين الدلب ، وصولا إلى أطراف مغدوشة والغازية ومخيم المية ومية . واللافت أن العقارات التي يجري شراؤها بسرعة فائقة تتمتع بميزة التواصل الجغرافي من جهة ، وبكون جهة واحدة هي التي تقوم بعملية الشراء!؟
لكن الملاحظة الأبرز في هذا المجال هي أن العقارات المشتراة تتصل بشكل شبه تام مع مشروع " كفار فالوس " الذي بدأ الرئيس الحريري بإنشائه منذ نهاياة السبعينيات ، وأكمله في العام 1985 دون إي إعاقة (!؟) من القوات الإسرائيلية و " جيش أنطوان لحد " اللذين كانا يسيطران على المنطقة . وبحسب مصادر إسرائيلية فإن " فكرة توطين الفلسطينيين في هذه المنطقة كان الرئيس الحريري أول من طرحها حين طالب أطرافا أوربية ( فرنسية ؟) بالتدخل لدى إسرائيل للحصول على ضوء أخضر منها من أجل إشاء مشروعه " ! وتنقل هذه المصادر عن الوسطاء الأوربيين تأكيدهم " أن الحريري يرى في المشروع نواة لمشروع مستقبلي يمكن أن يكون حلا للوجود الفلسطيني في لبنان ، فضلا عن كونه حلا للمشكلة الديمغرافية في الجنوب اللبناني " . وذلك في إشارة منه إلى الغالبية التي يشكلها الشيعة هناك ! ويضم مشروع " كفار فالوس " ، الذي تعرض لبعض الأضرار خلال استهدافه غير المقصود أثناء مواجهات مسلحة حدثت في المنطقة العام 1985 ، جامعة تضم كلية للهندسة الصناعية وأخرى للزراعة الغذائية ، وثالثة للتمريض ، فضلا عن مدارس نموذجية من مستوى رياض الأطفال حتى الثانوية . ومن الواضح ، حسب مصادر إسرائيلية معنية ، أنه بدأ بمشاريع إنمائية من هذا النوع " بهدف التغطية على الهدف الاستراتيجي "! ويقع المشروع الذي تبلغ مساحته أكثر من مليون متر مربع على تلة حرجية ترتفع عن سطح البحر حوالي 500 متر وتقع في منتصف الطريق بين صيدا وجزين!؟
ـ تقديم مبلغ خمسة ملايين دولار من السعودية لمفتي جبل لبنان محمد علي الجوزو خلال زيارته الأخيرة للسعودية كتكاليف لحملته الإعلامية والمذهبية التي يشنها ضد حزب الله خصوصا والشيعة عموما ، على اعتبار أن حملة من هذا النوع لا يمكن أن تقوم بها " دار افتاء " مباشرة ، كونها مؤسسة رسمية تمثل السنة ككل في لبنان ، بمن فيهم الجزء المتحالف مع الشيعة . وتسجل المصادر الإسرائيلية تطورين مهمين في هذا السياق ، أولاهما قيام الأمير بندر بن سلطان ، رئيس مجلس الأمن الوطني السعودي ، بترتيب عدد من اللقاءات بين المفتي الجوزو وأجهزة استخبارات " فتح " في جدة والطائف والرياض خلال الأشهر الأخيرة . وتكشف هذه المصادر عن أن المفتي الجوزو كان علاقة تاريخية " تنظيمية " وثيقة بهذا الجهاز وقادته السياسيين و التنفيذيين مثل صلاح خلف و هايل عبد الحميد ( أبو الهول ) وقبله أبو علي حسن سلامة . حيث كان ، طبقا لهذه المصادر ، موظفا رسميا عندهم يتلقى مبالغ مالية ثابتة . أما ثاني هذين التطورين فهو إقدام المفتي الجوزو ، الذي يمثل تيارا وهابيا متطرفا غير معلن داخل دار الافتاء ، على فتح النار باتجاه نبيه بري زعيم حركة أمل ورئيس مجلس النواب ، بالشدة نفسها التي فتحها على حزب الله . وهذا ما كان تحاشاه حتى وقت قريب انطلاقا من تصور في دار الإفتاء و " تيار المستقبل " يقوم على أن فتح النار على نبيه بري يعني القطيعة النهائية مع الشيعة و إغلاق آخر نافذة حوار معهم كان يمثلها شخصيا من خلال " اعتداله " واعتباريا من خلال رئاسته مؤسسة البرلمان .
ـ تكليف الرئيس الأسبق أمين الجميل من قبل تحالف " 14 آذار " ، لا سيما جنبلاط و " تيار المستقبل " ، بزيارة كردستان العراق من أجل تعميق الصلة بتيار رئيس الإقليم مسعود البرزاني . وتسجل مصادر الاستخبارات الإسرائيلية في هذا السياق ، والتي لم تكن بعيدة كما يبدو عن ذلك ، أن الزيارة التي حصلت نهاية تشرين الأول / أكتوبر الماضي كانت بترتيب مع مسشار الأمن القومي الأميركي ستيفن هادلي الذي وصل إلى إربيل بالتزامن مع وصول الرئيس الجميل ، وحضر معظم اجتماعاته مع الزعيم البرزاني ومسؤولي أجهزته الأمنية والعسكرية ( البيشمركة ). وبحسب هذه المصادر فإن الرئيس الجميل "طرح على القيادة الكردية بشكل رسمي إمكانية دعم تحالف 14 آذار يالمقاتلين الأكراد المدربين جيدا إذا ما تطورت الأمور في لبنان باتجاه المواجهة المسلحة . وقد حصل الجميل على وعد الرئيس البرزاني بتلبية الطلب حين الاقتضاء " . وتؤكد هذه المصادر أن " الرئيس البرزاني أخبر ضيفه أمين الجميل بأنه يستطيع تأمين ما بين 800 إلى ألف مسلح من البيشمركة . وهو ما يكفي لخلق نوع من التوزان العسكري مع ميليشيات المعارضة ، باستثناء حزب الله ، على اعتبار أن هذا الأخير لا يمكن له أن يتورط في مواجهة مسلحة داخلية ويترك ظهره مكشوفا أمام إسرائيل والقوة الفرنسية في اليونيفيل التي تتربص به شرا " . وتشير المصادر الإسرائيلية إلى أن " التحالف المستجد بين الزعيم البرزاني و قوى 14 آذار اللبنانية سيكون واحدا من محاور البحث على انفراد بين الرئيس السوري بشار الأسد والرئيس العراقي جلال الطالباني خلال زيارته نهاية هذا الأسبوع إلى دمشق ، على اعتبار أن الطالباني لا يمكن أن يقبل بهذا التطور بالنظر لعلاقته التاريخية مع دمشق وطهران " . ( كتب هذا التقرير قبل زيارة الرئيس العراقي لدمشق ـ المترجم ) .
من الواضح أن الأسابيع القليلة القادمة ستكون حاسمة جدا على الساحة اللبنانية ، وستشهد تطورات غير مسبوقة منذ انفجار الأزمة مجددا بعد اغتيال الرئيس الحريري . ومن الأكثر وضوحا أن شعرة واحدة باتت تفصل بين الحل والمواجهة الشاملة التي لن تنحصر هذه المرة ، فيما لو حصلت ، داخل الحدود اللبنانية . وستكون الأطراف الإقليمية والدولية في ساحة المواجهة لأول مرة بشكل علني ، بعد أن كانت لاعبا من وراء الستار على مدار الأزمة اللبنانية المعاصرة التي بدأت في العام 1975 ولم تجد حلا جذريا حتى الآن ، والتي لن تجد لها مثل هذا الحل ، على ما يبدو ، طالما لم تستطع " الإستابلشمنت " الأميركية رؤية المنطقة والعالم إلا من ثقب أنبوب نفط أو من خلال النظارات السوداء التي يرتديها الأصوليون في الـ Meah Shearim ( الهامش2).
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
(1) ـ منطقة جغرافية " جردية " غير مأهولة تقع في إقليم الخروب ، قضاء الشوف . كانت أولى المناطق التي حاول الرئيس الحريري أن يقيم فيها مشروعا اقتصاديا ـ اجتماعيا لإسكان الفلسطينيين المهجرين في لبنان خلال الحرب الأهلية . إلا أنه توقف إثر حملة احتجاجات سياسية وإعلامية وشعبية قوية على خلفية ما نشر في حينه من معلومات عن علاقة المشروع بـ " مؤامرة التوطين " . ( " الحقيقة " )
(2) ـ الميه شآريم ( מֵאָה שְׁעָרִים ) : حي " المئة بوابة " في القدس . ويعتبر حاضرة اليهود الأرثوذوكس المتطرفين . ( نشكر السيدة ر . خ . على التصويب الذي وصلنا منها بصدد ترجمة هذا التعبير العبري).
http://newhk.blogspot.com/
le guerrier de la Paix, Mr. Elie Hobeika:
Le guerrier de la paix se comporte parfois comme l'eau, et il se glisse entre les nombreux obstacles qui parsement sa route.
En cela reside la force du courage: jamais un marteau ne peut le briser, ni un couteau le blesser. L'epee la plus puissante du monde est incapable de laisser une entaille a sa surface.
Tenue a sa source, elle acquiert peu a peu la force des fleuves qu'e!le rencontre.
Pour le guerrier de la paix, il n'existe rien d'abstrait. Tout est concret, et tout lui inspire respect.
Il ne reste pas assis, dans le confort de sa tente, a observer ce qui se passe de par le monde.
Le guerrier de la paix accepte chaque defi comme une occasion de se transfomer lui-meme. Le guerrier transforme sa pensee en action.
Un guerrier courageux pense simultanement a la guerre et a la paix, et il sait agir selon les circonstances.
Un guerrier de la paix ne reste jamais indifferent a l'injustice. Il sait que tout est un, et que chaque action individuelle affecte tous les hommes de la planete
Alors, quand il se trouve devant la souffrance d'autrui, il se sert de son epee pour remettre les choses en ordre.
Un guerrier de la paix n'est jamais lache. La fuite peut etre une excellente methode de defense, mais on ne peut y recourir quand la nation est en danger.
Dans le doute, le guerrier prefere affronter la defaite puis soigner ses blessures - car il sait que, s'il fuit, il donne a l'agresseur un pouvoir plus grand que celui qu'il merite... Le pouvoir de falsifier l'histoire.
Dans les moments difficiles et douloureux, le guerrier assume sa position defensive avec heroisme, resignation et courage.
Et le guerrier de la paix de dire:
" Bien que je sois passe par tout ce par quoi je suis passe, je ne regrette pas les problemes dans lesquels je me suis engage, parce que ce sont eux qui m'ont mene la ou je voulais arriver.
Je porte en moi les marques et les cicatrices des combats -elles sont les temoignages de ce que j'ai vecu et les recompenses de ce que j'ai conquis.
C'est moi qui ai decide de prendre cette voie.
Cette phrase renferme tout son pouvoir. Il a choisi la route du defi et du courage legendaire,pour laquelle il a paye avec sa vie, et le martyr ne se plaint jamais.
6 ans après, tu es toujours présent parmis nous.
100 ans après, tu seras toujours présent parmis nous.
Je n’oublierai jamais ! Jamais !
You Have Your Lebanon and I Have My Lebanon
Gibran Kahlil Gibran
(written after the first World War, in the 1920’s)
My Lebanon is a flock of birds fluttering in the early morning as shepherds lead their sheep into the meadow and rising in the evening as farmers return from their fields and vineyards.
You have your Lebanon and its people. I have my Lebanon and its people.
Yours are those whose souls were born in the hospitals of the West; they are as ship without rudder or sail upon a raging sea…. They are strong and eloquent among themselves but weak and dumb among Europeans.
They are brave, the liberators and the reformers, but only in their own area. But they are cowards, always led backwards by the Europeans. They are those who croak like frogs boasting that they have rid themselves of their ancient, tyrannical enemy, but the truth of the matter is that this tyrannical enemy still hides within their own souls. They are the slaves for whom time had exchanged rusty chains for shiny ones so that they thought themselves free. These are the children of your Lebanon. Is there anyone among them who represents the strength of the towering rocks of Lebanon, the purity of its water or the fragrance of its air? Who among them vouchsafes to say, “When I die I leave my country little better than when I was born”?
Who among them dare to say, “My life was a drop of blood in the veins of Lebanon, a tear in her eyes or a smile upon her lips”?
Those are the children of your Lebanon. They are, in your estimation, great; but insignificant in my estimation.
Let me tell you who are the children of my Lebanon.
They are farmers who would turn the fallow field into garden and grove.
They are the shepherds who lead their flocks through the valleys to be fattened for your table meat and your woolens.
They are the vine-pressers who press the grape to wine and boil it to syrup.
They are the parents who tend the nurseries, the mothers who spin the silken yarn.
They are the husbands who harvest the wheat and the wives who gather the sheaves.
They are the builders, the potters, the weavers and the bell-casters.
They are the poets who pour their souls in new cups.
They are those who migrate with nothing but courage in their hearts and strength in their arms but who return with wealth in their hands and a wreath of glory upon their heads.
They are the victorious wherever they go and loved and respected wherever they settle.
They are the ones born in huts but who died in palaces of learning.
These are the children of Lebanon; they are the lamps that cannot be snuffed by the wind and the salt which remains unspoiled through the ages.
They are the ones who are steadily moving toward perfection, beauty, and truth.
What will remain of your Lebanon after a century? Tell me! Except bragging, lying and stupidity? Do you expect the ages to keep in its memory the traces of deceit and cheating and hypocrisy? Do you think the atmosphere will preserve in its pockets the shadows of death and the stench of graves?
Do you believe life will accept a patched garment for a dress? Verily, I say to you that an olive plant in the hills of Lebanon will outlast all of your deeds and your works; that the wooden plow pulled by the oxen in the crannies of Lebanon is nobler than your dreams and aspirations.
I say to you, while the conscience of time listened to me, that the songs of a maiden collecting herbs in the valleys of Lebanon will outlast all the uttering of the most exalted prattler among you. I say to you that you are achieving nothing. If you knew that you are accomplishing nothing, I would feel sorry for you, but you know it not.
You have your Lebanon and I have my Lebanon.
****************************************************************************************
أن نَخْـرقَ سَقـفَ بكركي... فَلِكَي نرى الله
ناصيف قزّي *
بعد أكثر من شهرين على إطلاق ما سُمِّيَ «الثوابت المارونيَّة»، ومعها «مسوّدة ميثاق الشرَف»، وغداة صدورِ رسالةِ البطريرك المارونيّ في بِدءِ الصَوْمِ الكبير، وبُعيدَ إعلان «بيان مجلس المطارنة الموارنة» الشُباطيِّ الأخير، الذي تبنّى بوضوح ما «ظَنَّه بعضُهم محاولةَ انقلابٍ ترمي الى تغييرِ مسار البلد» والى «إحباطِ مؤتمر باريس 3»، ليشكر «أهل الخير من دول العالم الذين يسارعون إلى نجدتنا»، ويلقي اللوم على «المسؤولين بيننا» الذين «يُغرقون البلاد في خلافاتهم ومشاحناتهم وارتهان بعضهم للخارج»، بعد كل ذلك، وبغض النظر عما ترمي إليه بعض التعابير من دلالات، وبعدما كانت ورقة «الثوابت المارونيَّة» قد قدَّمت حلاً سياسياً متكاملاً لقي إجماعاً لبنانياً، أتت «رسالة الصوم» لتتطرَّق، من جديد، بالإضافة الى ما حملته من مفاهيم عامة في محبة الوطن والأرض والمواطنين، الى الشأن السياسي. وفيما أشارت الى ارتفاع الدين العام، والى شكوى المواطنين من الفقر والعوز، ذكَّرت بـ«إقفال العديد من المتاجر وخاصة في وسط العاصمة لما أقيم فيها من خيم نصبها المضربون الذين يقضون معظم أيامهم ولياليهم في تدخين النارجيلة ولعب الورق وقتل الوقت». وقد جاء هذا الكلام نافراً، كما لو أنَّه ليس للاعتصام أيّ هدفٍ وطني، وأنَّه لا مشكلة دستوريَّة للحكومة... والفريقُ الحاكم ليس متسلطاً ولا ضارباً عرض الحائط بكل الأعراف والمواثيق.
ألم يكن من الأجدى بصاحب الغبطة والنيافة أن يقارب المسألة الوطنيَّة كما وردت في إعلان «الثوابت المارونيَّة»، التي أكَّدت أنه لا يمكن «لملمة الوضع المتفجِّر» إلا «من خلال تأليف حكومة وفاق توفّر مشاركة واسعة على مستوى الوطن(...) وإذا تعذَّر ذلك، السعي الى تأليف حكومة من مستقلِّين تعمل على إقرار قانون جديد للانتخاب(...) بغية توفير تمثيل صحيح لكل فئات الشعب»(...) يتم بموجبه «إجراء انتخابات مسبقة»... ويصارُ من ثَمَّ الى إيجاد حلٍ «لواقع رئاسة الجمهوريَّة»؟ ونحن على يقين، من أنه، وبمجرد الموافقة المبدئيَّة على ذلك، لا يبقى أحد في الشارع؟
في الواقع، ما من عاقل، ومهما أغرق في طوباويَّته، يمكنه أن يمر مرور الكرام على بعض تلك الأحكام والاستنتاجات والنعوت التي وردت في «البيان الشهري للمطارنة» وفي «رسالة الصوم»... والتي، وفي أحسن الأحوال، تتعارض مع روحيَّة ورقة «الثوابت المارونيَّة» الصادرة قبل شهرين، وعن المرجعيَّة نفسِها.
هكذا، إزاء مواقف الآباء الملتبِسة من بعض القضايا الوطنيَّة، والتي اعتدنا أن نشير إليها همساً، منذ أن كنا نلملم بقايانا في زمن التهجير ومآسيه، لا خوفاً من «محاكم التفتيش»، ولا احتراماً لموقع الكنيسة ورمزيَّتها في نفوسنا فحسب، بل لعدم إيذاء مشاعر المؤمنين، أولئك الودعاء الذي غالباً ما تلتبس عليهم الأمور، فلا يعودوا يميِّزوا بين الرسالة وحاملها.
إزاء هذه المواقف، وبغض النظر عما يمكن أن يفتقِدَ إليه بعض الكلام الوارد في النصوص من الدقة والموضوعيَّة، لجهة إحكام الربط بين المسبِّبات والنتائج، كان لا بد لي أولاً من أن أختلي بنفسي، كما في أوقات المحن والمفترقات والعثرات، لأستقرئ التاريخَ وأحداث التاريخ ومساراته كافة، فأرصُدَ فصولَ المعاناةِ وما عاشَهُ أجدادُنا من عذاباتٍ مدى قرون... قبل أن أسأل عن ماضي وحاضرِ ومستقبلِ كنيستي المارونيَّة... الكنيسة التي أسّسها، قبلَ أربعةَ عشرَ جيلاً، بطريركُ أنطاكيا الماروني الأول مار يوحنا مارون، على اسم ذلك الناسك العظيم مار مارون، والتي كانت، مع سواها من جماعاتٍ دينيَّةٍ مسيحيَّةٍ وإسلاميَّة، في أساسِ بناءِ لبنان. وكم تماهَيْتُ في رحلةِ الهواجِس والهمومِ تلك، مع كلِّ عذاباتِ شعبيّ، لأسألَ ما إذا كانت كنيستي اليوم، وفي ضوء ما تتخذه من مواقف، لا تزالُ حقّاً كنيسةََ الشعب... كنيسةََ المتألِّمين والودعاءِ والبسطاء... كنيسةَ المؤمنين... الكنيسةُ التي طالما حافَظَت على أصالتها الروحانيَّة والنسكيَّة، تلك التي شكَّلَت أبهى مظاهرها؟
أنا أعرف ان الكنيسة هي كنيسة الرجاء، لكني، وحقِّ السماء، صرت أفقدُ الرجاءَ كلما نظرتُ الى كنيستي؟
أفقد الرجاء عندما أسمع سيد الصرح يتحدث عن «زمن البؤس». وقد كرَّر ذلك مراراً وتكراراً، ليعودَ اليوم فيختمَ به «رسالة الصوم»... الرسالة التي من المفترض أن تحضِّرَنا الى زمن القيامة... زمن التجدُّد والانبعاث.
أفقد الرجاء عندما أرى بعض الآباء والمعاونين منشغلين بالشأن اليومي، من تشريفات واستقبالات ومواكبات وإطلالات وكاميرات، أكثرَ من انهمامهم بنشر رسائل التجديد في الكنيسة وفي حياة الجماعة، من الإرشاد الرسولي الى المجمع البطريركي وسواهما من الرسائل الكنسيَّة التي لا تنضب. حتى إن النرجسيَّة حَدَتْ بعضهم على التنظير لـ«حب الحياة» في إعلانات تلفزيونيَّة ترويجيَّة فئويَّة...!؟
أفقِد الرجاءَ عندما أسمع مسلسل تصريحات بعض صغار الساسة الموارنة التحريضيَّة، والمتكرِّرة بشكل منتظم من على درج الصرح، ومن دون أي محاولة من الكنيسة للَجْمِها.
أفقد الرجاء عندما أعي مدى التباعد القائم بين مسيحيَّة الصفوف الأماميَّة والكاميرات المكرَّسة ومناداة هذا بالبيك وذاك بالشيخ، وملكوت المسيح. أليس هو القائل، على ما جاء في عظة البطريرك لمناسبة عيد مار مارون، «إنكم إخوة، والكبير فيكم، فليكن لكم خادماً»؟هل يمكن أن تتعاطى بكركي بالسياسة من بابها الضيق، هي الحريصة كلَّ الحرص على الوجود التاريخي للموارنة وللبنان، أم شيء ما يدور في أروقتها في غفلة عن سيِّدها؟ ومتى تتمُّ المصالحة بين الكنيسة والشعب، فتصبح الكنيسة كنيسة الشعب لا كنيسة المتسلّطين الذين أثروا من دون عناء... أولئك الذين يصعب عليهم أن يكسبوا ملكوت السماء؟
وبعد،
إلى متى سيبقى سقف بكركي حاضناً بعض الحقيقة وغافلاً أو متغافلاً عن بعضها الآخر؟لا أريد، هنا، وبأي حال من الأحوال، أن أخدِشَ صفاءَ الإيمان وطهره عند المواطنين الطيِّبين. وإذا كان البعض يرى أنّي أخرُق سقفَ بكركي، أنا الماروني الحريص، الذي اطمأنَّ إليه، يواكيم مبارك، العالم الموصوف، «فاطمأنَّ قلبُه على الموارنة ولبنان» ــ ورد ذلك في مقدمة الخماسيَّة الأنطاكيَّة/أبعاد مارونيَّة، ص. XLV ــ إذا كنت حقاً أخرُق سقف بكركي... فلكي أرى الله!؟ أنا الذي أراه في عيون كلِّ الصامتين والحائرين والقلقين من أبناء شعبي... أراه في وجوه كلِّ المعتصمين الصادقين الصامدين والصابرين في ساحات البطولة والشرف... حتى يعودَ لبنان وطن الشراكة الحقيقيَّة... وطن الرسالة والرسوليَّة... وسيعود.
هل يدرك الأحبار مدى التوتر الذي يحدثه البيان الشهري للمطارنة الموارنة في نفوس الناس، عندما يجافي الحقيقة، قلْ بعضَها؟
يذكِّرني هذا البيان الشهري، الذي يصدر في الثانية عشرة ظهرَ كلّ أول أربعاء من الشهر، فينتظره الكثيرون من اللبنانيين، كمن ينتظر الفرج الآتي من مكان ما، لينصدموا، عند إذاعته، بمضمونه، الذي غالباً ما يأتي مشابهاً لبيانات الحكومة اللاشرعيَّة، فيتسبب لهم بارتدادات انفعاليَّة تنكأ عمق مشاعرهم... ولا سيما عندما يستمعون إليه وهو يخرج عنوةً، كلماتٍ ملحّنةً، من بين شفاه أمين سر البطريركيَّة المارونيَّة المطبَقَة. يذكِّرني هذا البيان الشهري، بصفارات الإنذار Les Syrennes، التي كانت تزعَقُ ظهرَ كلِّ أولِ أربعاء من الشهر في باريس، يوم كنت على مقاعد الدراسة في عاصمة الثقافة، فيتنبَّهُ الناس فجأة الى إمكان اندلاع الحرب، ليستدركوا فوراً أن ما يجري هو مجرد تجربة.
فلكي يخرجَ «بيان المطارنة الشهري» عن كونه صفارة إنذارٍ تجريبيَّة، ينتهي في الأذهان عند الانتهاء من إذاعته، أدعوكم، أيها الأحبار، الى التبصّر أكثر فأكثر في هموم الناس والوقوف على قناعاتهم، وذلك بعدم غضِّ الطرف عن الحقائق الأساسيَّة التي قد لا تأتيكم من أولئك الزائرين المداومين، المتزلِّفين والمأمورين، الذين يحلِّلون كل شيء بحسب مصالحهم الذاتيَّة.
أدعوكم، أيها الأحبار، للعودة الى الناس والوقوف بجانبهم أكانوا في الطرق والساحات، أم في المنازل والمعابد والحقول؟ ألم يفعل ذلك الرسل والقدّيسون؟ وهل يعقل ان تكون الكنيسة على الحياد أمام جيش محتل أو حكمٍ مستبدّ أو سلطة جائرة... مهما تكن المبرِّرات؟
واسمحوا لي هنا أن أعود الى كتابات أحد جهابذتنا الأفذاذ، وهو واحد منكم، المطران أنطوان حميد موراني في كتابه طريق الإعجاب بالله، إذ يقول، مستلهماً رسالة بولس الرسول الى أهل روما: «السلطة هي أداة الله لخيرك، لكن خَفْ إذا فعلتَ الشرَّ، فإنها لن تتقلَّد السيف عبثاً... ولذلك لا بد من الخضوع، لا خوفاً من الغضب فقط، بل مراعاة للضمير أيضاً. فمثل هذه الطاعة هي للخير العام. والسلطة هي من الله. لكن لها حدوداً. فالسلطة وُضعت لخيرنا، ومتى لم تعد تحافظ على خيرنا بل تناقضه، فإذّاك لا بد من مقاومتها حتى الثورة». أليس هذا ما عُرِف بـ«لاهوت التحرير»؟ أليس في هذا الكلام ما نحن حقاً بفاعلين؟
عودوا إلينا بالبساطة والمحبة، أيها الأحبار، وعلِّمونا المقاومة... مقاومة الشر... والشر بيننا ومن حولنا. علّمونا مكافحة الفساد... والفساد مستشر في كل مكان. دعوا «غضبنا المقدَّس» يُدرِك، ولو لمرَّةٍ، مبتغاه. أعيدونا الى «نداءاتكم الخمسة»، تلك التي أزاحت يوماً عن صدورنا كابوس الخوف والذل في زمن الوصاية. ثم أعيدونا معكم الى الله... الى السماء وتعاليمها... الى الروح وصفائه. انبذوا الأحقاد واجمعوا شملنا. أعيدونا من عثار... ثم علّمونا من جديد فعل المحبَّة وفعل الإيمان وفعل التوبة وفعل الرجاء... وكلّ الوصايا... التي ما زلنا، ومنذ طفولتنا، نرتجف عند سماعها كي نلتزم... ولو كان ذلك مرهوناً بضعفنا البشري.
بكلمة، أعيدوا إلينا كنيسة الرجاء... لكي يعود إلينا الرجاء...!؟
اصغوا إلينا، أيها الأحبار... فمن حقنا أن تصغي الكنيسة إلينا وأن تسأل عن همومنا، في وقت تبدَّد فيه الحكم وتسلَّطت الحكومة وانتُهك الدستور وازدوجت معايير الأمم ومواثيقها... فأنتم الأب الذي يُفترض به أن لا يفرِّق... وأن لا يعامل الجلاد والضحية المعاملة نفسها.
ثم، هل يعني توقيعنا الميثاق، «ميثاق الشرف»، أن نتخلى عن حقِّنا الديموقراطي المشروع في الاحتجاج بشكل سلمي؟ وأين وجه الشبه بين هذا التحرك والرصاصات القاتلة؟
هل يَعقُل أن لا ترى «رسالة الصوم» الكبير من دلالات للتحركات الشعبيَّة المعترضة، سوى بعض السلبيات، من «شلّ الحركة الاقتصاديَّة» الى «العادات الدخيلة على مجتمعنا»، مروراً بـ«بلبلة الحياة الاجتماعيَّة»؟
ومنذ متى كان مجتمعنا مجتمع الخنوع والانهزام والقبول بالذلّ والرضى عما يجري من دون أية مساءلة؟ وهل «محبة الوطن» تفرض علينا الصمت إزاء الأخطار التي تهدِّد الوطن؟هل نسي صاحب الغبطة والنيافة أنه وافق الإكليريكيّين في غزير وشجَّعَهم، يوم كان مدرِّساً في أواخر الستينيَّات من القرن الماضي، شجَّعهم على التجمهُر والاحتجاج بالعنف واقتحام الصرح والصراخ في وجه سيِّده، آنذاك، الكاردينال بولس المعوشي، للمطالبة بحقوقهم البسيطة؟ هل نسي؟ وأين البساطة في قضيتنا اليوم؟ أليست قضيَّةً كيانيَّة تلامس حدَّ ضياع الوطن؟
وبعد،
نسألكم، أيها السادة، أن تُخرجوا بعض الأحبار من اللوحات الإعلانيَّة والصور الترويجيَّة لـ«حبِّ الحياة»، لأنَّنا، نحن المسيحيِّين بالتحديد، ندرك تماماً أننا «نحيا لنحب»... فالحب عندنا هو الغاية الأساسيَّة وليست الحياة. ألم يرد في «رسالة الصوم» أن «المحبة هي الألف والياء في الدين المسيحي»؟
أخيراً، تؤرقني كنيستي... كنيستي العجوز. فما أخشاه، بعد ما شهدناه ونشهده من مفارقات، هو أن يكون «مجلس المطارنة»، بناءً على وشايات كاذبة ومضلِّلة، قد اتَّخذ قراره بالصلب... كما حدث لنا مرّة في أورشليم منذ نيف وألفين... فتبقى الساحةُ، عندئذ، مفرغةً لذاك «الذي يتزيَّا بملاك النور»... ذاك الذي حذَّرنا منه بولس الرسول في رسالته الثانية الى أهل قورينتوس.
أخاف من «ملاك النور» هذا... لكن حكاية شاوول ماثلة في قلب التاريخ... لتزفَّ البشارة وتملأ الزمان فرحاً ورجاءً. الكنيسة لا تشيخ... إنها تجدُّد دائم... كما المسيح في صورته الأزليَّة... و«أبواب الجحيم لا تقوى عليها»...!
وختاماً، أرجوكم في المرَّة الثانية، أيها الأحبار، أن توقِّعوا الميثاق، «ميثاق الشرف»، بأنفسكم قبل أن ترسلوه الى بعض الذين كان من المُفترض أن يوقِّعوه، علَّهم يخجلون... كي لا يعود إليكم، في نزاعه الأخير، لتمشحوه...!؟* أستاذ الفلسفة في الجامعة اللبنانيَّة
يا .. مار مارون
غسان الشامي
الثلاثاء، 06 شباط، 2007
عندما قرأت كتاب تاريخ الموارنة للأب بطرس ضو عام 1990 ، الذي طبع بأمر من البطريرك نصرالله بطرس صفير ، وكان حين طباعة الكتاب أمين سر البطريركية المارونية ، لفتني فيه وجود خريطة سمّاها المؤلف "مهد الأمة المارونية" وموقعها في شمال سورية ووسطها ، وبعيداً عن الدخول في سجال حول تعريف الأمة ، وهي واقع اجتماعي بحت ، لا تفصّل في الجغرافيا على مقاس طائفة أو مذهب ، فإن الكتاب حفزني لزيارة "المدن الميتة " وسورية الوسطى مرات عدّة مستطلعاً ومستمتعاً ، وصولاً إلى البحث عن مدفن مار مارون ،الذي أفرد له الكتاب صورة واضحة في قرية "براد".
وفي رحلة البحث عن مهد مار مارون الآرامي السوري ، وصلت إلى قرية أكدة قرب الحدود مع تركيا التي كانت تدعى "كيتا" ومنها انطلق الناسك من حضن معلمه الشهير "زابينا" إلى بلدة " نيارا " القريبة من "اعزاز" حيث تنسك مع صديقه داميانوس في كوخ على بيدرها ، وصولاً إلى " كفر نبو" منطلق حضوره وتبشيره وانقضاضه على التماثيل الوثنية وبناء كنيسته وصولاً إلى مدفنه في " براد".
كان مشوار البحث طويلاً ، لكنه يستحق العناء ، نجم عنه فيلمان وثائقيان، واحد خلال زيارة البابا يوحنا بولس الثاني إلى سورية ضمن مجموعة أفلام "أعمدة النور" حيث كشف للمرة الأولى ناووس مار مارون ، والثاني قبل سنتين وعنوانه " في ديار مار مارون" تابع بالصورة الموثقة حياة ناسك الشمال السوري ورحلة الموارنة إلى لبنان.
ما سبق تمهيد طويل للدخول في لجاجة الأسئلة التي تؤرق الباحث عن الحقيقة، فلقد تصورت بعد الكشف عن موقع تبشير مار مارون والناووس الذي ضم جثمانه منذ العام 1410 للميلاد أن تسعى البطريركية المارونية ، التي تأخذ حضورها من اسم شفيعها إلى الحج نحو ذلك الشمال الجميل الذي عاش فيه الراهب والناسك الآرامي ، الذي توفي بعد مرض دون أن يترك رهبانية أو يؤسس طائفة أو مذهبا ، بل ترك فضائل شاعت بين أهل زمانه فتحولت" كفر نبو" لسنوات طوال إلى موئل للحجيج، وكذلك المعبد الملحق بكنيسة جوليانوس في " براد" حيث وضع جثمان مار مارون، لكن وبعد ست سنوات من إزاحة التراب الذي غطى الناووس طيلة أربعين عاماً يبدو أن السياسة توغل في الإيمان ، فالبطريركية لم تنبس ببنت شفة ولم تحرك ساكناً وسافر البطريرك عبر القارات إلى رعيته في البرازيل وكندا وإلى البيت الأبيض ، ولم يزر رعيته السورية أو ملاعب طفولة ونسك وناووس وكنيسة شفيع بطريركيته.
لا تبرير إيمانياً وحتى سياحياً لهذا الأمر ، إلاّ أن مار مارون " لسوء طالعه " في العصر الأمريكي ، أنه سوري الأرض والهوية والولادة والتبشير والوفاة، في زمن نسي الكثيرون بيوتهم وأروماتهم وأجدادهم وقراهم ، بعدما دخلت السياسة والأحقاد ، التي يصل بعضها إلى العنصرية المطلقة، بعض محاريب من آمنوا.
أسوق هذا الكلام لأنه لا يمكن طمس حقائق التاريخ والجغرافيا ، وعيد مار مارون بعد غد ، فمهما تغرّب القوم لا بدّ من أرض وهوية لهم ، وإلاّ سيصبحون تفصيلاً في سياق التاريخ، وهذا ما جعلني أغض الطرف عن تصرفات بعضهم السياسية عبر تاريخنا الطويل ،وتحديداً خلال الحملة الصليبية ، رأفة بانتماء إلى هذه الجغرافيا وهذا التراث .. وللذين يقرؤون الأحداث جيداً عليهم مراجعة حقبة البطريرك يوسف الجرجسي!!.
في التاريخ عبرة..لذوي الانتماء.
http://elie-hobeika.blogspot.com/
+++++++++++++++++++++
الخط الاحمر بقلم: زينا الخوري
رسم السيد حسن نصرالله خطين احمرين: الجيش اللبناني ودخول المخيمات، فقامت القيامة. وفي الحقيقة كان يرسم الخط الاخطر على سلامة لبنان.يوم تحوّل اللاجئ الفلسطيني الى مقاوم، رفع شعار «هويتي بندقيتي». فتحوّلت المخيمات الفلسطينية الى محميات. كان هدف البندقية تحرير القدس واستعادة فلسطين. ومع مرور الزمن تغير التصويب... وصارت «المخيمات» اماكن عاصية، خارجة على القانون.ما الفرق الى اية جهة تنتمي «فتح الاسلام»؟ واذا كان شاكر العبسي ربيب المخابرات السورية، ام هو من صنع المخابرات الاردنية، او صدّره لنا ابو مصعب الزرقاوي ليقطع رؤوسنا؟ المهم هو الدور الذي يقوم به هذا التنظيم الاجرامي على الاراضي اللبنانية.لقد لجأت هذه المجموعة الارهابية بداية الى مخيم عين الحلوة. ثم انتقلت الى نهر البارد. فضّلت النهر على العين لان برودة النهر وكثافة سكانه تؤمن لها حماية غير متوفرة على العين.الجيش اللبناني مجروح. وقد سقط له عدد كبير من الشهداء الابرار. من حقه وواجبه ان يطبق العدالة ويقتص من المجرمين. والشيخ حسن نصراله يعرف اكثر من غيره خطورة الامر. وهو حريص على الجيش حرصه على الوطن. وهو حتماً لا يدافع عن القتلة.لكن الفرق شاسع بين القبض على عصابة ارهابية مجرمة، وبين الدخول في حرب مخيمات، تنطلق من البارد لتعمّ المناطق كافة. الحالة الثانية بداية زلزال تقودنا الى الفوضى، التي تحوّل وطننا الى عراق آخر. وهذا ما يطلبه الذين يتآمرون على لبنان.عام 1973 وقع الصدام الاول مع المخيمات. وكان الرئيس سليمان فرنجية مصمماً على حسم الموضوع... لكنه توقف؟الجيش السوري بكل عناده لم يدخل لاستخراج ابو عمار... بل فاوضه لترحيله. وشارون مر بجيشه الجرار بالقرب من هذه المخيمات.ودخول الجيش اللبناني اليوم في حرب استنزاف مع المخيمات هو الخط الاحمر في هذه المرحلة الصعبة من تاريخ لبنان؟ فكفى مزايدة وتحريضاً!
------------------------------------------------
Lebanon: France Moves To Incite Civil Unrest
Saturday, 21 April 2007, 1:35 pm
Column: Rami Zurayk
Chiraq’s Lebanon
By Prof. Rami Zurayk
French President Jacques Chirac is set on starting a new bout of civil fighting in Lebanon. For months, his ambassador to Lebanon, Bernard Emié has been pumping steroids into the muscles of the US supported Lebanese Government. The French are conniving with the US administration to block all possible avenues for compromise between the Lebanese Government and the Opposition. This is effectively paralyzing the country and creating an environment conducive to civil strife.
Last week, while the Lebanese were commemorating the start of the 1975 war with chants of “never again”, France was submitting a strongly worded motion to the UN Security Council. The text openly referred to the Lebanese Resistance as a “militia” (a term still rejected by the Lebanese state) and called for its disarmament. It also drew explicit connections between Iran’s nuclear aspirations and the resistance to Israel. The motion is so extreme in its support of Israeli ambitions that it is being opposed by China, Russia, South Africa, Ghana, Congo, Panama, and Qatar, all currently members of the UN Security Council.
What does Chirac want? Not much: an International Tribunal empowered by the UN Security Council. The Tribunal will exact revenge for the murder of his friend and benefactor, Rafic Hariri, the Lebanese (born) Saudi magnate who was Lebanon’s prime minister for over a decade.
What’s wrong with a UN sponsored International Tribunal? A lot has been written about this supra-judiciary tool. Besides the intricacies related to national sovereignty and legal minutiae, the main issue lies in the use of the Tribunal as a political tool. The current perception of the Lebanese Opposition is that this Tribunal cannot be neutral nor objective (the UN being a surrogate of the US administration); and that its main purpose is to end resistance to US (and Israeli) hegemony in the Middle East. In simpler terms, phony International Justice will be used as the weapon to accomplish what neither diplomacy (UN resolution 1559 calling for the disarmament of the Resistance) nor violence (33 days of relentless Israeli bombing, mayhem and destruction of Lebanon in July-August 2006) could achieve. Disarming the resistance will facilitate the physical elimination of its leadership and remove the last bastion of opposition to Bush’s New Middle East.
Lebanon is a nation hopelessly divided into self-serving sects. Weakening one sect will automatically strengthen the others. Hizbullah and the Resistance represent today the Shi’a sect of Lebanon. Eliminating their leadership will automatically relegate the Shi’a back to their traditional low caste status.
For this reason, many Lebanese are very hostile to an UN-sponsored International Tribunal. For this same reason, many Lebanese want the International Tribunal. The US-supported Lebanese Government has sent a draft approval of the International Tribunal to the Security Council. To become legal, this draft has to be approved by the Lebanese Parliament and countersigned by the Lebanese President. This is where the stalemate of the LIARS, lies....
-------------------------------------------------------
TAKE THREE:
**************
New UK Ambassador Starts SECRET Mission in Yemen : RE :THE COLE INCIDENT....
Last Friday, March 9th, Mrs. Frances Mary Guy, the new Ambassador of the United Kingdom to Yemen arrived in Sanaa to start her mission as the ambassador appointed by Her Majesty's Secret Service.
Mrs. Frances Guy has previously worked in several posts at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the UK and in British embassies in Paris, Amman, Khartoum, Bangkok, and Addis Ababa....
It is worth mentioning that this is her first post as "Ambassador", even though it will be her third position as an "undercover...in Her Majesty's Secret Service" in the Arab world..........
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Negotiations to find a compromise between the International Tribunal and the protection of the Lebanese Resistance from US and Israeli vindication have been going on, but very slowly. Chirac, however, is in a hurry. He wants a tribunal before the end of his term in May 2007. He has been unremittingly lobbying for the Tribunal to be approved by special UN Security Council resolution under the 7th Article of the UN Charter. This would effectively declare Lebanon a non-state, and place it under the control of the UN. This is also the best way to start a civil war. The Opposition has repeatedly warned that forcing the International Tribunal through the Security Council will lead to “chaos”, a euphemism for unbridled civil violence. But what does Chirac get out of that? After all he opposed the US sponsored invasion and destruction of Iraq, and has bragged plenty about it. Could it be that the alligator actually has a heart? That he really misses his friend Rafic Hariri? That the insurmountable loss has turned him into a political vigilante? This is the story being peddled by the Hariri-controlled media in the Arab World, with regular news items about the emotional bonds that tie the Elysée Palace with the Hariri Dynasty.
In reality, the Chirac-Hariri relationship has to be viewed from a different perspective. As soon as he leaves office in a few weeks time, Chirac will be investigated by the French judiciary on charges of corruption and undeclared personal and political “funding” during his tenure as mayor of Paris. Many of his senior aides have already received prison sentences.
It is very likely that Chirac has received “funding” from his Saudi-Lebanese billionaire friend. It is very likely that Chirac did not declare this money. Chirac needed funds. Hariri needed credibility. And Chirac has no shame when it comes to selling French credibility. A few weeks ago, he bestowed the French Honor Legion onto Saad Hariri, son of the late Rafic Hariri. Saad’s achievements in the political arena before his dad’s death are well known: he was spending his dad’s money between Riyadh, Paris, Monte Carlo and Washington. Well worthy of the honor legion.
The Hariris still need President Chirac, a powerful ally with permanent membership on the UN Security Council. Chirac may still need the Hariris, one of the biggest fortunes on earth, with tentacular connections to help him in his legal predicament. This may well be the dark side of this friendship.
In his efforts to restart the Lebanese civil war, Chirac is supported by the US and Britain. They’re happy to lead him down the path they have cleared in their Iraqi adventure, and to teach him one last lesson before he goes: never say “I told you so” when you are a corrupt politician. Lebanon could well become Chirac’s Iraq.
******************************************************************************
The Planning started way back in the US Strategic Agreement in 1998....
The Targets:
The TOOLS.... and the Kleiat Air Force Base in North Lebanon ???
The Murders and the "Outcry"...
SAMIDOUN ???
THE END GAME .... KSA [ DIVIDED IN THREE TERRITORIES? ]
THE THUG FROM TEXAS, MANIPULATED BY DICK CHENEY,
THE STOOGE OF THE MOTHER OF ALL LOBBIES,
THE PETROLEUM LOBBY , OF TEXAS...
"THE SUM OF ALL LOBBIES WORLDWIDE"
THE LITTLE DONKEYS
THE SNAKE
*******************************************************************************
La grande illusion
Par Percy KEMP
Les chrétiens libanais sont absolument persuadés que les Occidentaux sont leurs alliés et croient par ailleurs fermement qu’ils partagent avec eux une même culture et des valeurs identiques. Ces convictions-là mériteraient d’être examinées de près.
Et d’abord, l’idée reçue comme quoi les Occidentaux seraient les alliés des chrétiens libanais est-elle avérée au regard de l’histoire des vingt dernières années? Rien n’est moins sûr. Que firent les Occidentaux lorsque, coup sur coup, le président René Moawad fut tué, le général Michel Aoun exilé et le Dr Samir Geagea emprisonné? Rien du tout. Que firent les Occidentaux l’été dernier lorsque Israël bombardait la montagne et le littoral chrétiens? Rien du tout. Cela suggère que les chrétiens du Liban vivent dans l’illusion. Quant aux valeurs qu’ils auraient en commun avec l’Occident, on peut se demander s’il en subsiste encore quelque chose. La démocratie libérale? Elle a cédé la place à un populisme où la démagogie et les mass media font la loi et où les minorités font les frais de l’arithmétique électorale. La liberté? Les dirigeants occidentaux l’ont sacrifiée à l’autel du tout sécuritaire. Le respect de la personne? Jour après jour, en Occident les droits civiques sont bafoués et la vie privée des citoyens violée par l’État policier. Les valeurs chrétiennes? Le Nouveau Testament s’est désormais effacé derrière l’Ancien et le pardon christique a cédé le pas à l’œil pour œil, dent pour dent moïsique. Là aussi, illusion.
On m’objectera sans doute que l’Occident et les chrétiens du Liban ont en commun une culture et une religion, les élites chrétiennes libanaises étant tout à fait à leur aise en français comme en l’anglais et priant le même Dieu que les Occidentaux. À quoi je répondrais en rappelant que le roi Philippe de Macédoine parlait le grec et connaissait Homère, ce qui ne l’empêcha nullement d’asservir les cités grecques indépendantes, de mettre à bas leurs constitutions et de leur voler leur liberté. Je rappellerais aussi que son fils Alexandre, qui priait pourtant les dieux grecs de l’Olympe, n’en raya pas moins la ville grecque de Thèbes de la carte lorsqu’elle voulut secouer son joug trop pesant (Thèbes qui, soit dit en passant, avait été fondée par Cadmos, fils du roi de Phénicie, un ancêtre des Libanais).
Or, si les valeurs de l’Occident ont tant changé et si la langue et la religion ne sont plus une garantie d’affinité, que reste-t-il de cette culture occidentale à laquelle les chrétiens libanais continuent de s’accrocher comme un naufragé à une planche pourrie? Ce qui en reste, c’est ce qu’on appelle pompeusement un «way of life», un mode de vie, mais qui se résume en réalité à des effets de mode: Hugo Boss, Louis Vuitton, Zara, Prada, Johnny Walker, les pin-up, le loto et les reality shows. Civilisation, avez-vous dit? Dites plutôt consommation. Dites surtout illusion. Percy KEMP
السجل العدلي الحافل لـ "جعجع"؟!!
24/04/2007 تعرض هذه الوثيقة (المرفقة ادناه) الموقعة من النائب العام الاستئنافي جوزف فريحة لتهديد سمير جعجع لأحد ابرز حلفائه اليوم وهو الرئيس السابق امين الجميل، ففي العاشر من تشرين الاول عام ثمانية وثمانين ابلغ الجميل النيابة العامة ان جعجع وجه له تهديدا بضرورة مغادرة البلاد خلال ايام والا قام بالاجهاز عليه، تبلغ الجميل هذا الامر بعد اجتماع كريم بقرادوني بزوجته جويس الجميل في احدى الجمعيات التي تديرها في سن الفيل.
وفي سجل جعجع العدلي انه في الثالث عشر من حزيران عام ثمانية وسبعين قامت مجموعات من القوات اللبنانية يترأسها بشن هجوم على بلدة اهدن الشمالية وقتلت الوزير طوني فرنجية وزوجته فيرا وابنته جيهان البالغة من العمر سنتين ونصف وعدد من المواطنين. لاحقا وصف جعجع ما جرى بانه عملية وليس حادثة قائلا انه قد تلزم عمليات اخرى .
في الرابع عشر من شباط عام اربعة وثمانين شاركت مجموعة من اربعة قواتيين بالاجهاز على رئيس اقليم جبيل الكتائبي غيث خوري حيث قتل في كمين مسلح في العقيبة بينما كان عائدا الى بيته وبرفقته زوجته نورا.
احد المنفذين كان يخدم في المجلس الحربي للقوات تحت امرة جعجع. اصدر القاضي محمد المظلوم في العام الفين واربعة قرارا ظنيا بالمنفذين طلب فيه عقوبة الاعدام لهم.
في الاول من حزيران عام سبعة وثمانين انفجرت مروحية تابعة للجيش اللنباني فوق مدينة طرابلس حيث كانت تقل رئيس الوزراء رشيد كرامي. وجه الاتهام لجعجع بالقضية وحكم عليه المجلس العدلي بالاعدام وخفف الحكم الى السجن المؤبد.
في الثامن والعشرين من ايلول عام ستة وثمانين نفذت مجموعة قواتية بأمر من جعجع عملية اغتيال قائد اللواء الخامس في الجيش اللبناني خليل كنعان في منزله بالفياضية على خلفية اشكال مع الجيش في محلة المونتيفردي.
في التاسع عشر من كانون الثاني عام تسعين امر جعجع بتصفية عضو مجلس قيادة القوات اللبنانية الدكتور الياس الزايك على خلفية خلافات سياسية معه. اطلق النار على الزايك في الاشرفية وحكم جعجع في قضية التصفية هذه بالسجن المؤبد .
مع انحياز رئيس حزب الوطنيين الاحرار داني شمعون الى جانب العماد ميشال عون ومغادرة مختلف القادة الموارنة الى الخارج بقي امام جعجع داني شمعون فقط، وجه الأخير لجعجع الاتهام بتنفيذ مجزرة نهر الموت بحق مواطنين عزل موالين لعون. وفي الحادي والعشرين من تشرين الاول عام تسعين دخل عسكريون الى منزل شمعون في بعبدا وقاموا بتصفيته وعائلته، ادين جعجع بالاغتيال وحكم بالسجن مدى الحياة.
وفي سجل جعجع العدلي قضية العمالة لاسرائيلي التي لا يزال يلاحق بها من خلال دعوى مرفوعة عليه من قبل عدد من اللبنانيين قام بتسليمهم الى العدو الاسرائيلي حيث امضوا سنوات عدة في معتقلاته قبل ان يفرج عنهم.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
THE MOODY JOUMBLATT IS AT IT AGAIN...PLAYING PING PONG WITH THE DESTINY OF LEBANON AND THE LEBANESE? "BUYERS" BEWARE....OF THE SNAKE.
WALEED IN DESPERATE NEED OF HIS DOSE...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
الى روح الرئيس الشهيد ايلي حبيقة +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
بالرغم من تقديرينا و محبتنا الى روح الرئيس الشهيد ايلي حبيقة ومطالبتنا معرفة من خطط ونفذ هذه الجريمة النكراء من جميع اللبنانيين, مسيحيين ومسلمين, كبارا" وصغارا", شيوخا" وكهالا", صبية وصبى, أغنياء وفقراء, لبنانيين ومجنسين ومشردين ومهجرين, كلنا يريد معرفة الحقيقة, مثلنا مثل عائلة ايلي حبيقة المفجوعة. سننشىء المحكمة تحت الفصل السابع والفصل السبعين والسبع مرات السبعين لأن دمّ اللبنانيين, كل اللبنانيين يموتون ويشرّدون ويلاحقون بالخوف والرعب والموت... ولكن يا ايها السادة:
تقرير صغير ومقتضب عما حصل في مجازر الشوف وعالية:
- مقتل 3700 مسيحي جلّهم من الموارنة, الا يستحقون محكمة دولية.
- جرح حوالي 5000 مسيحي جلّهم من الموارنة, الا يستحقون محكمة دولية.
- تشريد 160000 جلّهم من الموارنة, الا يستحقون محكمة دولية.
- فقدان المئات لا بل الآلاف من المسيحيين جلّهم من الموارنة الا يستحقون محكمة دولية.
- فقدان المئات لا بل الآلاف من المسيحيين جلّهم من الموارنة الا يستحقون محكمة دولية.
- تدمير 116 قرية ومدينة للمسيحيين جلّهم من الموارنة الا يستحقون محكمة دولية.
- مسح 16 قرية وضيعة من بكرة أبيها لمواطنين مسيحيين جلّهم موارنة, الا يستحقون محكمة دولية.
- تغيير معالم وآثار لعشرات الضيع يسكنها مسيحيون جلّهم موارنة, الا يستحقون محكمة دولية. وأخيرا" وليس آخرا" عدم السماح لهؤلاء بالعودة الكريمة والحرّة الى ضيعهم الا يستحقون محكمة دولية.
عار على المسيحيين وخاصة الموارنة الذين يفتخرون بانتمائهم الى الأكثرية, الا يخجلون عندما يوقعون على عريضة السبعين. هل تناسوا مجازر الشوف وعالية والمتن وشرقي صيدا والعيشية وبيت ملات وتل عباس والدامور والجية, ربما قالوا نعم نسينا ولكن ها نسوا غزوة الأشرفية. أم لأن المتهمية بكل تلك المجازر بحق المسيحيين هم من الحلفاء ب 14 آذار أو 14 حجار.
كل هذا ألا يستحق محكمة دولية ربما لا لأن المصيبة وقعت على المسيحيين وخاصة على الموارنة
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
فمتى تنتهي المأساة ؟ بين عام 1975 وعام 2007، 32 سنة مضت.32 سنة ونحن نبكي، 32 سنة ونحن ندفن شهداء.مخطوفون في الشوارع مرميون على الأرصفة، قنّاصون على السطوح يرمون أبرياء.32 سنة ونحن نبكي أهلنا، أخوتنا، ابناءنا، أقاربنا، أصدقاءنا، شباب لا نعرفهم وصبايا وأطفالاً، والسلسلة مستمرة وصولاً الى الشهيدين زياد قبلان وزياد غندور.وفي كل مرة لا نملك إلاّ التعازي، ولا نملك الاّ الدعوة إلى الهدوء أو إلى التصعيد، ولبنان حائر في ظل طبقة سياسية لم تعرف كيف تحافظ على لبنان ولم تعرف كيف تجد اساساً لنظام سياسي يحمي الشعب اللبناني.دائماً تُلقي هذه الطبقة السياسية على أطرافها باللوم، أو تُلقي على الخارج المسؤولية، ولم تتحمّل المسؤولية يوماً بجدية للوصول إلى حل.32 سنة، وشعبنا اللبناني يموت، فمن كان المسؤول؟ ألم يكن المسؤول كل هؤلاء الأطراف السياسية؟ألم تكن كل هذه الأحزاب هي المسؤولة؟ألم تتقاتل كل هذه الأطراف على الساحة فتنة داخلية وصراعاً دموياً حتى القتل والتشريد والتدمير؟32 سنة من الحرب الداخلية والخارجية وليس فيها إلاّ وقفة وحيدة مجيدة هي قتالنا ضد العدو الاسرائيلي وتحرير الجنوب وأما باستثناء ذلك، فالدماء التي سقطت كانت نتيجة شحن الغرائز واستغلال العواطف ودفع الناس للاقتتال.اليوم يقف الجميع ليقدموا التعازي، وصحيح أن هنالك قتلةيجب محاكمتهم قاموا بالجريمة ويوصفون بالأفراد، ولكن من المسؤول عن إيصال البلاد الى هذا الواقع؟من الذي قام بالشحن الطائفي والغرائزي؟من الذي وضع لبنان على كف عفريت وباتت النفوس مشحونة ولا يلزم البارود إلاّ فتيل صغير لإشعاله؟أيها السادة، كما تقومون اليوم بوأد الفتنة، وكما استطعتم يا أهل السياسة اجتياز القطوع والفتنة، فبامكانكم الوصول الى الوفاق والى الوفاق الحقيقي، وعناصر الوفاق واضحة، فلبنان لا يحكم من واشنطن أو باريس، ولا من دمشق أو الرياض أو طهران، بل يحكم بمشاركة كل ابنائه، ولا يجوز أن تستأثر فئة بالحكم وتشكك بالآخرين وتقول إن الثلث هو ثلث معطل، وان فئة لا يمكن ائتمانها على المشاركة في حكومة وحدة وطنية.32 سنة، إلى أين أوصلتمونا كلكم من دون استثناء، ولكن استثناء واحداً هو المقاومة وسلاحها الشريف الذي قدم التضحيات والدماء في سبيل تحرير الجنوب والكرامة الوطنية ودحر العدو الاسرائيلي.كلكم صببتم الزيت على النار، كلكم تضعون الشعب اللبناني وقوداً لمشاريعكم الشخصية والسياسية، ولم يعد بالامكان الاستمرار على هذا الشكل.كلام وليد جنبلاط أن لا فرق بين بيروت والضاحية، وان الضاحية عانت من العدوان الاسرائيلي في صيف 2006، وان بيروت عانت سنة 1982 من العدوان الاسرائيلي، وان مقبرة الشهداء هي لكل الذين قاتلوا هو كلام يؤسس عليه، ولكن مطلوب ايضاً إكمال الاتجاه من الوزير جنبلاط وأيضاً من الرئيس بري ومن الأطراف في المعارضة للتلاقي على قاعدة، وهي المشاركة في حكومة وحدة وطنية.كلام جنبلاط إيجابي، ولكنه لا يكفي، والمطلوب من المعارضة ان تلاقي جنبلاط، ولكن الاساس ان يقنع جنبلاط الاكثرية التي ينضم اليها بقبول مشاركة حزب الله وحركة امل والعماد عون في حكومة وحدة وطنية، وعدم التشكيك من قبل الاكثرية بالمعارضة وعدم القول ان هذه المعارضة لا تؤتمن على 11 مقعداً وزارياً، ذلك ان المؤتمن على تحرير الجنوب، والمؤتمن على الدفاع عن لبنان، والذي يقدم شهداء في سبيل تحرير الجنوب هو الذي يؤتمن على لبنان.ان شعار لبنان اولاً لا يمكن ترجمته الا بتحرير لبنان، و ما التحرير الحقيقي الا من العدو الاسرائيلي.واذا كان لبنان قد اجتاز القطوع والفتنة، فإن الاكيد انه لا ضمانة من دون الوحدة الوطنية، فتعالوا نتفق على لبنان العربي على لبنان المقاوم.تعالوا نتفق على ان سلاح المقاومة هو قوة للبنان، وعندما يتم الاتفاق على سلاح المقاومة ووجوب بقائه وعلى انه قوة للبنان، فالوفاق الوطني يكون قد اصبح قائماً، ويكون جسر العبور من الفتنة الى الوفاق الحقيقي.32 سنة ودماء اللبنانيين تسيل، تهجرت قرى وتذابحتم جميعاً، والوقفة اليوم هي للعمل وليس لوأد الفتنة فقط، واذا كان موقف وليد جنبلاط هو موقف ادى الى اجتياز الفتنة، وإذا كان الكلام قد تغيّر لدى جنبلاط من ضاحية يتم فيها تزوير ارقام سيارات الى ضاحية المقاومة والصمود في وجه العدو الاسرائيلي، فإن المطلوب موقف عملي يترجم بتشكيل حكومة وحدة وطنية، والا فان لبنان لا يكون قد اجتاز الفتنة وبقي معرضاً لأي فتنة في أي لحظة.واما اذا بقي الاستئثار والتفرد في الحكم والتشبث بالكرسي في السراي من قبل السنيورة فلا جدوى، فسنقف عشرات المرات امام مقبرة الشهداء وندفن الشهداء والقتلى ونقدم التعازي، ويبقى لبنان معرضاً للخطر وللتفكك.32 سنة من الدمار تكفي، فانتقلوا من الخطاب السياسي الضيق الى الخطاب الوطني، والبداية تكون في حكومة وحدة وطنية ترتكز اولاً على ان لبنان مقاوم تحتفظ فيه المقاومة بسلاحها للدفاع عن لبنان وترتكز على محكمة ذات طابع دولي لكشف قتلة الرئيس الشهيد رفيق الحريري من دون اي استغلال من الاكثرية او اطراف سياسية لهذه المحكمة، عندها يقوم لبنان العلماني خارج الاقطاعية الطائفية وخارج الامراض المذهبية، وعندها يكون لبنان قد خرج من الفتنة نهائياً.ان الدول لن تنقذ لبنان، بل مطلوب من الشعب اللبناني إنقاذ نفسه، ويجب ان يعرف هذا الشعب ان الجراح قد زادت وان الفقر قد انتشر، وانه لم يعد يستطيع التحمل اكثر مما تحمّل. فلننهض من الفتنة الى الوحدة الوطنية وننه المأساة.
***********************************************************************************
هي أزمة نظام مهترئ لا يرتفع صوت لابداله
ليس ديفيد ولش أكثر من موظف في وزارة الخارجية الأميركية، وهو برتبة مساعد لوزيرة الخارجية بين عدد كبير من المساعدين لها، في اختصاصات مختلفة، وفقاً للنظام المتبع في هيكلية هذه الوزارة. وهو عندما يحضر الى لبنان، ويضع برنامجاً خاصاً للزيارات التي يقوم بها، ويقرر منفرداً مع من يريد أن يجتمع، ومن يصرف النظر عن اللقاء به، متجاهلاً الأعراف البروتوكولية، ويحدد بنفسه من يستقبل في السفارة الأميركية ومن يزور في مقره الرسمي أو في منزله، فإن تصرفه هذا لا يمكن أن يوصف الا بالفظاظة وقلة اللياقة. بدليل أن أي زائر دولي آخر لا يتبع هذا السلوك، دون استثناء، ولا يشذ عنه الا الزائر الأميركي وحده. ومن تقاليد الادارة الأميركية حالياً وسابقاً انها لا توفد الى لبنان ممثلاً لها أعلى من رتبة مساعد وزير، حتى ولو كان الأمر يتعلق بانتخاب أعلى رمز للدولة وهو رئيس الجمهورية. ومن غير المشرف للبنان وللشعب اللبناني أن يستمع الى هؤلاء الموفدين وهم يدلون بالتصريحات الطنانة على أبواب كبار المسؤولين اللبنانيين، وهم يحددون مواصفات الرئيس الذي يتوجب على النواب انتخابه، وكذلك المرشحين الذين ينبغي استبعادهم. وهو أمر لا يختلف كثيراً عن الحالة التي كان فيها عبد الحليم خدام يتصرف خلالها مع الشخصيات اللبنانية، حتى قبل أن يصبح نائباً لرئيس الدولة، وربما بأسلوب أشد خشونة وفظاظة.
***
لعل من (محاسن) هذه الأزمة التي تعصف بلبنان منذ شهور أنها كشفت بصورة لا تقبل الجدل، كم أن النظام السياسي في لبنان أصبح رثاً ومهلهلاً، وكيف أضاع لونه الأصلي مع كثرة الترقيع، الى درجة أنه لم يعد يحتمل إدخال رقعة أخرى فيه. وندرك اليوم فقط مقدار ما في هذا النظام من ثقوب كثيرة وواسعة، ومن اجتهادات متناقضة حول ما كان من أبسط المسلمات فيه، وكيف تحول الدستور الناظم لقواعد الحياة في الوطن الى دستورين متعارضين، ليخدم مصالح وسياسات الفريق الممسك به ومنظريه.
وثبت اليوم أكثر من أي يوم مضى، كم أن هذا النظام الطائفي هو نظام منتج للأزمات لا للحلول، ويقود البلاد الى انفجارات كبيرة ومنتظمة بمعدل مرة واحدة على الأقل كل خمس عشرة سنة، ما عدا الأزمات العابرة والمتكررة على مدى العهود. والمفارقة المذهلة أنه رغم ذلك لا يُسمع صوت واحد منقذ، يطالب بإبدال هذا النظام المتخلف والمهترئ بنظام حديث وعصري كما يليق بلبنان وشعبه، وينقله من حال الطائفية الى حال المواطنة، وذلك لأن أياً من الأفرقاء في هذا الوطن المفروز حصصاً، لا يريد التخلي عن حصته لمصلحة الوطن!
***
أيهما أكثر إثارة للاستغراب والنفور والتخوف للرسميين من موفدي الدول، أو للسائح العربي والأجنبي: مشهد الخيم في وسط بيروت? أم مشهد السراي ومقر الحكومة المحاط بسور كثيف من الأسلاك الشائكة وأكياس الرمل والآليات العسكرية وحشد كبير من القوى الأمنية، وكأن البلد في خضم حرب أهلية ماحقة أو أنه يستعد لها! أليس من أشد سخريات القدر، ومن أفظع الاهانات التي توجه الى الحكم والحكومة والطبقة السياسية برمتها، أن يكون أعظم طموح لشريحة واسعة من اللبنانيين ليس حل الأزمة، بل مجرد هدنة مائة يوم فقط لمجرد التمتع بنعمة التنفس?!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
How far does the Saniora Government Stand from Sunni Radicals
One Year after Granting Hizb ut-Tahrir a License ?
In a recent article, “The Redirection,” Seymour Hersh pointed out that the Lebanese government led by Fouad Saniora is supporting the rise of Sunni fundamentalist movements in attempt to balance against the spread of Shiite radicalism represented by Hezbollah.
According to analysts, this comes at the wake of an increased concern by the United States and other major powers leading the Global War on Terror of the spread of a so-called Shiite Crescent from Iran, through Iraq and Syria and reaching the Mediterranean coast in Lebanon.
The Saniora government has denied such allegations and continues to receive the strong backing of the Bush Administration and other Western powers. At the time, no evidence was unveiled to implicate the Lebanese government in this ploy, and its support of Sunni fundamentalist continues to be mere speculations.
However, the Lebanese government’s overt support to other absolutist Sunni movements, like Hizb ut-Tahrir, is a clear indicator of this government’s tendency to favor or work with such movements.
There have been attempts by the Saniora government to deny that Hizb ut-Tahrir is in fact a menace to Lebanese stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity in an effort to justify granting this group a license to function as a political party, but this study will reveal that the intentions of this group are far from being benign and are in fact a security threat to Lebanon, the Middle East region and the international order.
The Lebanese Government and Sunni Fundamentalists :
When talking about non-state actors, this term connotes either the generally benign category of non-governmental organizations that work on track-two diplomacy or the more malign category that includes individuals and/or groups of individuals that take advantage of lawless grey areas between states or within states, as well as of the many benefits of globalization to carry out terrorist or unlawful activity that undermine the peace and stability of states, groups of states or the international order. Groups like Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations fall within the latter category, and their ability to shift the security agenda of the leading powers and the international order has been underscored since the events of 9/11. To address this security threat, the United States, which took the lead on the GWOT, has sought to cut off all sources of support to these groups. Ironically the United States continues to support the Lebanese government headed by Prime Minister Fouad Saniora, while the latter has failed to protect Lebanon from the Sunni fundamentalist threat that is plaguing the country, but more importantly has also overtly supported a group known as Hizb ut-Tahrir that believes in the restoration of the Caliphate. Although the focus here is Hizb ut-Tahrir, it is also worth noting that the general internal security environment created by the current Lebanese government has been conducive to the rise of radical Sunni elements. As noted above, Seymour Hersh has gone as far as accusing the Lebanese government, based on conversations he had with former US intelligence sources, of arming Sunni militants with the help of the Bush Administration, and without the knowledge of the US Congress:
The United States has also given clandestine support to the Siniora government, according to the former senior intelligence official and the U.S. government consultant. “We are in a program to enhance the Sunni capability to resist Shiite influence, and we’re spreading the money around as much as we can,” the former senior intelligence official said. The problem was that such money “always gets in more pockets than you think it will,” he said. “In this process, we’re financing a lot of bad guys with some serious potential unintended consequences. We don’t have the ability to determine and get pay vouchers signed by the people we like and avoid the people we don’t like. It’s a very high-risk venture.”
American, European, and Arab officials I spoke to told me that the Siniora government and its allies had allowed some aid to end up in the hands of emerging Sunni radical groups in northern Lebanon, the Bekaa Valley, and around Palestinian refugee camps in the south. These groups, though small, are seen as a buffer to Hezbollah; at the same time, their ideological ties are with Al Qaeda.
These “radical groups” that Mr. Hersh mentions include Fath al Islam, and Asbat Al Ansar. In a recent New York Times article, Souad Mekhennet and Michael Moss give readers a closer look at Fath al Islam and its current leader, a Palestinian outlaw called Shakir al-Abssi who is a former associate of Abu Mussaab Al-Zarqawi and is accused of partaking in the murder of Laurence Foley, the American diplomat in Jordan. Abssi is organizing an armed group of radical Sunni jihadis in the lawless sphere of the Palestinian camps in Lebanon. These camps are suffering from extreme levels of poverty and unemployment providing a breeding ground for future terrorists. According to this article, the Lebanese internal security apparatus is unable to penetrate these camps because any intervention would require the consent of Arab states due to previously signed accords in the Arab League. The other “radical group” finding refuge in these camps is Asbat Al Ansar. In his article Hersh asserts that “Asbat al-Ansar has received arms and supplies from Lebanese internal-security forces and militias associated with the Siniora government.” Moreover, according to the New York Times, leaders of Asbat al Ansar have stated in interviews that they have been “sending fighters to Iraq since the start of the war.” In another press report by the London Sunday Telegraph, British government minister declared that many Sunni insurgents are actually moving from Iraq into Lebanon, because they consider Lebanon as a “soft” target. Also, as is the case with Asbat Al Ansar and Fath al Islam, many of these radicals are gravitating toward the Palestinian camps. Both Hersh and the London Sunday Telegraph articles have claimed that these radicals are being funded by oil-rich Saudis. These press reports were preceded by a Reuters report earlier in March 2007 that pointed also to the Saudis as main financiers of Sunni militants in Lebanon. Hersh was explicit in naming the member of the Saud Royal Family and pointed to Bandar Bin Sultan, former Saudi Ambassador to the United States. All reports seem to also indicate that the alleged Saudi complicity in the rise and empowerment of Sunni radical groups in Lebanon is according to analysts out of fear of the so-called “Shia Crescent.” Following is an excerpt of the Reuters report:
The latest flow of money began in December in an attempt to create a counterweight to the Shi'ite militant group Hezbollah, according to former U.S. intelligence officials and independent analysts who view it as part of a Saudi effort to bolster Sunni Islam in the face of growing Shi'ite activism across the Middle East and in Africa.
The Associated Press has also recently reported that Jordanian “authorities confiscated a videotape of an Al-Jazeera interview with the country's former crown prince” Hassan, the brother of the late King Hussein. The interview was conducted by one of Al Jazeera’s most prominent news reporters and Beirut Bureau Chief, Ghassan Ben Jeddou, who told AP that the Prince was critical in the interview of the American policy in the region, referring to it as “destructive.” More importantly, according to Ben Jeddou, Prince Hassan also mentioned that a member of the Saudi Royal establishment is funding radical Sunni insurgency in Lebanon to combat Iran’s extension on the Mediterranean, Hezbollah. The pieces of the puzzle seemed to come together when the AP report further revealed that Ben Jeddou “identified the Saudi official as Prince Bandar bin Sultan.”
Since the Hersh article was published, the Saniora government has been fast in responding to these allegations and denying them. However, as the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding. One can only judge the Saniora government by the actions that it has taken and that have been made public.
One of these actions was also mentioned in Hersh’s article when he pointed out that the son of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri and main backer of the Saniora Government, Saad al-Hariri, “paid forty-eight thousand dollars in bail for four members of an Islamic militant group from Dinniyeh. The men had been arrested while trying to establish an Islamic mini-state in northern Lebanon.” Also, according to this article, Saad al Hariri “later used his parliamentary majority to obtain amnesty for twenty-two of the Dinniyeh Islamists, as well as for seven militants suspected of plotting to bomb the Italian and Ukrainian embassies in Beirut, the previous year.” Hersh obtained this information from The Crisis Group, a US-based organization that deals with conflict resolution and prevention. This organization had also noted, according to Hersh, that many of these militants “had trained in al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan.”
The second action, which is the focus of this discourse, is the Saniora government’s act of granting Hizb ut-Tahrir a license to operate as a Lebanese political party in May 2006. The interim Lebanese Interior Minister at that time, Ahmad Fatfat, who granted Hizb ut-Tahir a license, released a statement to respond to critics in which he declared that “it’s not possible for freedom and democracy to be partial or discretionary.” It seems, however, that Mr. Fatfat has overlooked the fact that freedom and democracy do not warrant legalizing the activity of a group that plans to overthrow a democratic state’s government or limit the freedoms of its people.
The Hizb ut-Tahrir Threat to Lebanon and the Region
Hizb ut-Tahrir was founded in Palestine in 1953, and an aggregate review of the available literature on this group shows that it claims to adopt a non-violent approach to achieve a violent end. It comes as no surprise that its rise has been faced with strong resistance from Arab governments and monarchies and most have actually banned its operation, except for Lebanon, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen. Their alleged non-violent approach relies on the “power of persuasion” to win the hearts and minds of Muslims on their proclaimed goal of restoring the Sunni Caliphate that existed under the Ottoman Empire. Most scholars agree that this process of persuasion unfolds on three stages. The first one begins with “finding and cultivating individuals who are convinced by the thought and method of the party’ and who will then carry out the party's ideas,” and these tend to be members of the elite or educated middle class. The second stage entails, indoctrinating them in “implementing Islam in life, state and society.” The third and final stage begins to unfold when these recruits begin to implement Islam “completely and totally” and end up overthrowing their governments “peacefully” as the main key to establishing the Caliphate. What will follow, also according to many scholars, is conservative Islamic rule, preferably first in Muslim-dominated countries, to be then followed by forcing the rest of the world to convert and become part of the Caliphate through the use of force or jihad.
a- The case against the claim of “non-violence:”
The claim by Hizb ut-Tahrir that they are non-violent does not justify the ends that they are pursuing. Director of the International Security and Energy Programs at the Nixon Center, Zeyno Baran explains this aspect eloquently when she states:
“HT is not itself a terrorist organization, but it can usefully be thought of as a conveyor belt for terrorists. It indoctrinates individuals with radical ideology, priming them for recruitment by more extreme organizations where they can take part in actual operations. By combining fascist rhetoric, Leninist strategy, and Western sloganeering with Wahhabi theology, HT has made itself into a very real and potent threat that is extremely difficult for liberal societies to counter.”
Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that the activity of Hizb ut-Tahrir complements the activity of Al Qaeda, particularly by preparing recruits and indoctrinating them in the Salafi and Wahabi radical ideologies. Moreover, according to a policy watch report by the Washington Institute of Near East Policy, Hizb ut-Tahrir members partook in the violent attacks against the Danish Embassy in Lebanon in February 2006 as they were protesting against the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad by a Danish newspaper, which further debunks their claim of being non-violent. This attack which was transmitted live on Lebanese television networks left scores of material damage to churches and private property located in the vicinity of the Embassy. In fact, the mainly Christian residents of the area where the Embassy is located were overtaken with fear at the level of hate and violence displayed by the protestors. Additionally, experts have also noted that terrorist activity could become an option for members of Hizb ut-Tahrir given their ideology.
“The reality is that Hizb ut-Tahrir considers the majority of Muslims to be apostates. This leads to the radical notion that the Muslim community must be cleansed of polluting elements. In their belief, the end justifies the means, and therefore for Hizb ut-Tahrir, nothing short of a complete overthrow of the existing status quo will suffice. If this involves killing, mayhem and even terrorism, their beliefs allow and promote such actions.”
b- The case against granting Hizb ut-Tahrir legal status in Lebanon:
Visiting the official website of Hizb ut-Tahrir, one would notice that this organization refers to a group of countries as Wilayas or “districts” in the Muslim Caliphate. These countries include Australia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Pakistan, Palestine, Sudan, Syria, U.K., and Yemen. Explicitly stating that these countries are “wilayas” or districts implicates Hizb ut-Tahrir in compromising the sovereignty and territorial integrity of these states. In the case of Lebanon, on May 16, 2006, Hizb ut-Tahrir held a press conference in which their spokesperson called for “the implementation of the system of just Islam in the country [Lebanon], uniting the entire community [as] a caliphate country.” Again, it is not clear how a group that calls for changing the current form of Lebanon’s government, dissolving its borders, and integrating it into a larger Islamic “ummah,” is legalized by the Lebanese government and its activity ignored or justified under the pretense of “freedom of speech” or democracy.
Hizb ut-Tahrir and the World Community:
From the Middle East, Hizb ut-Tahrir has spread all over the world, but has taken advantage of the freedoms of liberal societies, particularly in Europe. Experts have noted that this group has a significant presence in Germany, although they have been banned in that country. The widely agreed upon “nerve center” for their operations in Europe is London, where this group “produces propaganda leaflets and books that are distributed globally.” Recently, British Prime Minister Tony Blair approved a ban of Hizb ut-Tahrir on university and college campuses, particularly after widespread reports of their recruitment activities in these locales.
Hizb ut-Tahrir is very well organized and does not disclose the names of its leaders. It is, however, believed that the main leader of Hizb ut-Tahrir resides in secret in Lebanon and goes by the name, Abu Rashta. However, what experts have been able to uncover is a general idea on the organization’s hierarchal structure across countries and continents.
“While there are many assumptions regarding the structure of Hizb ut-Tahrir, its structure may roughly be depicted as follows. At the lowest level, the operational cell is called the halaka, or group. The members of the halaka know only their immediate teammates and leader. Efforts are made so the members of each group have no knowledge of the existence of another group. All relations outside the group are carried out only by the leader. The leaders of such groups form another halaka in their turn and that group also has a leader. This method allowed Hizb ut- Tahrir to conduct secret operations in several countries for many years.”
Experts disagree on the sources of financial support for Hizb ut-Tahrir, but fingers are pointing toward the Wahabis in Saudi Arabia. “At various times, experts have speculated that Iran, Saudi Arabia and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan have collaborated with HT.” What is evident is that this group has taken advantage of all the perks of globalization to communicate with and recruit members, and keep a low profile. Security experts have also noted that Hizb ut-Tahrir “has the most sophisticated presence in cyberspace, which fits the party’s modern image as well as its defiance of national borders.” They are known to use chat rooms and forums to recruit members and spread their ideology. Also, experts indicate that analyzing numbers of visitors to Hizb ut-Tahrir’s website shows that they receive a high volume of traffic. Counter-terrorism analyst Madeleine Gruen explained that Hizb ut-Tahrir is using music to reach out to youth, and “she attributed HT’s transnational success in part to its ability to adapt its message according to the needs of potential followers in each particular country.”
As Europe struggles to integrate thousands of Muslim immigrants arriving from Muslim countries in Southeast Asia and Northern Africa, Hizb ut- Tahrir’s message of “anti-integration” has been found to be a real threat to this regional effort. The more this organization tells people not to integrate into western societies the higher is the chance for future clashes between these immigrants and natives and/or internal security forces of these states. Hizb ut-Tahrir works to unite Muslims in Europe by creating an almost autonomous sub-culture. This network seems to be highly effective and well-connected as revealed by experts.
Conclusion :
Exposing Hizb ut-Tahrir’s ideology reveals that this group is far from deserving to be granted the liberty to operate as a political party in any state. The one piece of information that stood out while examining this organization is the fact that they go after elites and members of the educated middle class as their target recruits. Could it be that Hizb ut-Tahrir has succeed in recruiting members of the ruling Sunni elite in Lebanon, including the former interim Interior Minister Faftat or Saad al Hariri or maybe even Fouad Saniora himself? At this point, there is no evidence, but mere speculations. However, what seems to be evident day after day is that the Saniora government has made it easy for Sunni radicals to turn Lebanon into their playground, while claiming that they either have no control over the situation or justifying their actions under the pretense of freedom of speech or democracy. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration continues to give unlimited support to the Saniora government in the hopes that strengthening the latter would eventually lead to overpowering Hezbollah. The big question is how would they do that and at what expense? The Soviets ended up withdrawing from Afghanistan, but what did American and Saudi support to jihadis operating against the Soviets cost the US national security in the end? Are we creating another Al Qaeda-type organization in Lebanon?
Joelle Jackson is a recent Master of Arts graduate in International Security Studies and the Middle East from the George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs in Washington, D.C.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sy Hersh: Bush administration arranged support for militants attacking Lebanon .
May 23, 2007
In an interview on CNN International's Your World Today, veteran journalist Seymour Hersh explains that the current violence in Lebanon is the result of an attempt by the Lebanese government to crack down on a militant Sunni group, Fatah al-Islam, that it formerly supported.
Last March, Hersh reported that American policy in the Middle East had shifted to opposing Iran, Syria, and their Shia allies at any cost, even if it meant backing hard-line Sunni jihadists.
A key element of this policy shift was an agreement among Vice President Dick Cheney, Deputy National Security Advisor Elliot Abrams, and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi national security adviser, whereby the Saudis would covertly fund the Sunni Fatah al-Islam in Lebanon as a counterweight to the Shia Hezbollah.
Hersh points out that the current situation is much like that during the conflict in Afghanistan in the 1980's – which gave rise to al Qaeda – with the same people involved in both the US and Saudi Arabia and the "same pattern" of the US using jihadists that the Saudis assure us they can control.
When asked why the administration would be acting in a way that appears to run counter to US interests, Hersh says that, since the Israelis lost to them last summer, "the fear of Hezbollah in Washington, particularly in the White House, is acute."
As a result, Hersh implies, the Bush administration is no longer acting rationally in its policy. "We're in the business of supporting the Sunnis anywhere we can against the Shia. ... "We're in the business of creating ... sectarian violence." And he describes the scheme of funding Fatah al-Islam as "a covert program we joined in with the Saudis as part of a bigger, broader program of doing everything we could to stop the spread of the Shia world, and it just simply -- it bit us in the rear."
TRANSCRIPT :
HALA GORANI: Well, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reported back in March that in order to defeat Hezbollah, the Lebanese government supported a Sunni militant group, the same ones they're fighting today. Seymour joins us live from Washington. Thanks for being with us. What is the source of the financing according to your reporting on these groups, such as Fatah al-Islam in these camps of Nahr el Bared, for instance? Where are they getting the money and where are they getting the arms?
SEYMOUR HERSH: The key player is the Saudis. What I was writing about was sort of a private agreement that was made between the White House, we're talking about Richard -- Dick -- Cheney and Elliott Abrams, one of the key aides in the White House, with Bandar. And the idea was to get support, covert support from the Saudis, to support various hard-line jihadists, Sunni groups, particularly in Lebanon, who would be seen in case of an actual confrontation with Hezbollah -- the Shia group in the southern Lebanon -- would be seen as an asset, as simple as that.
GORANI: The Siniora government, in order to counter the influence of Hezbollah in Lebanon would be covertly according to your reporting funding groups like Fatah al-Islam that they're having issues with right now?
HERSH: Unintended consequences once again, yes.
GORANI: And so if Saudi Arabia and the Senora government are doing this, whether it's unintended or not, therefore it has the United States must have something to say about it or not?
HERSH: Well, the United States was deeply involved. This was a covert operation that Bandar ran with us. Don't forget, if you remember, you know, we got into the war in Afghanistan with supporting Osama bin Laden, the mujahadin back in the late 1980s with Bandar and with people like Elliott Abrams around, the idea being that the Saudis promised us they could control -- they could control the jihadists so we spent a lot of money and time, the United States in the late 1980s using and supporting the jihadists to help us beat the Russians in Afghanistan and they turned on us. And we have the same pattern, not as if there's any lessons learned. It's the same pattern, using the Saudis again to support jihadists, Saudis assuring us they can control these various group, the groups like the one that is in contact right now in Tripoli with the government.
GORANI: Sure, but the mujahadin in the '80s was one era. Why would it be in the best interest of the United States of America right now to indirectly even if it is indirect empower these jihadi movements that are extremists that fight to the death in these Palestinian camps? Doesn't it go against the interests not only of the Senora government but also of America and Lebanon now?
HERSH: The enemy of our enemy is our friend, much as the jihadist groups in Lebanon were also there to go after Nasrallah. Hezbollah, if you remember, last year defeated Israel, whether the Israelis want to acknowledge it, so you have in Hezbollah, a major threat to the American -- look, the American role is very simple. Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, has been very articulate about it. We're in the business now of supporting the Sunnis anywhere we can against the Shia, against the Shia in Iran, against the Shia in Lebanon, that is Nasrallah. Civil war. We're in a business of creating in some places, Lebanon in particular, a sectarian violence.
GORANI: The Bush administration, of course, officials would disagree with that, so would the Senora government, openly pointing the finger at Syria, saying this is an offshoot of a Syrian group, Fatah al-Islam is, where else would it get its arms from if not Syria.
HERSH: You have to answer this question. If that's true, Syria which is close -- and criticized greatly by the Bush administration for being very close -- to Hezbollah would also be supporting groups, Salafist groups -- the logic breaks down. What it is simply is a covert program we joined in with the Saudis as part of a bigger broader program of doing everything we could to stop the spread of the Shia, the Shia world, and it bit us in the rear, as it's happened before.
GORANI: Sure, but if it doesn't make any sense for the Syrians to support them, why would it make any sense for the U.S. to indirectly, of course, to support, according to your reporting, by giving a billion dollars in aid, part of it military, to the Senora government -- and if that is dispensed in a way that that government and the U.S. is not controlling extremist groups, then indirectly the United States, according to the article you wrote, would be supporting them. So why would it be in their best interest and what should it do according to the people you've spoken to?
HERSH: You're assuming logic by the United States government. That's okay. We'll forget that one right now. Basically it's very simple. These groups are seeing -- when I was in Beirut doing interviews, I talked to officials who acknowledged the reason they were tolerating the radical jihadist groups was because they were seen as a protection against Hezbollah. The fear of Hezbollah in Washington, particularly in the White House, is acute. They just simply believe that Hassan Nasrallah is intent on waging war in America. Whether it's true or not is another question. There is a supreme overwhelming fear of Hezbollah and we do not want Hezbollah to play an active role in the government in Lebanon and that's been our policy, basically, which is support the Siniora government, despite its weakness against the coalition. Not only Siniora but Mr. Aoun, former military leader of Lebanon. There in a coalition that we absolutely abhor.
GORANI: All right, Seymour Hersh of "The New Yorker" magazine, thanks for joining us there and hopefully we'll be able to speak a little bit in a few months' time when those developments take shape in Lebanon and we know more. Thanks very much.
HERSH: glad to talk to you.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
LIBAN / POINT DE SITUATION
22/05/07
Les combats entre l’Armée libanaise et Fatah Al-Islam continuent de faire rage autour du camp palestinien de Nahr El-Bared au Nord Liban et les « dommages collatéraux » touchant les civils continuent eux aussi et s’amplifient : pilonnage intensif du camp par l’Armée d’un côté, attentats à la bombe de l’autre. En effet, après l’attentat à l’explosif qui avait visé, dimanche soir, un centre commercial à Achrafieh, un quartier chrétien de Beyrouth, lundi soir c’était au tour d’un centre commercial de la rue Verdun, un quartier beyrouthin à prédominance sunnite, d’être visé et, plus tard dans la nuit, on apprenait qu’une patrouille de l’Armée avait arrêté, à Mansourieh, à quelques kilomètres au nord-est de la capitale, un Palestinien et un Egyptien porteurs d’une valise piégée.
Au troisième jour des combats, il apparaît, plus que jamais auparavant, que c’est à un nouvel avatar de la guerre du Liban que nous assistons : après la guerre entre Libanais chrétiens et Palestiniens des années 70, après la guerre entre chrétiens et musulmans des années 80, après la guerre entre pro-syriens et anti-syriens des dernières années et après la guerre entre sunnites et chiites des derniers mois, voilà sans aucun doute une guerre entre sunnites.
Depuis quelques années en effet et plus particulièrement depuis le retrait syrien du Liban au printemps de 2005, les intégristes sunnites, qu’ils soient libanais, palestiniens ou autres, ne cachaient plus leur volonté de vouloir se constituer, à Tripoli, une base territoriale similaire à celle dont les intégristes chiites bénéficient dans la banlieue sud de Beyrouth et à celle dont les intégristes chrétiens avaient jadis bénéficié dans les quartiers est de la capitale.
Longtemps ces intégristes sunnites-là furent d’ailleurs ménagés, chouchoutés même, par la composante sunnite de la majorité parlementaire libanaise représentée par les Hariri, laquelle espérait pouvoir s’en servir comme d’une carte contre la Syrie (un fief intégriste sunnite au Nord Liban menacerait directement le pouvoir alaouite en Syrie) et comme d’un contrepoids face à la milice chiite du Hezbollah. Rappelons à ce propos que les intégristes sunnites de Denniyeh au Nord Liban, arrêtés pour avoir enlevé et tué des soldats de l’Armée libanaise, furent par la suite remis en liberté sur ordre du gouvernement issu de l’actuelle majorité parlementaire. Rappelons aussi que ces derniers mois des informations faisaient état d’une intense activité des services de renseignement saoudien et jordanien dans les milieux sunnites intégristes au Liban.
Le coup d’éclat du Fatah Al-Islam, dans la nuit du 19 au 20 mai (attaque d’une banque et attaque des positions de l’Armée), semble néanmoins avoir été la goutte qui aura fait débordé le vase, la composante sunnite de la majorité parlementaire s’étant finalement rendu compte que ces éléments qu’elle espérait pouvoir utiliser à son avantage étaient tout à fait incontrôlables. Ce qui expliquerait l’ordre et l’aval donnés par le gouvernement à l’Armée de pourchasser ses éléments-là et de les éliminer. De ce fait, on pourrait dire que la guerre actuelle met aux prises, d’une part des sunnites intégristes libanais et étrangers et, d’autre part, des sunnites libanais modérés, les anti-syriens parmi eux côtoyant étonnamment des pro-syriens.
L’appui des sunnites modérés, les Hariri en tête, à l’Armée, dans sa guerre actuelle contre Fatah Al-Islam, a néanmoins ses limites, évidentes. La « rue » sunnite, base de pouvoir des Hariri, voit en effet d’un assez mauvais œil l’Armée pilonner et tuer ses « frères » sunnites, palestiniens et arabes. La composante sunnite de la majorité parlementaire libanaise se trouve de ce fait confrontée à un dilemme, lequel ira croissant si les combats devaient se poursuivre et s’intensifier. Ce qui explique que, tout en appuyant l’Armée, le gouvernement libanais dominé par les Hariri ait néanmoins insisté afin que l’Armée ne pénétrât pas dans le camp de Nahr El-Bared, remettant aibsi en cause l’accord du Caire de 1969 qui avait consacré l’extraterritorialité des camps palestiniens au Liban.
Dans cette affaire, les dirigeants sunnites du pays ont, on le voit, beaucoup à perdre et peu à gagner. En effet, une victoire décisive de l’Armée sur Fatah Al-Islam affaiblirait la « rue » sunnite libanaise tout en renforçant l’Armée qui ne doit rien au gouvernement et aux Hariris. En échange, une victoire de Fatah Al-Islam renforcerait le courant intégriste libanais et l’encouragerait à s’autonomiser, échappant ainsi totalement à ceux (Hariris, Saoudiens, Jordaniens) qui pensaient pouvoir l’instrumentaliser.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
« Le Gouvernement Libanais "Inconstitutionnel" a favorisé l'implantation du Fatah Al Islam depuis plus d'un an »
Le gouvernement libanais "Inconstitutionnel" et les traitres du soi-disant groupe du 14 Fevrier, infeodés aux Néo-conservateurs Américains, en complicité avec la CIA et le MOSSAD Israélien, ont favorisé l'installation de groupes extrémistes au Liban, pour contrer la popularité croissante du Hizbullah au Liban et partout dans le monde, depuis la guerre barbare de l'été dernier sur le Liban : « Depuis plus d'un un, les milices de tous bords, et spécifiquement les milices terroristes du Fatah Al Islam, s'arment au vu et au su de tout le monde, sans qu'aucune mesure effective ne soit entreprise par le gouvernement pour arrêter cette implantation ». « La volonté du gouvernement libanais d'arrêter les attentats qui ont secoué le Liban depuis plus de deux ans n'est qu'un vœu pieux. Ce gouvernement est des plus cyniques : il a laissé agir ces groupes pendant des mois, et a exploité la terreur qu'ils ont engendrée, notamment dans les zones chrétiennes, pour accuser l'opposition de ces faits. En fin de compte, il n'hésitera pas à aller monnayer le désarmement de ces groupes auprès des démocraties occidentales afin d'assurer sa survie. La politique du pompier pyromane tant exercée par les Syriens durant l'occupation a été reprise par le gouvernement actuel. ». Dès lors nous attendons avec impatience de l'armée libanaise qu'elle continue sa mission et qu'elle ne soit pas stoppée dans sa lancée à des fins politiciennes.
Est-il nécessaire de rappeler que pendant que le ministre de la défense pavoisait devant les caméras pour avoir arrêté un seul camion de munition appartenant au Hezbollah, des centaines d'islamistes s'armaient du Sud au Nord du Liban dans le but de terroriser le pays sans qu'ils ne soient à aucun moment inquiétés par le gouvernement ? Au Liban il faut tout d'abord être tué pour qu'on s'interroge enfin sur l'existence de réseaux terroristes, puis d'attendre un peu avant qu'une enquête bâclée ne tombe aux oubliettes ! Aujourd'hui, il n'existe aucune politique gouvernementale sécuritaire et préventive pour protéger ces citoyens. Alors que n'importe quel habitant de Tripoli aurait pu vous guider vers le repère des terroristes, le gouvernement de Mr Saniora n'a pas trouvé nécessaire d'intervenir plutôt. Il a préféré que la situation dégénère au point de déstabiliser le pays tout entier et affaiblir son économie. Il reste sourd et aveugle face aux besoins des libanais, et pire encore, à ce stade de responsabilité, il devient d'une manière ou d'une autre complice de nos assassins.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
APRIL 25, 2007: "Buying the War"
BILL MOYERS: Four years ago this spring the Bush administration took leave of reality and plunged our country into a war so poorly planned it soon turned into a disaster. The story of how high officials misled the country has been told. But they couldn't have done it on their own; they needed a compliant press, to pass on their propaganda as news and cheer them on.
Since then thousands of people have died, and many are dying to this day. Yet the story of how the media bought what the White House was selling has not been told in depth on television. As the war rages into its fifth year, we look back at those months leading up to the invasion, when our press largely surrendered its independence and skepticism to join with our government in marching to war.
Our report was produced and directed by Kathleen Hughes and edited by Alison Amron.
ANNOUNCER (March 6, 2003): Ladies and Gentlemen: the President of the United States
PRESIDENT BUSH: Good evening, I'm pleased to take your questions tonight.
BILL MOYERS: Two weeks before he will order America to war, President Bush calls a press conference to make the case for disarming Haddam Hussein.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Iraq is a part of the war on terror. It's a country that trains terrorists, it's a country that could arm terrorists. Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country.
BILL MOYERS: For months now, his administration has been determined to link Iraq to 9/11.
PRESIDENT BUSH: September the 11th should say to the American people that we're now a battle field.
BILL MOYERS: At least a dozen times during this press conference he will invoke 9/11 and Al Qaeda to justify a preemptive attack on a country that has not attacked America.
REPORTER: Mr. President, if you decide…
BILL MOYERS: But the White House press corps will ask no hard questions tonight about those claims. Listen to what the President says:
PRESIDENT BUSH: This is a scripted…(laughter)
REPORTER: Thank you Mr. President--
BILL MOYERS: Scripted. Sure enough, the President's staff has given him a list of reporters to call on.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Let's see here… Elizabeth… Gregory… April…Did you have a question or did I call upon you cold?
APRIL: No, I have a question (laughter)
PRESIDENT BUSH: Okay. I'm sure you do have a question
ERIC BOEHLERT: He sort of giggled and laughed. And, the reporters sort of laughed. And, I don't know if it was out of embarrassment for him or embarrassment for them because they still continued to play along. After his question was done. They all shot up their hands and pretended they had a chance of being called on.
APRIL: How is your faith guiding you?
PRESIDENT BUSH: My faith sustains me because I pray daily. I pray for guidance.
ERIC BOEHLERT: I think it just crystallized what was wrong with the press coverage during the run up to the war…I think they felt like the war was gonna happen. And, they-- the best thing for them to do was to get out of the way.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you for your questions.
BILL MOYERS: Our story begins with the horror of 9/11….
CHARLES GIBSON: (ABC NEWS 9/11/01) Oh my God.
DIANE SAWYER: Oh my God. Oh my God.
CHARLES GIBSON: That looks like a second plane.
BILL MOYERS: Like everyone else journalists were stunned by the death and devestation.
REPORTER (ABC NEWS 9/11/01): This is as close as we can get to the base of the World Trade Center. You can see the firemen assembled here. The police officers, FBI agents. And you can see the two towers - a huge explosion -now raining debris on all of us - we better get out of the way!
AARON BROWN: (CNN LIVE 9/11/01): And there as you can see, perhaps the second tower, the front tower, the top portion of which is collapsing. Good Lord.
PAT DAWSON (NBC NEWS 9/11/01): If there is a war it's a war against terrorism that started, rather ongoing right now, it started here at about quarter to nine this morning.
DAN RATHER: There are no words that can describe this.
DAN RATHER: I was deeply moved by 9/11. I don't know of any American who wasn't. I think we all bought into that the world had changed.
BOB SIMON: I think the atmosphere in the United States after September 11th was so overwhelmingly patriotic. And overwhelmingly: "We must do something about this."
PRESIDENT BUSH (9/14/01 at ground zero): And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.
CROWD CHANTING: USA! USA!
DAN RATHER (on LATE NIGHT WITH DAVID LETTERMAN (9/17/01): George Bush is the President, he makes the decisions and you know, as just one American wherever he wants me to line up, just tell me where.
DAN RATHER: I didn't mean it in a journalistic sense; I know it may have come across that way. I meant it in a sense as an individual citizen. Mr. President if you need me, if you need me to go to hell and back for my country, I will do it.
DAN RATHER (9/17/01): But I'll tell you this, if they could go down to ground zero here in lower Manhattan-and you referred to it earlier-and see the following, see those fireman....
DAVID LETTERMAN: OK I'll tell you what…
DAN RATHER: I can finish it.
DAVID LETTERMAN: No, no. Dan take care of yourself. We'll be right back here with Dan Rather
BILL MOYERS: What I was wrestling with that night listening to you is; once we let our emotions out as journalists on the air, once we say, we'll line up with the President, can we ever really say to the country the President's out of line.
DAN RATHER: Yes. Of course you can. Of course you can. No journalist should try to be a robot and say 'They've attacked my country, they've killed thousands of people but I don't feel it.' But what you can do and what should have been done in the wake of that is suck it up and say, okay, that's the way I feel. That's the way I feel as a citizen. And I can serve my country best by being the best journalist I can be. That's the way I can be patriotic.
By the way Bill, this is not an excuse. I don't think there is any excuse for, you know, my performance and the performance of the press in general in the roll up to the war. There were exceptions. There were some people, who, I think, did a better job than others. But overall and in the main there's no question that we didn't do a good job.
BILL MOYERS: As Americans reacted to the atrocities of a sneak attack, a powerful surge of solidary swept across the country.
AARON BROWN (CNN Live 9/14/01): One of the things that seems to be binding all Americans these days no matter their backgrounds, in the aftermath of this tragedy, is a renewed sense of patriotism.
BRENT BOZELL: (Fox News Channel, HANNITY AND COLMES 9/28/01) ... To see so many reporters just wearing a little American flag on the lapels, to see Tim Russert on MEET THE PRESS.
SEAN HANNITY: Yeah
BRENT BOZELL: With the red, white and blue ribbons. I think -- I think it's a human emotion there.
BILL MOYERS: And as the administration organized to strike back at the terrorists, there was little tolerance for critical scrutiny from journalists.
WALTER ISAACSON: There was a patriotic fervor and the administration used it so that if you challenged anything you were made to feel that there was something wrong with that.
BILL MOYERS: Walter Isaacson was then Chairman and Chief Executive Officer OF CNN.
WALTER ISAACSON: And there was even almost a patriotism police which, you know, they'd be up there on the internet sort of picking anything a Christiane Amanpour, or somebody else would say as if it were disloyal….
BILL MOYERS: We interviewed a former reporter at CNN who had been there through that period. And this reporter said this quote, "Everybody on staff just sort of knew not to push too hard to do stories critical of the Bush Administration."
WALTER ISAACSON: Especially right after 9/11. Especially when the war in Afghanistan is going on. There was a real sense that you don't get that critical of a government that's leading us in war time.
SOLDIER: Move out!
BILL MOYERS: When American forces went after the terrorist bases in Afghanistan, network and cable news reported the civilian casualties…the patriot police came knocking.
WALTER ISAACSON: We'd put it on the air and by nature of a 24 hour TV network, it was replaying over and over again. So, you would get phone calls. You would get advertisers. You would get the Administration.
BILL MOYERS: You said pressure from advertisers?
WALTER ISAACSON: Not direct pressure from advertisers, but big people in corporations were calling up and saying, 'You're being anti-American here.'
BILL MOYERS: So Isaacson sent his staff a memo, leaked to THE WASHINGTON POST: 'It seems perverse' he said, 'to focus too much on the casualties or hardship in Afghanistan,"
REPORTER: There's a body up here.
BILL MOYERS: And he ordered his reporters and anchors to balance the images of civilian devastation with reminders of September 11th.
WALTER ISAACSON: I felt if we put into context, we could alleviate the pressure of people saying, "Don't even show what's happening in Afghanistan."
BILL MOYERS: Newspapers were squeezed, too. This one in Florida told its editors: "Do not use photos on page 1a showing civilian casualties…" our sister paper …has done so and received hundreds and hundreds of threatening e-mails … "
And then there was Fox News: Whose chief executive — the veteran Republican operative and media strategist Roger Ailes — had privately urged the white house to use the harshest measures possible after 9/11...
WALTER ISSACSON: … so we were caught between this patriotic fervor and a competitor who was using that to their advantage; they were pushing the fact that CNN was too liberal that we were sort of vaguely anti-American.
BILL MOYERS: Even as American troops were still chasing Osama bin Laden through the mountains of Afghanistan, Washington was moving toward a wider war. Within hours after the attacks on 9/11, Defense Secretary Rumsfield put Saddam Hussein on the hit list. An aide took notes.
DAN RATHER: I knew before 9/11 that many of the people who came into the administration were committed to toppling Saddam Hussein. And doing it with military force if necessary.
BILL MOYERS: Dan Rather is talking about prominent Washington figures in and outside of government…known as neoconservatives. They had long wanted to transform the Middle East, beginning with the removal of Saddam Hussein. The terrorist attacks gave them the chance they wanted. And the media gave them a platform.
JOHN KING (WAR ROOM WITH WOLF BLITZER,CNN 11/19/01): Richard Perle? Next phase Saddam Hussein?
RICHARD PERLE: Absolutely.
WILLIAM KRISTOL (FOX NEWS 11/24/01): One person close to the debate said to me this week that it's no longer a question of if, it's a question of how we go after Saddam Hussein.
BILL MOYERS: In the weeks after 9/11 they seemed to be on every channel, gunning for Hussein.
TED KOPPEL (NIGHTLINE 11/28/01): You are probably the hawkiest of the hawks on this. Why?
JAMES WOOLSEY: Well I don't know that I accept that characterization but it's probably not too far off. I think that the Baghdad regime is a serious danger to world peace.
RICHARD PERLE (ABC THIS WEEK 11/18/01): Weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein, plus his known contact with terrorists, including Al Qaeda terrorists, is simply a threat too large to continue to tolerate.
BILL MOYERS: Among their leading spokesmen were Richard Perle and James Woolsey. Both sat on the Defense Policy Board advising Donald Rumsfeld. And they used their inside status to assure the press that overthrowing Hussein would be easy.
RICHARD PERLE (CNN 11/19/01): We would be seen as liberators in Iraq.
BILL MOYERS: Major newspapers and magazines gave them prime space to make their case, including the possibility that 9/11 had been "sponsored, supported and perhaps even ordered by Saddam Hussein." The president, they said, should take "Preemptive action."
WILLIAM KRISTOL (MEET THE PRESS, NBC, 10/7/01): The biggest mistake we have made-it's our mistake, it's not the mistake of the Arabs-- was not finishing off Saddam Hussein in 1991.
BILL MOYERS: No one got more air time from an arm chair than Bill Kristol, editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD And a media savvy Republican strategist.
In the 1990s Kristol organized a campaign for increased military spending and a muscular foreign policy. In 1998 he and his allies wrote President Bill Clinton urging him 'to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
And now, just days after 9/11 with many of their allies serving in the administration, they wrote an open letter to President Bush calling for regime change in bagdad. Over the coming months Kristol's Weekly Standard kept up the drum beat.
FRED BARNES (BELTWAY BOYS, Fox 11/24/01): What are the consequences if the US does not finish off this Saddam Hussein as a second step in the war on terrorism?
WILLIAM KRISTOL: It would mean that the president having declared a global war on terrorism didn't follow through-- didn't take out the most threatening terrorist state in the world."
TIM RUSSERT (MEET THE PRESS, NBC 12/30/01): Safire will you wager Ms. Wright, right now that Saddam will be out of power by the end of 2002.
WILLIAM SAFIRE: Absolutely. I'll see you here a year from now.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: (FOX NEWS 9/22/01) If you go after Iraq you're gonna lose a lot of allies, but who cares.
BILL MOYERS: Charles Krauthammer and other top columnists at THE WASHINGTON POST also saw the hand of Saddam Hussein in the terrorist attacks…
Jim Hoagland implicated Hussein within hours after the suicide bombers struck on 9/11….
…and the POST's George Will fired away on the talk shows.
GEORGE WILL (ABC 10/28/01): The administration knows he's vowed-Hussein has vowed revenge, he has anthrax, he loves biological weapons, he has terrorist training camps, including 747's to practice on…
BILL MOYERS: It was proving difficult to distinguish the opinion of the pundits from the policies of the administration...but as the hullabaloo over Saddam grew in Washington, Bob Simon of CBS News '60 Minutes' was dumbfounded. He is based in the Middle East.
BOB SIMON: From overseas we had a clearer view. I mean we knew things or suspected things that-- perhaps the Washington press corps could not suspect. For example, the absurdity of putting up a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
BILL MOYERS: Absurdity. The Washington press corps cannot question an absurdity?
BOB SIMON: Well maybe the Washington press corps based inside the belt-- wasn't as aware as those of us who are based in the Middle East and who spend a lot of time in Iraq. I mean when the Washington press corps travels, it travels with the president or with the secretary of state. And--
BILL MOYERS: In a bubble.
BOB SIMON: Yeah in a bubble. Where as we who've spent weeks just walking the streets of Baghdad and in other situations in Baghdad-- just were scratching our heads. In ways that perhaps that the Washington press corps could not.
BILL MOYERS: Simon was under no illusions about Saddam Hussein. During the first Gulf War he and his camera crew were arrested by Iraqi forces, and brutalized for 40 days before being released.
BOB SIMON: We're going home, which is the, the place you go to after a war when, if you've been as lucky as we've been.
BILL MOYERS: It didn't make sense to Simon that the dictator would trust islamic terrorists.
BOB SIMON: Saddam as most tyrants, was a total control freak. He wanted total control of his regime. Total control of the country. And to introduce a wild card like Al Qaeda in any sense was just something he would not do. So I just didn't believe it for an instant.
JOHN WALCOTT: And some of the things that were said, many of the things that were said about Iraq didn't make sense. And that really prompts you to ask, "Wait a minute. Is this true? Does everyone agree that this is true? Does anyone think this is not true?"
JOHN WALCOTT: This is what we're going to do, this is plan A now…
BILL MOYERS: John Walcott Wasn't buying the official line, either. The Bureau Chief of Knight Ridder News Service, he and his reporters covered Washington for 32 newspapers spread across the country.
JOHN WALCOTT: Our readers aren't here in Washington. They aren't up in New York. They aren't the people who send other people's kids to war. They're the people who get sent to war.
And we felt an obligation to them, to explain why that might happen. We were determined to scrutinize the administration's case for war as closely as we possibly could. And that's what we set out to do.
BILL MOYERS: So as he listened to pundits and officials talking about Saddam Hussein's supposed connections to 9/11 Walcott was skeptical.
JOHN WALCOTT: It was not clear to us why anyone was asking questions about Iraq in the wake of an attack that had Al Qaeda written all over it.
BILL MOYERS: He assigned his two top reporters to investigate the claims. Between them, Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay, had more than 40 years experience reporting on foreign affairs and national security. They had lots of sources to call on.
WARREN STROBEL: We were basically I think hearing two different messages from-- there's a message-- the public message the administration was giving out about Iraq — it's WMD-- the fact there was an immediate threat-- grave threat-- gathering threat and — but the was so different from what we were hearing from people on the inside, people we had known in many cases for years and trusted.
BILL MOYERS: They went about their reporting the old-fashioned way — with shoe leather… tracking down and meeting with sources deep inside the intelligence community.
WARREN STROBEL: When you're talking to the working grunts, you know-- uniform military officers, intelligence professionals-- professional diplomats, those people are more likely than not-- not always, of course, but more likely than not to tell you some version of the truth, and to be knowledgeable about what they're talking about when it comes to terrorism or the Middle East, things like that.
BILL MOYERS: Strobel learned that within two weeks after 9/11, senior intelligence officers were growing concerned that the bush administration was stretching 'little bits and pieces of information….' to Connect Saddam Hussein to Al qaeda — with no hard evidence.
WARREN STROBEL: There was a lot of skepticism among our editors because what we were writing was so at odds with what most of the rest of the Washington press corps was reporting and some of our papers frankly, just didn't run the stories. They had access to the NEW YORK TIMES wire and the WASHINGTON POST wire and they chose those stories instead.
BILL MOYERS: Within the month Strobel found out the Pentagon had already dispatched James Woolsey to Europe looking for any shred of evidence to incriminate hussein....
WARREN STROBEL: He did this even knowing that the CIA had already analyzed this carefully and found no such links. So, the more I thought about that, the more it just didn't seem to make sense.
BILL MOYERS: Knight Ridder's early skepticism was a rarity inside the beltway bubble…..
JOHN WALCOTT: A decision to go to war, even against an eighth-rate power such as Iraq, is the most serious decision that a government can ever make. And it deserves the most serious kind of scrutiny that we in the media can give it. Is this really necessary? Is it necessary to send our young men and women to go kill somebody else's young men and women?
BILL MOYERS: That meant asking questions about the sources of information the press and government were relying on, including, notably, this man, Ahmed Chalabi.
After the first gulf war americans had installed Cchalabi as the leader of Iraqi exiles seeking regime change in Baghdad. Now he was all over Washington, as the administration's and the neo-conservatives' star witness against Saddam.
AHMED CHALABI: Hello… Yes, very well.
JOHN WALCOTT: Chalabi's motives were always perfectly clear in this and understandable. He was an Iraqi. He didn't want his country run by a thug and a murderer, a mass murderer-- and a crook. And everything he said had to be looked at in that light, and scrutinized in that light.
And why anyone would give him a free pass, or anyone else a free pass for that matter, on a matter as important as going to war, is beyond me.
JAMES BAMFORD: Chalabi was a creature of American propaganda to a large degree. It was a American company, the Rendon Group, that — working secretly with the CIA — basically created his organization, the Iraqi National Congress. And put Chalabi in charge basically.
BILL MOYERS: James Bamford is an independent journalist whose specialty is the intelligence world.
JAMES BAMFORD: From the very beginning Chalabi was paid a lot of money from the US taxpayers. The CIA paid him originally about 350,000 dollars a month, to Chalabi and his organization. The CIA finally caught on in the mid-90s that-- Chalabi was a conman basically. And, they dropped him.
BILL MOYERS: Chalabi's handlers in Washington were not deterred by that stain on his credibility. He charmed Congress out of millions more dollars for his cause, and had the press eating out of his hand.
JAMES BAMFORD: He made a lot of friends in the media. And, he convinced a lot of people that he was legitimate even though the CIA had dropped him.
BILL MOYERS: When Chalabi made selected iraqi defectors available to the press it was a win-win game: the defectors got a platform. Journalists got big scoops.
MICHAEL MASSING: There was a big effort, in fact, to find people who seemed to have credible evidence about what was going on inside Iraq. Because, in fact, if you could find somebody who was credible — talking about a nuclear program — in Iraq or chemical weapons, that would be a big story.
BILL MOYERS: And it worked. THE NEW YORKER. USA TODAY. THE WASHINGTON POST. THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS. THE NEW YORK TIMES. And on PBS just two months after 9/11, Frontline and the New York Times teamed up for a documentary on the defectors.
FRONTLINE NARRATOR (FRONTLINE, PBS, 11/8/01): Captain Sabah Khodada is a former army officer who defected from Iraq. He made a crude drawing of what he says is a terrorist training camp on the outskirts of Baghdad.
BILL MOYERS: There were caveats...
FRONTLINE NARRATOR: And a further caution: these defectors have been brought to FRONTLINE's attention by one group of Iraqi dissidents, the INC, The Iraqi National Congress.
BILL MOYERS: But the caveats couldn't compete with the spectacular tales told by defectors.
Before the invasion THE NEW YORK TIME's Judith Miller would write 6 prominent stories based on their testimony.
JUDITH MILLER: Ahmed Chalabi is a controversial leader of the Iraqi opposition…
BILL MOYERS: And still on the web, a report about the defectors, narrated By Judith Miller and produced By NEW YORK TIMES Television for THE NEWSHOUR on PBS…
JAMES BAMFORD: Well, Judy Miller had been an old friend of Chalabi. Did a lot of the stories on Chalabi. Was very favorable to Chalabi.
BILL MOYERS: James Bamford found out that in 2001 Chalabi had arranged for Miller to meet in Thailand with a defector from Iraq named Al-Haideri.
JAMES BAMFORD: So, Al-Haideri was in Bangkok. Judy Miller flew there to interview him.
JAMES BAMFORD: The NEW YORK TIMES ran a front page-- story-- basically confirming everything the administration had been saying about Iraq -
BILL MOYERS: Al-Haideri said he was a Kurd from northern Iraq. He told Miller the Iraqis had hidden chemical and biological weapons….Some.... miller reported...... Right under Saddam's "presidential sites."
BILL MOYERS: The story spread far and wide.
MICHAEL MASSING: THE NEW YORK TIMES is just-- remains immensely influential. People in the TV world read it every morning, and it's amazing how often you'll see a story go from the front page of the day's paper in the morning to the evening news cast at night. People in government-- of course read it, think tanks, and so on.
JONATHAN LANDAY: There were some red flags that the NEW YORK TIMES story threw out immediately, which caught our eye-- immediately. The first was the idea that a Kurd-- the enemy of Saddam had been allowed into his most top secret military facilities. I don't think so. That was, for me, the biggest red flag. And there were others, like the idea that Saddam Hussein would put a biological weapons facility under his residence. I mean, would you put a biological weapons lab under your living room? I don't think so.
WARREN STROBEL: The first rule of being an intelligence agent, or a journalist, and they're really not that different, is you're skeptical of defectors, because they have a reason to exaggerate. They want to increase their value to you. They probably want something from you. Doesn't mean they're lying, but you should be -- journalists are supposed to be skeptical, right? And I'm-afraid the NEW YORK TIMES reporter in that case and a lot of other reporters were just not skeptical of what these defectors were saying. Nor was the administration…
FOX NEWS ANCHOR (8/1/02): A former top Iraqi nuclear scientists tells congress Iraq could build three nuclear bombs by 2005.
CNN NEWS ANCHOR (12/21/01): Well, now another defector. A senior Iraqi intelligence official tells Vanity Fair in an exclusive interview that Saddam Hussein has trained an elite fighting force in sabotage, urban warfare, hijacking and murder. David Rose wrote the story, he joins us now from London.
BILL MOYERS: In VANITY FAIR's David Rose, defectors found another eager beaver for their claims. The glossy magazine, a favorite of media elites, gave him four big spreads to tell defector stories.
BILL MOYERS: The talk shows lapped it up.
DAVID ROSE: (MSNBC 12/21/01) What the defector Al-Qurairy, a former brigadier general in the Iraqi intelligence service, told me is that these guys, there are twelve hundred in all and they've been trained to hijack trains, buses, ships and so forth…
JONATHAN LANDAY: As you track their stories, they become ever more fantastic, and they're the same people who are telling these stories, 'til you get to the most fantastic tales of all, which appeared in Vanity Fair Magazine.
DAVID ROSE: The last training exercise was to blow up a full size mock up of a US destroyer in a lake in central Iraq.
JONATHAN LANDAY: Or jumping into pits of fouled water and having to kill a dog with your bare teeth. I mean, the-- and this was coming from people, who are appearing in all of these-- these stories, and as I-- and-- and-- and sometimes their rank would change.
LESLIE STAHL: (60 MINUTES, CBS 3/3/02)…Musawi told us that he has verified that this man was an officer in Iraq's ruthless intelligence service the Mukhabarat
JONATHAN LANDAY: And, you're saying, "Wait a minute. There's something wrong here, because in this story he was a Major, but in this story the guy's a Colonel. And, in this story this was his function, but now he says in this story he was doing something else.
LESLIE STAHL: The defector is telling Musawi that in order to evade the UN inspectors Saddam Hussein put his biological weapons laboratories in trucks that the defector told us he personally bought from Renault.
>LESLIE STAHL: Refrigerator trucks?
DEFECTOR: Yeah, yeah.
LESLIE STAHL: And how many?
DEFECTOR: Seven.
BILL MOYERS: Leslie Stahl and CBS Retracted their story a year after the invasion when nearly all the evidence presented by defectors proved to be false.
VANITY FAIR's Rose later said high government officials had confirmed his stories. But these were the very officials who had bet on Chalabi as their favorite man o'war. To the Knight Ridder team it all smelled of a con game.
JOHN WALCOTT: What he did was reasonably clever but fairly obvious, which is he gave the same stuff to some reporters that, for one reason or another, he felt would simply report it. And then he gave the same stuff to people in the Vice President's office and in the Secretary of Defense's office. And so, if the reporter called the Department of Defense or the Vice President's office to check, they would've said, "Oh, I think that's-- you can go with that. We have that, too." So, you create the appearance, or Chalabi created the appearance, that there were two sources, and that the information had been independently confirmed, when, in fact, there was only one source. And it hadn't been confirmed by anybody.
JONATHAN LANDAY: And let's not forget how close these people were to this administration, which raises the question, was there coordination? I can't tell you that there was, but it sure looked like it.
BILL MOYERS: The administration was now stepping up efforts to nail down a tangible link between Saddam and 9/11. Journalists were tipped to a meeting that supposedly took place in Prague between Iraqi agents and the 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta. Pundits had a field day.
GEORGE WILL: (THIS WEEK, ABC 10/28/01) He has contacts outside in Sudan and Afghanistan with terrorists. He met… They did indeed have a contact between Atta and an Iraqi diplomat.
BILL MOYERS: In THE NEW YORK TIMES William Safire called the Prague meeting an 'undisputed fact'. He would write about the Atta connection ten times in his op-ed column.
BILL MOYERS: Just weeks after 9/11, Safire had predicted a 'quick war' ….With Iraqis cheering their liberators and leading 'the Arab world toward democracy."
BILL MOYERS: Between March 2002 and the invasion a year later Safire would write a total of 27 opinion pieces fanning the sparks of war.
BILL MOYERS: And on Tim Russert's MEET THE PRESS Safire kept it up.
TIM RUSSERT (MEET THE PRESS, NBC7/28/02): Bill Safire, the difference between sufficient provocation and a preemptive strike?
WILLIAM SAFIRE: I don't think we need any more provocation then we've had by ten years of breaking his agreement at the cease fire. He has been building weapons of mass destruction.
BILL MOYERS: In October his own paper ran a front page story by James Risen questioning the evidence.
BILL MOYERS: Then came this report from Bob Simon:
BOB SIMON (60 MINUTES 12/8/02): The administration has been trying to make the link to implicate Saddam Hussein in the attacks of September 11th and they've been pointing to an alleged meeting between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, and an Iraqi intelligence officer in the Czech capital of Prague.
BOB SIMON: If we had combed Prague and found out that there was absolutely no evidence for a meeting between Mohammad Atta and the-- the Iraqi intelligence figure. If we knew that, you had to figure that the administration knew it. And yet they were selling the connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam.
BOB SIMON: (60 MINUTES) Bob Baer spent 16 years as an undercover agent for the CIA in the Middle East.
BILL MOYERS: How did you get to Bob Baer, the former CIA official who was such an important source for you?
BOB SIMON: We we called him.
BILL MOYERS: How did you find him? Did you know him?
BOB SIMON: I knew some friends of his. It was-- it wasn't a problem getting his phone number. I mean any reporter could get his phone number.
BILL MOYERS: Who was he? And what-- why was he important?
BOB SIMON: He was one of the guys who was sent to Prague to find that link. He was sent to find the link between Al Qaeda and Saddam
BILL MOYERS: He would have been a hero if he'd found the link.
BOB SIMON: Oh my heavens yes. I mean this was what-- everyone was looking for.
BILL MOYERS: But there was little appetite inside the networks for taking on a popular war time president. So Simon decided to wrap his story inside a more benign account of how the White House was marketing the war.
BOB SIMON (60 MINUTES 12/8/02): It's not the first time a president has mounted a sales campaign to sell a war.
BOB SIMON: And I think we all felt from the beginning that to deal with a subject as explosive as this, we should keep it in a way almost light., if that doesn't seem ridiculous.
BILL MOYERS: Going to war, almost light.
BOB SIMON: Not to-- not to present it as a frontal attack on the administration's claims. Which would have been not only premature, but we didn't have the ammunition to do it at the time. We did not know then that there were no mass-- weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
We only knew that the connection the administration was making between Saddam and Al Qaeda was very tenuous at best and that the argument it was making over the aluminum tubes seemed highly dubious. We knew these things. And therefore we could present the Madison Avenue campaign on these things. Which was a-- sort of softer, less confrontational way of doing it
BILL MOYERS: Did you go to any of the brass at CBS-- even at 60 MINUTES-- and say, "Look, we gotta dig deeper. We gotta connect the dots. This isn't right."
BOB SIMON: No in all-- in all honesty, with a thousand Mea Culpas-- I've done a few stories in Iraq. But-- nope I don't think we followed up on this.
ARI FLEISHER (9/18/02): Iraq is in possession of weapons of mass destruction contrary to their promises…
BILL MOYERS: What the White House was now marketing as fact would go virtually unchallenged.
DONALD RUMSFELD (Department of Defense Press Briefing, 9/26/02): We know they have weapons of mass destruction, we know they have active programs.
BILL MOYERS: As the WASHINGTON POST'S veteran reporter Walter Pincus would later report, the propaganda machine was run by the president's inner circle — officials who called themselves the White House Iraq Group, or WHIG.....
BILL MOYERS: You wrote that WHIG included Karl Rove, the chief of staff, Andrew Card, Mary Matalin, Condi Rice, Steven Hadley, Lewis Libby and they were in charge of selling the war.
WALTER PINCUS: Selling the war. Yeah.
PRESIDENT BUSH (9/11/02): Good evening. A long year has passed since enemies attacked our country.
BILL MOYERS: Their chief salesman had the best props at his disposal
PRESIDENT BUSH (9/11/02): …and we will not allow any terrorist or tyrant to threaten civilization with weapons of mass murder.
WALTER PINCUS: They created that link.
BILL MOYERS: The marketing group?
WALTER PINCUS: The marketing group. And the link was a twofold link. One, he had weapons of mass destruction. And two, he supported terrorists. And they repeated it everyday. anybody who watches-- television these days knows you sell a product, not just by saying it once, by saying it over and over again with new spokesmen two, three times a day and it sinks into the public.
BILL MOYERS: But is there anything unusual about an administration marketing its policy?
WALTER PINCUS: It's, I think each administration has learned from the other, and with this group is just the cleverest I've ever seen-- and took it to new heights.
NORM SOLOMON: The TV, radio, print, other media outlets are as crucial to going to war as the bombs and the bullets and the planes. They're part of the arsenal, the propaganda weaponry, if you will. And that's totally understood across the board, at the Pentagon, the White House, the State Department.
COLIN POWELL (9/26/02): A proven menace like Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction
PRESIDENT BUSH (Discussion with Congressional Leaders, 9/26/02): The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons
DONALD RUMSFELD (DOD Press Briefing 9/26/02): We do have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members.
PRESIDENT BUSH: The regime has long standing and continuing ties to terrorist organizations.
BOB SIMON: Just repeat it and repeat it and repeat it. Repeat Al Qaeda, Iraq. Al Qaeda, Iraq. Al Qaeda, Iraq. Just keep it going. Keep that drum beat going.
And it was effective because long after it was well established that there was no link between Al Qaeda and the government of Iraq and the Saddam regime, the polls showed that an overwhelming majority of Americans believed that Al Qaeda-- that Iraq was responsible for September 11th.
JONATHAN LANDAY: Most people actually believed and accepted that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. I have to admit that until we really started burrowing into the story-- that I believed it, too.
JONATHAN LANDAY: Is this something that they could go along with…
BILL MOYERS: Landay found plenty of evidence to contradict the official propaganda, and the facts quickly changed his mind.
JONATHAN LANDAY: I -- simply spent basically a month familiarizing myself, with what Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs had been and what had happened to them. And, there was tons of material available on that from the UN weapons inspectors. I mean, they got into virtually everything, and their reports were online.
JONATHAN LANDAY: If you go down here the Iraq Nuclear Verification Office, they put up regular-here you go-key findings, what they found out about Iraq's nuclear weapons programs. It's all here in the open for anybody who wants to read it.
BILL MOYERS: International inspectors had gone into Iraq after the first Gulf War to search for and to destroy Saddam Hussein's weapons systems….Late in 1998, the inspections came to an abrupt halt after the iraqi government refused to cooperate…but that hardly meant no one was watching.
JONATHAN LANDAY: During the period of time between when the inspectors left Iraq, which was in 1998-- the end of 1998 and then, the United States had covered the place with spy satellites and-- U2 over flights, and-- you know, the-- other intelligence services had their eyeballs on this place.
DICK CHENEY: (Speech to the VFW 8/26/02) There is a great danger that…
BILL MOYERS: That's why Landay was surprised by what Vice President Cheney told a group of veterans in late august 2002.
DICK CHENEY: (Speech to the VFW 8/26/02) Many of us are convinced that Saddam Hussein will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon.
JONATHAN LANDAY: …And I looked at that and I said, "What is he talking about?" Because, to develop a nuclear weapon you need specific infrastructure and in particular the way the Iraqi's were trying to produce a nuclear weapon was through enrichment of uranium.
Now, you need tens of thousands of machines called "centrifuges" to produce highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon. You've gotta house those in a fairly big place, and you've gotta provide a huge amount of power to this facility. Could he really have done it with all of these eyes on his country?
DICK CHENEY: (Speech to the VFW 8/26/02) But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.
JONATHAN LANDAY: So, when Cheney said that, I got on the phone to people, and one person said to me-- somebody who watched proliferation as their job-said, "The Vice President is lying."
BILL MOYERS: On the basis of his intelligence sources Landay wrote there was little evidence to back up the Vice President's claims.
BILL MOYERS: But the story Landay wrote didn't run In New York or Washington - Knight Ridder, remember, has no outlet in either city. So it couldn't compete with a blockbuster that appeared two days later on the front page of the nation's paper of record, with a familiar by-line….
BILL MOYERS: Quoting anonymous administration officials, the TIMES reported that Saddam Hussein had launched a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb using specially designed aluminimum tubes...
And there on MEET THE PRESS that same morning was Vice President Cheney.
DICK CHENEY (MEET THE PRESS NBC 9/8/02): There's a story in the NEW YORK TIMES this morning, this is-- and I want to attribute this to the TIMES -- I don't want to talk about obviously specific intelligence sources, but--
JONATHAN LANDAY: Now, ordinarily information-- like the aluminum tubes would-- wouldn't appear-it was top secret intelligence, and the Vice President and the National Security Advisor would not be allowed to talk about this on the Sunday talk shows. But, it appeared that morning in the NEW YORK TIMES and, therefore, they were able to talk about it.
DICK CHENEY (MEET THE PRESS NBC 9/8/02): It's now public that in fact he has been seeking to acquire and we have been able to intercept to prevent him from acquiring through this particular channel the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge and the centrifuge is required to take low grade uranium and enhance it into highly enriched uranium which is what you have to have in order to build a bomb."
BILL MOYERS: Did you see that performance?
BOB SIMON: I did.
BILL MOYERS: What did you think?
BOB SIMON: I thought it was remarkable.
BILL MOYERS: Why?
BOB SIMON: Remarkable. You leak a story, and then you quote the story. I mean, that's a remarkable thing to do.
BILL MOYERS: And that's only part of it. Using the identical language of the anonymous sources quoted in the TIMES, top officials were now invoking the ultimate spectre of nuclear war -- the smoking gun as mushroom cloud.
CONDOLEEZA RICE (CNN 9/8/02): There will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire a nuclear weapon. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
ERIC BOEHLERT: Those sorts of stories when they-- appear on the front page of the so called liberal NEW YORK TIMES. It absolutely comes with a stamp of approval. I mean if the NEW YORK TIMES thinks Saddam is on the precipice of-- some mushroom clouds. Then, there's really no debate.
BOB SCHEIFFER: (FACE THE NATION, CBS 9/8/02) We read in the NEW YORK TIMES today a story that says that Saddam Hussein is closer to acquiring nuclear weapons… Does he have nuclear weapons, is there a smoking gun here?
DONALD RUMSFELD: The smoking gun is an interesting phrase.
COLIN POWELL: Then as we saw in reporting just this morning…
TIM RUSSERT: What specifically has he obtained that you believe will enhance his nuclear development program.
BILL MOYERS: Was it just a coincidence in your mind that Cheney came on your show and others went on the other Sunday shows, the very morning that that story appeared?
TIM RUSSERT: I don't know. The NEW YORK TIMES is a better judge of that than I am.
BILL MOYERS: No one tipped you that it was going to happen?
TIM RUSSERT: No, no. I mean-
BILL MOYERS: The-- the Cheney-- office didn't make any-- didn't leak to you that there's gonna be a big story?
TIM RUSSERT: No. No. I mean, I don't-- I don't have the-- this is, you know, on MEET THE PRESS, people come on and there are no ground rules. We can ask any question we want. I did not know about the aluminum-tube story until I read it in the NEW YORK TIMES.
BILL MOYERS: Critics point to September eight, 2002 and to your show in particular, as the classic case of how the press and the government became inseparable.
Someone in the administration plants a dramatic story in the NEW YORK TIMES And then the Vice President comes on your show and points to the NEW YORK TIMES. It's a circular, self-confirming leak.
TIM RUSSERT: I don't know how Judith Miller and Michael Gordon reported that story, who their sources were. It was a front-page story of the NEW YORK TIMES. When Secretary Rice and Vice President Cheney and others came up that Sunday morning on all the Sunday shows, they did exactly that.
TIM RUSSERT: What my concern was, is that there were concerns expressed by other government officials. And to this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them.
BILL MOYERS: Bob Simon didn't wait for the phone to ring.
BILL MOYERS: When you said a moment ago when we started talking to people who knew about aluminum tubes. What people-who were you talking to?
BOB SIMON: We were talking to people - to scientists - to scientists and to researchers and to people who had been investigating Iraq from the start.
BILL MOYERS: Would these people have been available to any reporter who called or were they exclusive sources for 60 minutes?
BOB SIMON: No, I think that many of them would have been available to any reporter who called.
BILL MOYERS: And you just picked up the phone?
BOB SIMON: Just picked up the phone.
BILL MOYERS: Talked to them?
BOB SIMON: Talked to them and then went down with the cameras.
BILL MOYERS: Few journalists followed suit. And throughout the fall of 2002 high officials were repeating apocaplyptic warnings with virtually no demand from the establishment press for evidence.
PRESIDENT BUSH (Cincinnati Speech, 10/7/02): Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof-the smoking gun -that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
BILL MOYERS: Could members of the press have known at that point that the administration was exaggerating?
WALTER PINCUS: Individuals did it. There were specialists who were raising questions. And one of our reporters, Joby Warrick wrote a very tough piece about not just the disagreement, but-- but how doubtful it was that these tubes were for nuclear weapons. It was a one-day piece in our paper. And it wasn't picked up.
BILL MOYERS: But Warrick's story appeared on page 18, not page one.
HOWARD KURTZ: The front page of THE WASHINGTON POST or any newspaper is a billboard of what the editors are telling you, these are the most important stories of the day. And stories that don't run on the front page, the reader sort of gets that, well, these are of secondary importance.
BILL MOYERS: Howard Kurtz is the WASHINGTON POST media critic.
HOWARD KURTZ: I went back and did the math. From August 2002 until the war was launched in March of 2003 there were about 140 front page pieces in THE WASHINGTON POST making the administration's case for war.
It was, "The President said yesterday." "The Vice President said yesterday." The Pentagon said yesterday." Well, that's part of our job. Those people want to speak. We have to provide them a platform. I don't have anything wrong with that. But there was only a handful-- a handful of stories that ran on the front page. Some more that ran inside the pages of the paper that made the opposite case. Or, if not making the opposite case, raised questions.
Was this really true? What was the level of proof? Did the CIA really know? What were those aluminum tubes? Those stories, and some reporters worked hard on them, had a harder time getting on the front page. Why because they weren't definitive.
BILL MOYERS: But who defines definitive? Reporter Walter Pincus' sources deep inside the government questioned how the intelligence was being used. But his stories were mostly relegated to the back pages. Across the media world the bellicose but uncomfirmed claims made the big headlines. The cautionary stories did not.
WALTER PINCUS: And I believe honestly, people don't have a fear of irritating the White House-- certainly not at the WASHINGTON POST. But-- they do worry about sort of getting out ahead of something.
BILL MOYERS: Isn't that supposed to be scoop journalism?
WALTER PINCUS: Well but you could be wrong.
NORM SOLOMEN: It's a truism that individual journalists, and in fact the top rank media outlets they work for, really want to be ahead of the curve but not out on a limb. And, if you took seriously the warning flags that were profuse before the invasion of Iraq, that the administration's story was a bunch of nonsense about WMDs, you would not just be ahead of the curve a little, you would have been way out on a limb.
WALTER ISAACSON: I don't think there was enough skepticism because I think most of us kind of believed that Saddam Hussein was building-- biological, chemical, and perhaps even, nuclear weapons.
BILL MOYERS: Isn't it the role of the fourth estate, though, to be critical of group think?
WALTER ISAACSON: It definitely is and I think we in the press, we're not critical enough. We didn't question our sources enough.
DAN RATHER: We weren't smart enough, we were alert enough, we didn't dig enough. And we shouldn't have been fooled in this way.
BILL MOYERS: Even Oprah got in on the act, featuring in October 2002 NEW YORK TIMES reporter Judith Miller.
JUDITH MILLER: (OPRAH 10/9/02) The US intelligence community believes that Saddam Hussein has deadly stocks of anthrax, of botulinium toxin, which is one of the most virulent poisons known to man.
BILL MOYERS: Liberal hawk Kenneth Pollak.
KENNETH POLLAK: And what we know for a fact from a number of defectors who've come out of Iraq over the years is that Saddam Hussein is absolutely determined to acquire nuclear weapons and is building them as fast as he can.
BILL MOYERS: And the right hand man to Ahmed Chalabi.
OPRAH: And so do the Iraqi people want the American people to liberate them?
QUANBAR: Absolutely. In 1991 the Iraqi people were….
WOMAN: I hope it doesn't offend you…
BILL MOYERS: When one guest dared to express doubt Oprah would have none of it
WOMAN: I just don't know what to believe with the media and..
OPRAH: Oh, we're not trying to propaganda -show you propaganda. ..We're just showing you what is.
WOMAN: I understand that, I understand that.
OPRAH: OK, but Ok. You have a right to your opinion.
BILL MOYERS: Contrary opinions weren't very popular in Washington either, as ambitious democrats embraced the now conventional but unconfirmed wisdom.
JOHN KERRY (Senate Floor 10/09/02): In the wake of September 11, who among us can say with any certainty to anybody that the weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region.
HILLARY CLINTON (Senate Floor 10/10/02): It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.
BILL MOYERS: When Democrats did go against the grain, they were denounced by the partisan press and largely ignored by the mainstream press.
ROBERT BYRD (Senate Floor 10/10/02): And before we put this great nation on the track to war I want to see more evidence, hard evidence, not more presidential rhetoric…
SENATOR TED KENNEDY (9/27/02): I have heard no persuasive evidence that Saddam is on the threshold of acquiring the nuclear weapons he has sought for more than 20 years. And the administration has offered no persuasive evidence that Saddam would transfer chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction to Al Qaeda."
ERIC BOEHLERT: Ted Kennedy gave-- a passionate speech in 2002 raising all sorts of questions about the war. And what the aftermath would be.
SENATOR TED KENNEDY (9/27/02): War with Iraq before a genuine attempt at inspection and disarmament, without genuine international support, could swell the ranks of Al Qaeda with sympathizers and trigger an escalation in terrorist acts.
ERIC BEOHLERT: WASHINGTON POST gave that speech one sentence. 36 words. I calculated in 2002 THE WASHINGTON POST probably published 1,000 articles and columns about-- about Iraq. Probably one million words. In excess of one million words. And one of the most famous democrats in the country raised questions about the war…the WASHINGTON POST set aside 36 words.
BILL MOYERS: It had now become unfashionable to dissent from the official line — Unfashionable and risky.
BILL O'REILLY: (Fox 2/26/03) Anyone who hurts this country in a time like this. Well let's just say you will be spotlighted
NORM SOLOMON: If you're a journalist or a politician, and you're swimming upstream-- so to speak-- you're gonna encounter a lot of piranha, and they are voracious. There's a notion that this is the person that we go after this week.
ERIC BOEHLERT: Fox news and-- and talk radio and the Conservative bloggers. I mean, they were bangin' those drums very loud. And-- and, everyone in the press could hear it. -- not only was it just liberal bias, it was an anti-American bias, an unpatriotic bias and that these journalists were really not part of America.
DAN RATHER: And every journalist knew it. They had and they have a very effective slam machine. The way it works is you either report the news the way we want it reported or we're going to hang a sign around your neck.
BILL O'REILLY (2/27/03): I will call those who publicly criticize their country in a time of military crisis, which this is, bad Americans.
MICHAEL MASSING: There's a level of vitriol, and vindictiveness that is very scary to listen to. And, you think the millions of people listening to them. The media have become sort of like the-- the whipping boy, because they know that the press can provide information that runs counter to what the government is claiming, to what the Bush administration is claiming.
ANNOUNCER: (MSNBC 12/16/02) Now, Donahue.
BILL MOYERS: On his new MSNBC talk show Phil Donahue, discovered just what could happen when you stepped out of line.
PHIL DONAHUE (MSNBC, 1/13/03): Tonight: Anti-war protestors taking on the government, is there a place for them in this post 9/11 world or are they just downright unpatriotic.
PHIL DONOHUE: And I just felt-- you know, what would be wrong with having one show (LAUGHTER) a night, you know, say, "Hold it. Wait a minute. Can we afford this? Do we have enough troops? And what about General Shinseki? And where are all-- you know, what is Guantanamo? I mean, what's wrong with this?"
I thought people who didn't like my message would watch me. Because the-- no one else was doing it. That's why I-- I couldn't get over the unanimity of opinion on cable. The drum was beating. Everybody wanted to bomb somebody. And I'm thinking, "Wait a minute." So here I go-- I mean fool that I am. I rushed in.
PHIL DONOHUE: Scott Ritter is here and so is Ambassador…
BILL MOYERS: You had Scott Ritter, former weapons inspector. Who was saying that if we invade, it will be a historic blunder-
PHIL DONOHUE: You didn't have him alone. He had to be there with someone else who supported the war. In other words, you couldn't have Scott Ritter alone. You could have Richard Perle alone.
BILL MOYERS: You could have the conservatives-
PHIL DONOHUE: You could have the supporters of the President alone. And they would say why this war is important. You couldn't have a dissenter alone. Our producers were instructed to feature two conservatives for every liberal.
BILL MOYERS: You're kidding.
PHIL DONOHUE: No this is absolutely true-
BILL MOYERS: Instructed from above?
PHIL DONOHUE: Yes. I was counted as two liberals. And so-
BILL MOYERS: They're under selling you.
PHIL DONOHUE: --I had to-- I had to have two-- there's just a terrible fear. And I think that's the right word.
BILL MOYERS: Eric Sorenson, who was the president of MSNBC, told the NEW YORK TIMES quote: "Any misstep and you can get into trouble with these guys and have the patriotism police hunt you down."
PHIL DONOHUE: He's the management guy. So his phone would ring. Nobody's going to call Donahue and tell him to shut up and support the war. Nobody's that foolish. It's a lot more subtle than that.
MICHAEL MASSING: I think that what happened in the months leading up to the war is that there was a sort of acceptable mainstream opinion that got set. And I think that people who were seen as outside that mainstream were viewed as sort of 'fringe.' And they were marginalized.
MICHAEL MASSING: You saw that in the demonstrators.
DEMONSTRATORS: (chanting) One, two, three, four, we don't want no Iraq war
MICHAEL MASSING: How people demonstrating did not get much play.
DEMONSTRATORS: (chanting) Five, six, seven, eight, stop the bombing, stop the hate.
DEMONSTRATORS: (drum beat) We don't want no Iraq war; throw Dick Cheney through the door.
ERIC BOEHLERT: So in October of 2002, 100,000 people in Washington, the-- one of the largest, you know, peace demonstrations in-- in-- in years in the United States. And the press just-- you know, the WASHINGTON POST put a photo on its Metro page.
BILL MOYERS: The photographs ran with an article but the paper's ombudsman later criticized the post for not giving the story more prominence.
BILL MOYERS: Meanwhile, in the six months leading up to the invasion THE WASHINGTON POST Would editorialze in favor of the war at least 27 times.
BILL MOYERS: What got even less ink than the protestors, was the release of something called the national intelligence estimate. Before voting to give the President war powers, Congress asked the administration to detail all the top secret evidence it was using to justify an invasion.
The press got a declassified version. Most of the media gave it a cursory reading, but jonathan landay examined the text closely…
JONATHAN LANDAY: I got my copy, and I opened it up…
JONATHAN LANDAY: This is the white paper that…
JONATHAN LANDAY: And I came to the part that talked about the aluminum tubes. Now, it said that the majority of analysts believed that those tubes were for the nuclear weapons program. It turns out, though, that that majority of intelligence analysts were-- had no background in nuclear weapons.
BILL MOYERS: Knight Ridder was on top of the most important story of the runup to the invasion....The manipulation of intelligence to make the case for war.
JONATHAN LANDAY: So, here was yet another building block in this chain of building blocks that we had collected over these months about what they were saying to the public, and what the intelligence was actually telling them. And, there were differences. Some of them were-- were nuanced. Some of them were quite large. But, it became quite apparent that they were grabbing just about anything they could to make the case for going to war in Iraq.
BILL MOYERS: Over a dozen sources told Knight Ridder that the pentagon was pressuring analysts to "cook the intelligence books" -- deep throats were talking…. But few in the press were listening.
JONATHAN LANDAY: There are people within the U.S. government who object when they perceive that their government isn't being straight with the people. And when they perceive that an administration is veering away from the principles on which this country was built, they become more ready to talk about things that perhaps they ordinarily shouldn't.
HOUSE SPEAKER (Congressional Vote 10/10/02): Aye's are 296. The nays are 133. The Joint Resolution is passed.
BILL MOYERS: Ignoring the reports of flawed intelligence, Congress gave the president the go-ahead for use of force. Knight Ridder's team just kept on digging. By the end of the month, their reporting had come full circle. Sources confirmed that the Pentagon was preparing for war based on information from ahmed chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress, despite objections from experts inside the CIA…
WALTER PINCUS: The administration can withstand the Knight Ridder critique because it-- it wasn't reverberating inside Washington. And therefore people weren't picking it up.
JOHN WALCOTT: We were under the radar most of the time at Knight Ridder. We were not a company-- that-- I think Karl Rove and others cared deeply about, even though in terms of readers, we're much bigger than the NEW YORK TIMES and THE WASHINGTON POST. We're less influential. There's no way around that.
WARREN STROBEL: But there was a period when we were sittin' out there and I had a lotta late night gut checks where I was just like, "Are we totally off on some loop here? That we--"
JONATHAN LANDAY: Yeah. We-- we would--
WARREN STROBEL: "--are we-- we wrong? Are we gonna be embarrassed?"
JONATHAN LANDAY: --everyday we would lo-- everyday we'd look at each other and say-- lit-- literally-- One of us would find something out and I'd look at him and say -- What's going on here?
ERIC BOEHLERT: But I think it's telling that they didn't really operate by that beltway game the way the networks, the cable channels, NEWSWEEK, TIME, NEW YORK TIMES, WASHINGTON POST. They seem to sort of operate outside that bubble. And look at what the benefits were when they operated outside that bubble. They actually got the story right.
What's important is it's proof positive that that story was there. And it could have been gotten. And some people did get it. But the vast majority chose to ignore it or-- or not even try.
WARREN STROBEL: How many times did I get invited on the talk-- how many times did you get invited on a talk show?
JONATHAN LANDAY: I think maybe on-
WARREN STROBEL: Yeah, not the big talk shows.
JONATHAN LANDAY: Actually-
WARREN STROBEL: Not the big Sunday shows-
JONATHAN LANDAY: You know what? I'll tell you who invited me on-- on a talk-- on a talk shows- C-Span.
HOWARD KURTZ: Television, especially cable television has a sort of Cross-Fire mentality. You put on the pro-Bush cast and the anti-Bush cast and they go at it. You put on the let's go into Iraq and let's not go into Iraq and they go at it.
Well, that's what they do. They're pundits. But that's not a debate that's particularly well-suited to shedding light on whether or not the Bush administration's case for war-- rested on some kind of factual basis. That's not what pundits do.
PETER BEINART: (CNN 4/29/02) I mean, I really think the reason the United States has a bad reputation in the Arab world is that we have been on the side of dictatorships. We've been on the side of very corrupt, very backward governments.
BILL MOYERS: Peter Beinart became editor of THE NEW REPUBLIC at age 28. During the run-up to the invasion he was one of the hottest young pundits in town, a liberal hawk, accusing opponents of the war of being "intellectually incoherent and echoing the official line that Hussein would soon possess a nuclear weapon.
PETER BEINART: (CNN 4/29/02) We need a little bit of logistical support, but we don't need the moral support of anyone, because we're on the side of the angels in this.
BILL MOYERS: Had you been to Iraq?
PETER BEINART: No.
BILL MOYERS: So what made you present yourself, if you did, as-- as-- as a Middle East expert?
PETER BEINART: I don't think that I presented myself as a Middle East expert per se. I was a political journalist. I was a-- a columnist writing about all kinds of things. Someone in my-- in my position is not a Middle East expert in the way that somebody who studies this at a university is, or even at a think tank. But I consumed that stuff.
I was relying on people who did that kind of reporting and people who had been in the government who had-- who had access to classified material for their assessment.
BILL MOYERS: And you would talk to them and they would, in effect, brief you, the background on what they knew?
PETER BEINART: Sometimes, but--
BILL MOYERS: I'm trying to help the audience understand. How does-- you described yourself as a political-- a reporter of political opinion, or a journalist--
PETER BEINART: Yeah.
BILL MOYERS: --political opinion. How do you-- how do you get the information that enables you to reach the conclusion that you draw as a political journalist?
PETER BEINART: Well, I was doing mostly, for a large part it was reading, reading the statements and the things that people said. I was not a beat reporter. I was editing a magazine and writing a column. So I was not doing a lot of primary reporting. But what I was doing was a lot of reading of other people's reporting and reading of what officials were saying.
BILL MOYERS: If we journalists get it wrong on the facts what is there to be right about?
PETER BEINART: Well I think that's a good point, but the argument in the fall of 2002 was not mostly about the facts it was about a whole series of ideas about what would happen if we invaded.
BILL MOYERS: What I'm trying to get at is how does the public sort all of this out from out there beyond the beltway. Far more people saw you, see Bill Kristol on television, than will ever read the Associated Press reports or the Knight RIdder reporters. Isn't there an imbalance then on what the public is going to perceive about a critical issue of life and death like, like war.
PETER BEINART: I think it's important for people, look, would it be better if television were not the primary medium through which people got their news? Yes. That's why I'm not, I do television, but I'm primarily in the business of writing and editing because I believe ultimately that words can convey more, richer information than television. Wouldn't we be a better society if people got most of their news from print rather than television, yes I think we would.
WALTER ISAACSON: One of the great pressures we're facing in journalism now is it's a lot cheaper to hire thumb suckers and pundits and have talk shows on the air than actually have bureaus and reporters. And in the age of the internet when everybody's a pundit, we're still gonna need somebody there to go talk to the colonels, to be on the ground in Baghdad and stuff and that's very expensive.
DAN RATHER: Reporting is hard. The substitute for reporting far too often has become let's just ring up an expert. Let's see. These are experts on-- international armaments. And I'll just go down the list here and check Richard Perle.
RICHARD PERLE (HARDBALL MSNBC 2/25/03): Once it begins to look as though he is relinquishing his grip on power I think he's toast.
WILLIAM KRISTOL: (INSIDE POLITICS, CNN 2/14/03) The choice is disarming him by war or letting him have his weapons of mass destruction.
DAN RATHER: This is journalism on the cheap if it's journalism at all. Just pick up the phone, call an expert, bring an expert into the studio. Easy. Not time consuming. Doesn't take resources. And-- if you-- if you're lucky and good with your list of people, you get an articulate person who will kind of spark up the broadcast.
WALTER ISAACSON: The people at Knight Ridder were calling the colonels and the lieutenants and the people in the CIA and finding out, ya know, that intelligence is not very good. We should've all been doing that.
BILL MOYERS: How do you explain that the further you get away from official Washington, the closer you get to reality…
WALTER ISAACSON: That's one of the hazards in this business is when you rely on top level sources too much, you can lose out on getting the real information.
REPORTER: (CNN "Line in the Sand: Tough Talk on Iraq" 1/19/03): The president's top national security advisors fanned out on the talk shows with a coordinated message.
DONALD RUMSFELD: (1/19/03)The test here is not whether they can find something. The test is whether or not Iraq is going to cooperate.
CONDOLEEZA RICE: (1/19/03) This is about the disarmament of Iraq, not about weapons inspectors hunting and pecking all over the country.
COLIN POWELL: (1/19/03) Time is running out and we just can't keep hunting and pecking and looking and…
JOHN WALCOTT: The people at the top generally are political rather than professional. And their first loyalty is to a political party or to a person, not to a bureaucracy, not to a job. And so, what you get from them is spin.
TIM RUSSERT: I-- look, I'm a blue-collar guy from Buffalo. I know who my sources are. I work 'em very hard. It's the mid-level people that tell you the truth. Now-
BILL MOYERS: They're the ones who know the story?
TIM RUSSERT: Well, they're working on the problem. And they understand the detail much better than a lotta the so-called policy makers and-- and-- and political officials.
BILL MOYERS: But they don't get on the Sunday talk shows--
TIM RUSSERT: No. You-- I mean-- they don't want to be, trust me. I mean, they can lose their jobs, and they know it. But they're-- they can provide information which can help in me challenging or trying to draw out-- sometimes their bosses and other public officials.
BILL MOYERS: What do you make of the fact that of the 414 Iraq stories broadcast on NBC, ABC and CBS nightly news, from September 2002 until February 2003, almost all the stories could be traced back to sources from the White House, the Pentagon, and the State Department?
TIM RUSSERT: It's important that you have a-- an oppos-- opposition party. That's our system of government.
BILL MOYERS: So, it's not news unless there's somebody-
TIM RUSSERT: No, no, no. I didn't say that. But it's important to have an opposition party, your opposit-- opposing views.
WALTER PINCUS: More and more, in the media, become, I think, common carriers of administration statements, and critics of the administration. And we've sort of given up being independent on our own.
ANNOUNCER: (3/6/1981) Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States.
WALTER PINCUS: We used to do at the Post something called truth squading. --President would make a speech. We used to do it with Ronald Reagan the first five or six months because he would make so many-- factual errors, particularly in his press conference. PRESIDENT REAGAN: (3/6/1981) From 10 thousand to 60 thousand dollars a year…
WALTER PINCUS: And after-- two or three weeks of it-- the public at large, would say, "Why don't you leave the man alone? He's trying to be honest. He makes mistakes. So what?" and we stopped doing it.
BILL MOYERS: You stopped being the truth squad.
WALTER PINCUS: We stopped truth squading every sort of press conference, or truth squading. And we left it then-- to the democrats. In other words, it's up to the democrats to catch people, not us.
BILL MOYERS: So if the democrats challenged-- a statement from the president, you could-- quote both sides.
WALTER PINCUS: We then quote-- both sides. Yeah.
BILL MOYERS: Now, that's called objectivity by many standards isn't it?
WALTER PINCUS: Well, that's-- objectivity if you think there are only two sides. and if you're not interested in-- the facts. And the facts are separate from, you know, what one side says about the other.
BILL MOYERS: By late November 2002 the press had yet another chance to get the facts right. Facing intense international pressure, The White House agreed to hold off military action until Saddam Hussein permited a team of un inspectors to return to iraq and take a closer look.
The first inspections began on November 27th
Charles Hanley, a prize winning reporter for the Associated Press, with more than 30 years experience reporting on weapons issues, went along to cover their work.
CHARLES HANLEY: What we did was-- go out everyday with the inspectors. These guys would roar out on these motorcades at very high speed and roar through towns and do sudden U-turns and-- and drive over land and do all of these things to confuse the Iraqis about where they were going-- so that there wouldn't be a call ahead telling-- telling them to put away all the bad stuff.
CHARLES HANLEY: The inspectors then would issue a daily report. And-- as it turned out, of course, inspection after inspection, it turned out to be clean. They had nothing to report, no violations to report.
BILL MOYERS: In January of '03 Hanley wrote about the suspicious sites that the us and British governments had earlier identified as major concerns. "No smoking guns in...Almost 400 inspections." He reported. It ought to have cast serious doubt on the white house's entire evaluation of the iraqi threat. But reporting like this was overshadowed by the drumbeat from Washington -- which is why, Hanley says, sometimes his editors balked when he wrote that the White House lacked firm evidence on WMDS.
CHARLES HANLEY: And that would be stricken from my copy because it would strike some editors as a-- as tendentious. As sort of an attack or a-- some sort of-- allegation rather than a fact. You know and we don't want our reporters alleging things. We, you know, we just report the facts. Well it was a fact. It was a very important fact that seemed to be lost on an awful lot of journalists unfortunately.
BILL MOYERS: Six weeks before the invasion, with the facts still in short supply, the American Secretary of State went before the United Nations.
COLIN POWELL (UN Security Council 2/5/03): I cannot tell you everything that we know. But what I can share with you, when combined with what all of us have learned over the years, is deeply troubling.
CHARLES HANLEY: One major problem was that-- Secretary Powell barely acknowledged that there were inspections going on. It got to ridiculous points such as-- his complaining about the fact that they'd put a roof over this open air shed where they were testing missiles.
COLIN POWELL (Security Council 2/5/03): This photograph was taken in April of 2002. Since then, the test stand has been finished and a roof has been put over it so it will be harder for satellites to see what's going on underneath the test stand.
CHARLES HANLEY: What he neglected to mention was that the inspectors were underneath, watching what was going on.
COLIN POWELL (Security Council 2/5/03): A single drop of VX on the skin will kill in minutes. Four tons!
CHARLES HANLEY: he didn't point out that most of that had already been destroyed. And-- on point after point he failed to point out that these facilities about which he was raising such alarm-- were under repeated inspections by-- by good-- expert people with very good equipment, and who were leaving behind cameras and other monitoring equipment to keep us-- a continuing eye on it
COLIN POWELL (Security Council 2/5/03): Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world.
ERIC BOEHLERT: The holes in the-- his presentation became immediate within days if not hours.
COLIN POWELL: But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder.
ERIC BOEHLERT: One of the first big embarrassments was-- Powell had talked about this British intelligence report.
COLIN POWELL: I would call my colleagues attention to the fine paper that United Kingdom distributed yesterday, which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities.
BILL MOYERS: Supposedly that 'exquisite detail' from British intelligence came from a top secret dossier
ERIC BOEHLERT: Literally within a day or two it was-- it was proven in the-- in the British press that that had simply been-- downloaded off the internet. And was plagiarized. And it actually contains the typos that were in the original.
BRITISH REPORTER: (2/7/03): The British government dossier is supposed to be about Iraqi deception and concealment. It says it draws upon a number of sources including intelligence material. Well, actually what it largely draws on is a thesis written by a Californian post graduate student…
ERIC BOEHLERT: That was just the first of many embarrassments that were to come. But within days-- the British press was going crazy over this-- over this revelation.
BRITISH REPORTER: As for the student himself, he's accused the government of plagiarism.
BRITISH REPORTER: If the government is reduced to trawling academic journals then how good is the rest of its case for war against Iraq?
BILL MOYERS: Few prominent American broadcasters would ask such pointed questions:
FOX NEWS: The Secretary of State Colin Powell has made the case against Iraq. TOM BROKAW (NBC "Making the Case" 2/5/03): Secretary of State Colin Powell has given a lot of important speeches in his lifetime to a lot of large audiences but no speech was more important then the one he gave today.
PETER JENNINGS (ABC 2/5/03): In the United Nation Security Council this morning, the secretary of state Colin Powell took almost an hour and a half to make the Bush administration's case against Saddam Hussein.
CBS EVENING NEWS (2/5/03): Making the case for war, Secretary Powell shows the world what he calls "Undeniable Proof."
DAN RATHER: Colin Powell was trusted. Is trusted, I'd put it-in a sense. He, unlike many of the people who made the decisions to go to war, Colin Powell has seen war. He knows what a green jungle hell Vietnam was. He knows what the battlefield looks like. And when Colin Powell says to you, "I, Colin Powell, am putting my personal stamp on this information. It's my name, my face, and I'm putting it out there," that did make a difference.
BILL MOYERS: And you were impressed.
DAN RATHER: I was impressed. And who wouldn't be?
NORM SOLOMON: And you look at the response from-- forget about the right-wing media-- from the so-called liberal press the next morning. You pick up the WASHINGTON POST, on the op-ed page, there's Jim Hoagland saying, obviously from what Powell said, there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. You go a few inches away to Richard Cohen, a vowed liberal, he says, obviously there are weapons of mass destruction. I mean it's a fair paraphrase to say, these pundits and many others were asserting, if you don't think there are WMDs in Iraq, you are an idiot.
BILL MOYERS: Across the country editorial writers bought what Powell was selling. "A Masterful Legal Summary." "A Strong, Credible and Persuasive Case." "A Powerful Case." "An Ironclad Case...Succinct and Damning Evidence." "A Detailed and Convincing Argument." "An Overwhelming Case." "A Compelling Case." "A Persuasive, Detailed Accumulation of Information."
NORM SOLOMON: These were supposed to be the most discerning, sophisticated journalists in the country writing this stuff, and they were totally bamboozled.
MICHAEL MASSING: And, sure enough, in the newspapers, if you look very hard inside in the next few days in the coverage-- you could find really serious questions that were raised about this. But, they were very much pushed aside.
BILL MOYERS: This gets us right to the heart of the debate that's going on now in our craft. We lean heavily in reporting on what they say.
DAN RATHER: That's right.
BILL MOYERS: We want no wider war. I'm not a crook. Mushroom cloud. Weapons of mass destruction. We really give heavy weight to what public officials say. .
DAN RATHER: Well, that's true. And we need to address that. In the end, it was, look, the President himself says these things are so. He-- he stands before the Congress with the question of war and peace hanging in the balance and says these things. And there was a feeling, not just with myself, given all that, who am I to say; you know what, I think it's all-- a Machiavellian scheme to take us into Iraq.
ALAN COLMES (HANNITY AND COLMES, FOX NEWS 2/25/03): Big news today in the cable world Ellen, Phil Donahue, cancelled, by that other, uh, network.
BILL MOYERS: Twenty two days before the invasion, your show was canceled.
PHIL DONOHUE: It should be said that we did fairly well in the ratings. We did not burn the town down. Nobody on MSNBC did. But we were certainly as good as anybody else on the network. And often-- often we led the network.
BILL MOYERS: In dumping Donahue, NBC cited ratings. But a blogger got his hands on an internal memo and the press picked it up.
BILL MOYERS: Now that memo said, "Donohue presents a difficult public face for NBC in a time of war. At the same time our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity." Did you know about that memo at the time?
PHIL DONOHUE: No. No. I didn't know about that till I read about it in The NEW YORK TIMES.
BILL MOYERS: What did you think-- what-- what does that say to you? That dissent is unpatriotic?
PHIL DONOHUE: Well, not only unpatriotic, but it's not good for business.
ANNOUNCER (MSNBC): Tonight, the case for war!
ANNOUNCER: Showdown Iraq, with Wolf Blitzer.
NORM SOLOMON: I think these executives were terrified of being called soft on terrorism. They absolutely knew that the winds were blowing at hurricane force politically and socially in the United States. And rather than stand up for journalism, they just blew with the wind.
And-- Dan Rather, and others who say, yeah, you know. I was carried away back then. Well, sure. That's when it matters. When it matters most is when you can make a difference as a journalist
DAN RATHER: Fear is in every newsroom in the country. And fear of what? Well, it's the fear-- if-- it's a combination of; if you don't go along to get along, you're going to get the reputation of being a troublemaker.
There's also the fear that, you know, particularly in networks, they've become huge, international conglomerates. They have big needs, legislative needs, repertory needs in Washington. Nobody has to send you a memo to tell you that that's the case.
You know. And that puts a seed in your mind; of well, if you stick your neck out, if you take the risk of going against the grain with your reporting, is anybody going to back you up?
CHARLES HANLEY: The media just continued on this path of reporting, "Well-- the Bush administration alleges that there are WMD," and never really stopped and said-- "It doesn't look like there are. There's no evidence." That should have been the second sentence in any story about the allegations of WMD. The second sentence should have been, "But they did not present any evidence to back this up."
JOHN WALCOTT: You know, we're sending young men and women, and nowadays not so young men and women, to risk their lives. And everyone wants to be behind them. And everyone should be behind them. The question for us in journalism is, are we really behind them when we fail to do our jobs? Is that really the kinda support that they deserve? Or are we really, in the long run, serving them better by asking these hard questions about what we've asked them to do?
ANNOUNCER: ("Target Iraq Today," NBC 3/22/03) Good Morning. Shock and Awe.
ANNOUNCER: (NIGHTLY NEWS, NBC 3/20/03) Operation Iraqi freedom reports of secret surrender talks as US bombs hit Baghdad.
ANNOUNCER: (CBS 3/20/03) This CBS news special report is part of our continuing coverage of America At War
BILL MOYERS: Four years after shock and awe, the press has yet to come to terms with its role in enabling the Bush administration to go to war on false pretenses.
Peter Beinert is almost alone in admitting he was mistaken.
PETER BEINERT: Where I think I was tragically wrong was not to see in February, March 2003 after we got the inspectors back in on the ground and we began to learn much more about what had been going on in Iraq than we had known in 2002 when we had no one on the ground that that assumption was being proven wrong.
BILL MOYERS: You say tragically wrong.
PETER BEINART: Because I think the war has been a tragic disaster. I mean-- the Americans killed, the Iraqis killed. It's true, life under Saddam was hell. But can one really say that life for Iraqis is better today?
BILL MOYERS: We wanted to talk to some others in the media about their role in the run up to war….
Judith Miller, who left the TIMES after becoming embroiled in a White House leak scandal declined our request…on legal grounds.
The TIMES' liberal hawk Thomas Friedman also said no.
So did Bill Safire, who had predicted Iraq would now be leading the Arab world to democracy. President Bush recently awarded him the Medal of Freedom.
THE WASHINGTON POST's Charles Krauthammer also turned us down…so did Roger Ailes the man in charge of FOX NEWS.. He declined because, an assistant told us, he's writing a book on how Fox has changed the face of American broadcasting and doesn't want to scoop himself.
William Kristol led the march to Bagdad behind a battery of Washington microphones. He has not responded to any of our requests for an interview…but he still shows up on tv as an expert, most often on FOX NEWS.
WILLIAM KRISTOL: (Fox 1/10/07) And he's got to begin to show progress in three, four, five months, once the US troops get in.
NORM SOLOMON: Being a pro-war pundit means never having to say you're sorry.
ERIC BOEHLERT: I mean these were people who were laying out the blueprint for the war about how it was gonna unfold. And, it turns out, couldn't have been more wrong every which way.
WILLIAM SAFIRE: You have a president…
ERIC BOEHLERT: And it's astonishing to see them still on TV invited on as experts in the region.
BILL MOYERS: It's true, so many of the advocates and apologists for the war are still flourishing in the media…
Bill Kristol and Peter Beinart, for example, are now regular contributors to TIME magazine, which has been laying off dozens of reporters.
BILL MOYERS: And remember this brilliant line?
PRESIDENT BUSH: We cannot wait for the final proof: the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
BILL MOYERS: The man who came up with it was Michael Gerson. President Bush's top speechwriter. He has left the White House and has been hired by THE WASHINGTON POST as a columnist.
The American number of troops killed in Iraq now exceeds the number of victims on 9/11. We have been fighting there longer than it took us to defeat the Nazis in World War II. The costs of the war are reckoned at one trillion dollars and counting. The number of Iraqis killed -- over 650 thousands -- is hard to pin down. The country is in chaos...The Middle East is in Chaos, the Energy Policy is in Chaos, and the World
is in Utter Chaos........
*****************************************************************************
General Aoun is accused of being pro-Syrian ?
Many people wonder how perceptions became so warped in Lebanon today, how a politician like General Aoun is accused of being pro-Syrian, while Walid Jumblatt, Syria's most loyal henchman during the Last 35 years, spends most of his time making death threats against Bashar Al Assad flanked by Hariri and "Geagea the Ripper". Are we going through a twilight zone of sudden role reversals? It was not too long ago by any measure, that Aoun's historic defiance of Syria was celebrated in the "Cedar Revolution" of 05 which supposedly liberated Lebanon from Syrian occupation. It was not much longer before then that Aoun lead the outnumbered (twenty to one) and outgunned Lebanese Army in a war against Syria and its allies in Lebanon, including the Lebanese Forces of Samir Geagea, the PSP of Walid Jumblatt, the Amal of Nabih Berry and a myriad of Syrian sympathizers and Palestinian extremist groups from all over the Arab world. On multiple fronts, the Lebanese Army fought and won against terrible odds while having scarce resources and support only from the Lebanese populace hiding in shelters and praying to end a war that stretched over two decades leaving their country in ruins. How is it then that Aoun's consistency is being questioned today? How is it even possible that his positions on Syria and Iran are scrutinized by those who want to cast him as an agent or a traitor to Lebanon, someone who is willing to compromise anything to obtain the presidency? Aren’t his accusers the same as those who lead countless pro-Syrian militias over two decades? How are we to believe that a man who spent his entire career fighting against the foreign enemies of Lebanon would all of a sudden make a complete turn in the opposite direction and jump in the lap of Syria and Iran? Let’s not forget our history:
Beginning: September 23, 1988
When Gemayel appointed Aoun as interim prime minister according to Article 53 of the Lebanese constitution, the pro-Syrian warlords of West Beirut immediately declared dissidence and established an independent self contained government lead by Salim el Hoss, strongly opposing any attempts by Aoun to establish free and legal presidential elections. At every turn, Hoss, Jumblatt, Syria and their dozen allied militias would block all propositions at establishing groundwork to perform free elections of a Lebanese president. The pro-Syrian government in west Beirut used Para-military groups to combat any attempts by Aoun at creating an environment that would allow the Lebanese people to independently vote for a president instead of having to endure one handpicked by Hafez el Assad. The pressure by these Syrian controlled mafia like armed groups lead Aoun to declare all militias in Lebanon illegal and unleash the Army to shut down their operations, starting with the seizure of the 5th basin of the Port of Beirut from the Lebanese Forces (Christian Militia) which had been under their control since the early days of the war. For the first time since 74, the legitimate government of Lebanon actively tried to control facilities and resources that had been hijacked and looted by these militias for years. On February 14th 1989 the port of Beirut was back in the hands of the legitimate government.
Aoun’s approach was to start this process of cleansing in his own backyard to avoid being cast in the traditional sectarian camps that had plagued Lebanon since the declaration of independence. In this now famous start of his mandate, Aoun had done something no one else in Lebanon had dared to do including all of the presidents and leaders from Franjiyeh to Hariri: He was finally empowering the Lebanese government and its enforcer, the Lebanese army to combat and control all that had torn the country to pieces for twenty years. Where other presidents had faltered and refused to deploy the army to stop the chaos, Aoun was trying to force all rogue elements out by order of the law and the constitution without drawing distinctions along sectarian lines. This was an act that outraged all the hardened warlords that were very well entrenched in their alliances with countless foreign governments and groups, and defied a formula that everyone had agreed on up to that point: all parties were dealing in the currency of religious strife. Syria became enraged when on 24 February 1989 Aoun ordered the closure of all illegal ports to force shipping to use the Port of Beirut and so the Syrian controlled militias refused to comply with Aoun's orders. On March 6 Aoun activated the army's ‘Marine Operations Room' and started a blockade of West Beirut militia ports. The attempt by Aoun to close illegal militia ports in Syrian parts of the country resulted in the shelling of east Beirut by pro-Syrian militias and the Syrian Army.
Aoun had dared to tackle the very essence and core of the Lebanese war conspiracy, threatening its fabric to dissipate and melt in a new order imposed by a strong national government. Syria mobilized all of its henchmen while deploying around the clock 240 mm bunker buster artillery bombings to bring the free regions of East Beirut to their knees. Lebanon had never witnessed as much destruction in all of its bloody history. But the man in Baabda did not waiver. He had launched a new challenge to Assad: “everything in now destroyed and the only thing left is you head”.
On 14th March 1989 Aoun declared the 'War of Liberation' against the Syrian Army in Lebanon. This led to a 7 month period of shelling of East Beirut by pro-Syrian militias and by Syrian forces. Aoun answered with unprecedented and daring targeting of Syrian military installations across Lebanon from Beirut to the Bekaa valley. The Syrian forces also imposed a land and sea blockade. Shipping entering ports under Lebanese Army control was fired upon by Syrian artillery based in West Beirut and the North.
Numerous attempts to defeat Aoun through repeated pro Syrian militia assaults on the Lebanese Army defending strategic town of Souq el-Gharb failed and so it was decided that a larger scale Syrian attack was required. The morning of 10th August 1989 saw extremely heavy bombardment of Souq el-Gharb which was to last for until the morning of 13th August 1989, when units of the Syrian Army, Syrian Special Forces troops, Jumblatt PSP militia, Palestinians guerrillas, and Communist Party troops launched a general assault on the town. Despite the attackers breaching the perimeter early in the battle, and Lebanese army counter attack dislodged the Syrians and their allies. During the battle Walid Jumblatt announced that Souq el-Gharb had been 'liberated from the occupation of the Lebanese Army' and called for a press conference to be held at Souq el-Gharb. Upon their arrival, the international press was surprised to see that the Lebanese Army in Souq el-Gharb had won a decisive victory in the face of overwhelming odds.
The Arabs Intervene: The Taef Accords
After months of intense discussions, in October 1989, the deputies informally agreed on a charter of national reconciliation, also known as the Taef agreement.
The Syrians were not willing to tolerate any resistance to their occupation. Some months earlier, in May 1989, the Grand Mufti of the Lebanese Sunni community, Hassan Khalid, who had expressed his support for Aoun, was assassinated just days after meeting with officials from Aoun's administration.
The deputies returned to Lebanon in November, where they approved the Taef agreement on November 4, and elected Rene Moawad, a Maronite Christian deputy from Zghorta in north Lebanon, President on November 5. General Aoun, claiming powers as interim Prime Minister, issued a decree in early November dissolving the parliament and did not accept the ratification of the Taef agreement or the election of President Moawad.
General Aoun's main objection to it was that Syria had committed itself neither to rapid nor complete withdrawal. To the contrary, he complained, Syrian forces were to stay in place for a full two years, ostensibly "assisting the Lebanese government extend its authority." After that, Syrian forces were to be redeployed only as far as the Bekaa valley.
The Agreement gave no timetable for any further Syrian withdrawal, merely stipulating that "such withdrawals would be negotiated at the appropriate time by the governments of Lebanon and Syria." Furthermore, General Aoun charged that the political reforms were unacceptable because they simply shifted power from the office of the President to that of the Prime Minister without solving any fundamental political problems.
Walid Jumblatt, conspired with Yasser Arafat, and assassinates Rene Moawad .
As the days passed Moawad was becoming embarrassed with heavy handed Syrian desires to push through the accords and Syrian press even went so far as to invent aggressive anti Aoun interviews which Moawad felt obliged to disclaim. As Moawad found himself to be unable to win over army officers and men who all remained loyal to Aoun, Moawad refused to replace General Aoun with a new armed forces commander, preferring negotiation to confrontation and he would not allow the Syrians to dislodge Aoun militarily. President Moawad was assassinated on November 22, 1989, by a bomb that exploded as his motorcade was returning from Lebanese Independence Day ceremonies. 550lb (250kg) of remote controlled explosives destroyed the president's Mercedes in the heart of west Beirut. The enormous amount of explosives used, were placed over a period of some days, during "road works", within a side retaining wall on the road along which the car would pass. The explosives were detonated as the car passed the side wall. The occupants were vaporized; the rear section of the vehicle was tossed onto the roof of a local building with the front half being thrown 200 yards away into a parking lot. No "official" investigation was carried out into this murder. Walid Jumblatt, conspired with Yasser Arafat, and assassinated Rene Moawad, because jumblatt had a deep trenched animosity towards Rene Moawad for a very long time, and for the school of thought of President Moawad, [President Fouad Chehab's "deuxieme bureau"]. Walid Jumblatt has a visceral and deep trenched HATE, for anything related to the Army Intelligence and its involvement in the Political life, during President Fouad Chehab's tenure.... It's the anthisesis of the Feudal system of the Jumblatts.... So Jumblatt, who is an expert Murderer, succeeded in eliminating the newly-elect President of the Republic in 1989, and he walked away from this horrendous act, scott free.
The parliament met on November 24 in the Bekaa Valley and elected Elias Hrawi, a Maronite Christian deputy from Zahleh in the Bekaa Valley, to replace him. The results of the election were broadcast on Syrian radio ten minutes before the vote actually took place. President Hrawi named a Prime Minister, Salim al-Hoss, and a cabinet on November 25.
Despite widespread international recognition of Hrawi and his government, General Aoun refused to recognize Hrawi's legitimacy, and Hrawi officially replaced Aoun as army commander in early December. The vast majority of the Lebanese Army, however, again remained loyal to General Aoun.
The Treachery
General Aoun's attempt to break the power of the militias and his standing up to the Syrians made him extremely popular with a cross section of the Lebanese population; this was manifested by large demonstrations in his support around the Presidential Palace. Samir Geagea and the LF were now rapidly losing prestige and control of the Christian enclave. Geagea was becoming seduced by the Taef agreement which could open the way for him to receive a high government posting should he side with Hrawi and the Syrians. The LF hoped that siding with the Taef agreement would give the militia international respectability and that once Hrawi was bought into power the LF could detach him from Syria and use him as a cover to restore its domination of the enclave. The LF, in January 1990, made no secret of its option of linkage with Hrawi “if things don't work out with the general” or its derision for the “circus” of pro-Aoun demonstrations. Syria was well aware of the LF scheme and encouraged Hrawi to entice the militia.
Also in January 1990, rumors surfaced in East Beirut about alleged LF contacts with American officials and Syrian officers regarding an LF ditching of Aoun. Whether these reflected reality or disinformation, they certainly raised tensions. The daily al-Safir later quoted a reference by Christian deputies to “the capitals that were behind encouraging the LF to go into the battle with Aoun.” Only Washington and Damascus could have had this interest. By this point the LF was probably already plotting a surprise military strike to paralyze army communications to coincide with a “security plan” proposed for West Beirut in early February. On 30 January, Aoun intervened after army and LF mobilizations in a clash over LF use of school buildings in a Beirut suburb—he announced a compulsory “uniting of the rifle” in East Beirut, meaning absorption of the LF into his army brigades.
For the LF this was a declaration of war. Immediately after Aoun’s “unification of weapons” speech, the LF stormed, captured, and held the Lebanese army barracks of Amshit, Sarba, Safra, Halat and the naval base at Jounieh, spread through the urban area and secured the Ashrafieh hill, adjacent to the militia “war council”. The unthinkable had happened. The LF had gone to war against Aoun who had been concentrating his forces against Syria was not prepared for a flare up within his base area. The army had taken no precautions with regard to its scattered barracks, ammunition dumps, and other assets in the LF heartland. The big Adma base which was exposed to LF encirclement had limited ammunition and no provision had been taken for the dispersal of the helicopter fleet which was destroyed by the LF on the first day of fighting.
The final blow came on 9th April 1990 when the Lebanese Forces announced their support for Taef and their readiness to hand over the institutions under their control to the rival government in west Beirut. The fighting continued and over 900 people died and over 3,000 were wounded during these battles called the 'War of Elimination' by Samir Geagea.
The Gulf War and the Syrian-American agreement
General Aoun’s 1989 campaign against the Syrians inconvenienced the U.S. In the American outlook, Aoun distracted attention from Israeli-Palestinian issues, was trying to create complications between the West and Syria at a time when the U.S. wanted to bring Syria into its new “order,” and was behaving in a way likely to make Lebanon even more attractive to disruptive forces, particularly Shiite Islamic radicalism.
For their part, Lebanon’s Shiite militants enabled Iran to affect Middle Eastern affairs far beyond its own borders. In short, Lebanon’s Christian and Shiite communities each presented a serious challenge to U.S. policy for “stabilizing” the Middle East. The fact that Aoun and Hezbollah both represented populist upsurges left the Americans cold—this only made it more imperative that both be curbed.
Iraq’s 2 August 1990 seizure of Kuwait, the Iraqi-American confrontation, and the infusion of Western forces into the Persian Gulf transformed Middle Eastern political calculations. The U.S. now needed—or, more accurately, imagined itself as needing—the broadest possible Arab military participation, and Syria suddenly found itself the object of the most flattering Western attentions. Assad tested the winds of the world for a week or so, calculated that his Iraqi enemy was headed for catastrophe, and offered himself as a partner in the American-led coalition. By mid-August, as the daily al-Safir noted, it was obvious that “Gulf events have removed foreign barriers standing against the Hrawi government asking Syria to strike at the unnatural situation in East Beirut.”
On 28 September, the Taef regime committed its prestige and existence to a successful showdown by imposing a siege on the Aoun area, blocking food supplies to the population.
13th October 1990
In October 1990, the Syrian military supported by a few Lebanese troops loyal to Hrawi launched an attack against General Aoun. The attack came just after 7:00 a.m. on the 13th October and started with an air raid by Syrian Soukhoi fighter bombers against the Palace and the Ministry of Defense. For many years a no fly zone over the whole of Lebanon had been enforced by the Israelis preventing the Syrians from using their air force, on this day however, the Syrians were allowed to fly by the United States as reward for their joining the NATO coalition against Iraq in the Gulf crisis. Immediately before the assault, Syrian aircraft overflew the Matn to test the efficacy of American intervention with Israel.
The air attacks lasted 13 minutes after which Syrian Special Forces troops advance under massive artillery cover, LF artillery joined Syrian artillery and fired on the Lebanese Army. The French considered intervention through their fleet positioned off the Lebanese coast, but after this did not materialize, General Aoun realizes that he cannot win and at 8:45 a.m. announces his surrender from the nearby French embassy in order "to avoid even more bloodshed, limit the damage and to save what remains." The surrender is broadcast on all radio stations throughout the day as General Aoun personally contacts his field commanders to orders that they "obey the orders of the commander in chief of the Army, General Emile Lahoud." At 10:00 a.m. the Syrians enter the Palace but despite this, many units of the Lebanese Army initially refuse to surrender and heavy fighting continues, a Lebanese Army unit counter attacks Deir al-Qalaa, at Beit-Mery, and manages to oust Syrians special forces that had occupied the monastery by force at the very start of the day. The Lebanese unit finds that some of the monks in the monastery had been killed by the Syrian troops. At Douar, on the Bikfaya front, the elite commandos engaged Syrians tanks and caused heavy damage. On the hill of the Prince, at Souk al-Gharb, the cadets of the military Academy, assisted by regulars of the 10th Brigade put up a very hard fight. In Suq al-Gharb itself, Aoun’s Lebanese army units, with only a fraction of their pre-February 1990 hardware, killed about 400 Syrians before the front was overrun. The Lebanese Army headquarters at Yarze even refused to give the ceasefire order finally announcing it 12:30 p.m. It was fortunate that Aoun had managed to directly speak to many of his units and so prevent much bloodshed.
Estimates of Syrian losses ranged from 160 to 450 in the battle that followed and it seems that the 102nd fought on until their ammunition ran out refusing to let Dahr el-Wahesh, which overlooks the Palace, fall into Syrian hands. Later that afternoon some 80 bodies of soldiers of the 102nd would be brought to a Baabda mortuary, most had their hands tied behind their backs and had been shot in the back of the head, some had been stripped down to their underpants before being executed. The Syrians executed one of the officers, Emile Boutros, by forcing him to lie down on the road and then driving a tank over him. At least 15 civilians were executed by Syrian soldiers in Bsous after having been rounded up from their homes, and another 19 people, including three women, were reported to have been killed in cold blood in al-Hadath. Around the Presidential Palace another 51 Lebanese Army soldiers were stripped and executed.
For anyone, foreign or within to disregard the history of our struggle and the tenacity of our beliefs in our freedom is laughable. History is recorded, and Aoun’s consistency is proven. At any one of these turns, he could have capitulated and received the presidential chair and avoided great hardship to himself, his loved ones and his extended family: Lebanon. I once heard: “It’s an honor for Lebanon and for the people of Lebanon that a General wearing a military uniform was to stand, and tell the whole world, that life without freedom is a form of death...While the world disregards men in uniform”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Le testament "Hariri" de Chirac à Sarkozy ....
Jacques Chirac adore les Hariris . Il l'a encore démontré hier, en présentant à Nicolas Sarkozy Saad Hariri, le fils cadet de l'ancien Premier ministre Saoudien / Libanais Rafic Hariri.
« Le tropisme Haririen de Chirac est lié à son amitié pour cette famille », explique Joseph Branais , de l'Institut d'études politiques du Chiraquisme.
Mais depuis l'assassinat de "son ami" en février 2005, le "Cover-up" et la création d'un tribunal international chargé de juger les commanditaires de l'attentat sont une obsession pour le Président, qui continue à inviter allègrement le tueur Assef Shawkat,pour des visites officielles à Paris depuis..., car c'est toujours le monde à l'envers, rien ne change et rien ne changera....?
Initiateur de l'idée du "cover-up" d'un tribunal international auprès de l'ONU, Chirac passerait, selon des sources bien informées, 170 % de son temps sur ce dossier. Il se serait engagé, en privé, à ce que tous les responsables de l'attentat siègent dans le box des accusés avant la fin de son mandat. C'est loin d'être le cas.... et ca ne le sera jamais, et Chirac le sait si bien, car la débandade est toujours de mise depuis 1943.
Chirac pousse donc le Conseil de sécurité à adopter une résolution contraignante pour l'instauration du tribunal. Objectif : venger son ami.
L'affaire est personnelle, il ne s'en cache pas. En quittant l'Elysée, il s'installera dans un appartement prêté par la famille Hariri, ce qui consterne le Quai d'Orsay....et les "services"? On se moque toujours du monde des Libanais, affables et naïfs, comme on l'a toujours fait, depuis 1943, et on continue à "héberger" et protéger en France, les hommes de sous-mains des Israéliens, des Syriens et des Saoudiens, qui collaborent activement à "dérouter" toutes les investigations "sérieuses" au Liban et en France ? , depuis des années... en toute connaissance de cause !
Dans ce contexte, pas étonnant que Saad Hariri soit le premier représentant étranger qu'il présente à Nicolas Sarkozy. La question est maintenant de savoir si ce dernier s'inscrira dans la continuité de Chirac. Difficile pour Christophe Boltanskhi, auteur, avec Eric Aeschrimann, de Chiraq d'Arabie (Grasset), « jamais politique étrangère n'avait été aussi indexée sur les hommes de BUSH et de la CIA, menteurs proféssionnels à Gage.
Ces dernières enquêtes et rumeurs sur Jacques Chirac sont moins ébouriffantes...
incontestablement ».
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
À l’aune de notre seule ombre
Par Percy KEMP
La joie qui se lisait, au soir de l’élection présidentielle française, sur le visage des principaux artisans de la victoire de Nicolas Sarkozy est compréhensible. L’immense fierté – pour ne pas dire l’extrême autosatisfaction – qui s’y lisait autant, l’est beaucoup moins. Voyant ces gens-là pavoiser en prenant la mesure du pouvoir que leur succès venait de leur conférer, j’ai eu à l’esprit le comportement, en pareilles circonstances, du Thébain Epaminondas.
Plutarque nous rapporte en effet, qu’alors qu’il avait l’habitude de se montrer tout le temps soigné de sa personne et le visage serein, Epaminondas, au lendemain de sa grande victoire sur Sparte à la bataille de Leuctres en 371 avant notre ère, se présenta en public mal lavé et tout abattu. Ses amis s’inquiétant de savoir s’il lui était arrivé quelque malheur, « Aucun, leur répondit-il, mais hier, après la bataille, j’ai senti en moi plus de fierté qu’il ne convient et c’est pourquoi je rabats aujourd’hui l’excès de ma joie. »
Les lendemains de victoire sont extrêmement périlleux. Car c’est dans ces moments-là que, nous identifiant totalement à notre victoire, nous présumons le plus de notre personne et de notre valeur. Recherchant alors les yeux flatteurs de nos admirateurs, nous nous y mirons volontiers et nous en venons naturellement à nous y voir immensément grandis.
A ce propos, il ne serait pas inintéressant de rappeler ici la réponse qu’Archidamos, roi de Sparte, fit jadis à Philippe, roi de Macédoine, au lendemain de la défaite cinglante que les Macédoniens infligèrent aux Grecs à Chéronée, en 338 avant notre ère. Philippe, victorieux, ayant en effet écrit à Archidamos, vaincu, une lettre pleine de morgue, ce dernier lui répondit en ces termes : « Si tu mesurais ton ombre, Philippe, tu ne la trouverais pas plus grande aujourd’hui qu’avant ta victoire. »
Percy KEMP
Article paru le jeudi 17 mai 2007 dans L’Orient-Le Jour (Beyrouth)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To the young generation of LEBANON and all over the world.
***********************************************************
Please subscribe to the notions of this very genuine and well intentioned appeal here:
Dear all ,
Thank you for visiting my site and giving me the opportunity to render my cause and the cause of so many around the world, a cause founded, initiated, and pursued by righteousness and a desire for the good for all mankind. I hope that with my modest undertaking, and an infinite desire for good, a precedent will be set and an example to be followed by more of our world’s youth. While the young are desperate for guidance, the purported “leaders” have fallen short of our expectations and of their own responsibilities. In 2007, more than any other time, the youth of Lebanon and the world are yearning for change, for peace; something only possible and resultant by the initiatives and leadership of real and genuine leaders, men and women who seek the greater good for all mankind and not solely of their own.
My project and undertaking here is only bit and parcel of my real dreams and ambitions, only a fragment of where I believe our world should be led. For years I’ve watched fellow countrymen tear the land of the cedars apart by their sectarian fanaticism, blind hatred, political prostitution, and unreserved ignorance. I invite you to my site as we witness a real desire for change, an authentic intention to lead our country towards genuine national unity. I’ve been called everything from a hero to a traitor, I’ve been threatened and harassed yet this cause is unwavering, and I remain steadfast to my beliefs. This site has been attacked by hackers and individuals who propagate lies and heresy in the name of their so-called “causes” yet I ask, what is more noble than the cause of humanity? Protecting our heritage as Lebanese and citizens of this world is our only guarantee for a better future- neglecting your past equates to nullifying your future.
I have no political motives, I’m not a self-hating Lebanese or Muslim, I have no affiliations to any foreign country besides my own; there are not any underlying motives, so I ask that you do not contact us with unfounded and baseless accusations and threats. I direct my comments to both ends of the obvious political and ideological spectrums. What joins you is hatred, ignorance, and a lack of education and respect. What united us here is our common humanity, values, and genuine desire for peace. We shouldn’t yearn for peace without conciliation, without understanding. God gave us two ears and one mouth so we listen twice as much as we speak. Without acknowledging the rights of others and acknowledging an individuals value as a human being and granting them their fundamental and inalienable rights as human beings, we will continue leading the lives we’ve led for the last 50 years.
I have dedicated my life to the land of my ancestors out of respect and appreciation for what our respective civilization has contributed to the world. The land of the cedars, the land that gave the world its alphabet. This cause, of rebuilding our nation is far greater than any cause prescribed in Lebanon, greater than the hollow political slogans and ideologies broadcasted in the capitals of the world. The Lebanese cause is not the Zionist cause, the Lebanese cause is not the Arab cause, nor the Christian or Islamic cause- the Lebanese cause is humanity’s cause; the struggle for mankind to live together, peacefully, and most noteworthy, it’s distinction of being universally applicable. We must end the tendency to regard ourselves as individuals in this increasing globalized society.
Lebanon was and will always be the model for religious coexistence and cultural pluralism in the Middle East and the world. It’s by no coincidence that Lebanon is the only country in the world besides the obvious exception here or there....? My site and its content are purely Lebanese, national in character and spirit. No falsehoods, agendas; what you see here is who I am and what I believe in. They showed us where they could lead Lebanon and the youth see it differently. I am only one voice in the collective courage of our youth, the children and the diaspora of our great nation.
I invite you visitor, Lebanese or non-Lebanese, as a brother in faith and humanity, welcome to my site, your site, the site where good people are all welcomed.
A human being, an inhabitant of civilization, a son of the Holy Cedars of Lebanon,
NEWHK
**********************************************************************************************************
The trained psychotic liars of the State Department, Washington DC.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"But war is also the continuation of false consciousness/ And falsified policy and politics/ And greed masked as bourgeois generosity/ By the falsified desires of American imperialism/ By presidents wedded to cowboys and missiles/ By chauvinist beer salesmen peddling stars and stripes by the six-pack/ By the trained psychotic liars of the State Department/ By the simple minded sods in all 50 states ..." - from "A Momentary Belief in the Wisdom of the Common People and a Curse on the Bastards Who Own and Operate Them", Thomas McGrath, 1916-90. Every time I read another powerful writing by Pepe Escobar, I am reminded of the late Great Plains poet Thomas McGrath, who wrote of the fallacies [and] bittersweet ironies of past failures and injustices effected by US foreign policies and insurgencies. Tom McGrath was blacklisted during the notorious McCarthy era but rose again as a voice of conscience during the Vietnam War and spoke up against US atrocities agitated directly or indirectly in Latin America; those actions still supported by the still-functioning training school for torture, the infamous School of the Americas - which Escobar documented in two previous articles [eg Bush, OPEC and Chavez of Arabia, Dec 7, '06]. After reading David Simmons' review [The Roving Eye's grim world view, Feb 10] and excerpt from Pepe Escobar's book Globalistan, I have ordered several copies to share with friends.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
SEEING THE LIGHT AND POWER OF FRIENDSHIP!
“To our joy or to our misery, the contingencies of reality have a great influence on what we say, when writing in the wake of personal disaster,” . It is hard to talk about yourself, and so before I describe my current writing experience, at this time in my life, I wish to make a few observations about the impact that a disaster, a traumatic situation, has on an entire society, an entire people. I immediately recall the words of the mouse in Kafka’s short story “A Little Fable.” The mouse who, as the trap closes on him, and the cat looms behind, says, “Alas . . . the world is growing narrower every day.”
Indeed, after many years of living in the extreme and violent reality of a political, military and religious conflict, I can report, sadly, that Kafka’s mouse was right: the world is, indeed, growing increasingly narrow, increasingly diminished, with every day that goes by. And I can also tell you about the void that is growing ever so slowly between the individual human being and the external, violent and chaotic situation within which he lives. The situation that dictates his life to him in each and every aspect.
And this void never remains empty. It is filled rapidly — with apathy, with cynicism and, more than anything else, with despair: the despair that fuels distorted situations, allowing them to persist on and on, in some cases even for generations. Despair of the possibility of ever changing the prevailing state of affairs, of ever being redeemed from it. And the despair that is deeper still — despair of what this distorted situation exposes, finally, in each and every one of us, on both sides of any conflict.
And I feel the heavy toll that I, and the people I know and see around me, pay for this ongoing state of war. The shrinking of the “surface area” of the soul that comes in contact with the bloody and menacing world out there. The limiting of one’s ability and willingness to identify, even a little, with the pain of others; the suspension of moral judgment. The despair most of us experience of possibly understanding our own true thoughts in a state of affairs that is so terrifying and deceptive and complex, both morally and practically. Hence, you become convinced, I might be better off not thinking and opt not to know perhaps I’m better off leaving the task of thinking and doing and establishing moral norms in the hands of those who might “know better....”on both sides of any conflict.
Most of all, I’m better off not feeling too much — at least until this shall pass. And if it doesn’t, at least I relieved my suffering somewhat, I developed a useful numbness, I protected myself as best I could with the help of a bit of indifference, a bit of sublimation, a bit of intended blindness and large doses of self-anesthetization, knowing how deep, grave and desperate, the Lack of Leadership is worldwide .
In other words: Because of the perpetual — and all-too-real — fear of being hurt, or of deceptive petty politicians, or of unbearable loss, or even of “mere” humiliation, each and every one of us, the conflict’s citizens, its prisoners, trim down our own vivacity, our internal mental and cognitive diapason, ever enveloping ourselves with protective layers, which end up suffocating us, because of very low expectations from the so-called "elite" and from perpetual feudal war-lords, clinging to failed and miserable policies.
Kafka’s mouse is right: when the predator is closing in on you, the world does indeed become increasingly narrow. So does the language that describes it. From my experience I can say that the language with which the citizens of a sustained conflict describe their predicament becomes progressively shallower the longer the conflict endures. Language gradually becomes a sequence of clichés, colors and slogans. This begins with the language created by the institutions that manage the conflict directly —the war-lords, the feudal elite, the army, the police, the different government ministers; it quickly filters down to the mass media that are reporting or regurgitating "words", syllables and "formulas" about the conflict, germinating an even more cunning language that aims to tell its target audience the story easiest for digestion; and this process ultimately seeps into the private, intimate language of the conflict’s citizens, even if they deny it... leaving no room for cool and thoughtful analysis, to produce a lasting political formula for decent and long-lasting Good Governance, in a time of conflict and utter gridlock.
Actually, this process is all too understandable: after all, the natural riches of human language, and their ability to touch on the finest and most delicate nuances and strings of existence, can hurt deeply in such circumstances, because they remind us of the bountiful reality of which we are being robbed, of its true complexity, of its subtleties. And the more this state of affairs goes on, and as the language used to describe this state of affairs grows shallower, public discourse dwindles further. What remain are the fixed and banal mutual accusations among enemies, or among political adversaries within the same country. What remain are the clichés we use for describing our enemy and ourselves; the clichés that are, ultimately, a collection of superstitions and crude generalizations, in which we capture ourselves and entrap our enemies. The world is, indeed, growing increasingly narrow.
My thoughts relate not only to the conflict in the Middle East. Across the world today, billions of people face a “predicament” of one type or other, in which personal existence and values, liberty and identity are under threat, to some extent. Almost all of us have a “predicament” of our own, a curse of our own. We all feel — or can intuit — how our special “predicament” can rapidly turn into a trap that would take away our freedom, the sense of home our country provides, our private language, our free will, our Honor, our Independence, our self-worth, etc. !
In this reality we authors and poets write. In Lebanon , Israel and Palestine, Chechnya and Sudan, in Colombia New York, and in Congo. Sometimes, during my workday, after several hours’ writing, I lift my head up and think — right now, at this very moment, another writer whom I don’t even know sits, in Damascus or Tehran, in Kigali or in Belfast, just like me, practicing this peculiar, Don-Quixote-like craft of creation, within a reality that contains so much violence and estrangement, indifference and diminution. Here, I have a distant ally who doesn’t even know me, but together we weave this intangible cobweb, which nevertheless has tremendous power, a world-changing and world-creating power, the power of making the dumb speak and the power of perception, or correction, in the deep sense it has in the human mind... and could even add, edit, or transform some thoughts and adapt them to a somewhat similar environment somewhere on this planet.
As for me, in recent years, in the facts that I wrote, I almost intentionally turned my back on the "elites", and feudal fiery reality of my country, the reality of the latest news bulletin. I had written notes about this reality before, and in essays and interviews, I never stopped writing about it, and never stopped trying to understand it. I participated in dozens of protests, in international peace initiatives. I met my neighbors — some of whom were my enemies — at every opportunity that I deemed to offer a chance for dialogue. And yet, out of a conscious decision, and almost out of protest, I did not write about these disaster zones yet, because this does not enjoy people’s complete attentiveness as the nearly eternal war thunders.
About five years ago, when my friend HK, was savagely assassinated, I could no longer follow my recent ways. A sense of urgency and alarm washed over me, leaving me restless. I then began writing notes, that treat directly the bleak reality in which we live. A way that depicts how external violence and the cruelty of the general political and military reality penetrate the tender and vulnerable tissue of a single family, ultimately tearing it asunder.
“As soon as one writes,” “one miraculously ignores the current circumstances of one’s life, yet our happiness or misery leads us to write in a certain way. When we are happy, our imagination is more dominant. When miserable, the power of our memory takes over.” It is hard to talk about yourself. I will only say what I can at this point, and from the location where I sit.
I write. In wake of the death of my friend Elie Hobeika, in the war between Israel and Lebanon, the awareness of what happened has sunk into every cell of mine. The power of memory is indeed enormous and heavy, and at times has a paralyzing quality to it. Nevertheless, the act of writing itself at this time creates for me a type of “space,” a mental territory that I’ve never experienced before, where death is not only the absolute and one-dimensional negation of life.
Writers know that when we write, we feel the world move; it is flexible, crammed with possibilities. It certainly isn’t frozen. Wherever human existence permeates, there is no freezing and no paralysis, and actually, there is no status quo. Even if we sometimes err to think that there is a status quo; even if some are very keen to have us believe that a status quo exists. When I write, even now, the world is not closing in on me, and it does not grow ever so narrow: it also makes gestures of opening up toward a future prospect.
I write. I imagine. The act of imagining in itself enlivens me. I am not frozen and paralyzed before the predator... At times I feel as if I am digging up people from the ice in which deceit enshrouded them, but maybe, more than anything else, it is myself that I am now digging up.
I write. I feel the wealth of possibilities inherent in any human situation. I sense my ability to choose between them. The sweetness of liberty, which I believed that I had already lost. I indulge in the richness of true, or borrowed, intimate language. I recall the delight of natural, full breathing when I manage to escape the claustrophobia of slogan and cliché. Suddenly I begin to breathe with both lungs.
I write, and I feel how the correct and precise use of words is sometimes like a remedy to an illness. Like a contraption for purifying the air, I breathe in and exhale the murkiness and manipulations of linguistic scoundrels and language rapists of all shades and colors. I write and I feel how the tenderness and intimacy I maintain with language, with its different layers, its eroticism and humor and soul, give me back the person I used to be, me, before my self became nationalized and confiscated by the conflict, by Mafias, by black-ops, by government's assassins and pseudo-armies, by despair and tragedy.
I write. I relieve myself of one of the dubious and distinctive capacities created by the state of war in which we live — the capacity to be an enemy and an enemy only. I do my best not to shield myself from the just claims and sufferings of my enemy. Nor from the tragedy and entanglement of his own life. Nor from his errors or crimes or from the knowledge of what I myself am doing to him. Nor, finally, from the surprising similarities I find between him and me.
All of a sudden I am not condemned to this absolute, fallacious and suffocating dichotomy — this inhumane choice to “be victim or aggressor,” without having any third, more humane alternative. When I write, I can be a human being whose parts have natural and vital passages between them; a human who is able to feel close to his enemies’ sufferings and to acknowledge his just claims without relinquishing a grain of his own identity.
Sometimes when I write, I can recall what we all felt in Lebanon, for one singular moment, when the airplanes of the Israeli Air Force, pounded our towns and villages, our buildings and infrastructure, killing tens of thousands of our citizens for the last 40 years ago, after decades of war between the two nations: then, all of a sudden, we discovered how heavy is the load we carry all our lives — the load of enmity and fear and suspicion. The load of permanent guard duty, the heavy burden of being an enemy, at all times.
And what a delight it is, to think that one day, may be, just may be we could remove for one moment the mighty armor of suspicion, hate and stereotype. It is a delight that is almost terrifying — to stand naked, pure almost, and witness a human face emerge from the one-dimensional vision with which we observed each other for years.?
I write. I give intimate private names to an external and foreign world. In a sense, I make it mine. In a sense, I return from feeling exiled and foreign to feeling at home. By doing so, I am already making a small change in what appeared to me earlier as unchangeable. Also, when I describe the impermeable arbitrariness that signs our destiny — arbitrariness at the hands of a human being, or arbitrariness at the hands of fate — I suddenly discover new nuances, subtleties. I discover that the mere act of writing about arbitrariness allows me to feel a freedom of movement in relation to it. That by merely facing up to arbitrariness I am granted freedom — maybe the only freedom a man may have against any arbitrariness: the freedom to put your tragedy into your own words. The freedom to express yourself differently, innovatively, before that which threatens to chain and bind one to arbitrariness and its limited, fossilizing definitions.
And I write also about that which cannot be brought back. And about that which is inconsolable. Then, too, in a manner I still find inexplicable, the circumstances of my life do not close in on me in a way that would leave me paralyzed. Many times every day, as I sit at my desk, I touch on grief and loss like one touching electricity with his bare hands, and yet I do not die. I cannot grasp how this miracle works. Maybe once I finish writing these memories, I will try to understand. Not now. It is too early.
And I write the life of my land, Lebanon. The land that is tortured, frantic, drugged by an overdose of history, excessive emotions that cannot be contained by any human capacity, extreme events and tragedies, enormous anxiety and paralyzing sobriety, too much memory, failed hopes and the circumstances of a fate unique among all nations: an existence that sometimes appears to be a "message to the world", especially to Israel..., a story of mythical proportions, a story that is “larger than life” to the point that something seems to have gone wrong with the relation it bears to life itself. A country that has become tired of the possibility of ever leading the standard, normal life of a country among countries, a nation among nations.
We writers go through times of despair and times of self-devaluation. Our work is in essence the work of deconstructing personality, of doing away with some of the most effective human-defense mechanisms. We treat, voluntarily, the harshest, ugliest and also rawest materials of the soul. Our work leads us time and again to acknowledge our shortcomings, as both humans and souls.
And yet, and this is the great mystery and the alchemy of our actions: In a sense, as soon as we lay our hand on the pen, or the computer keyboard, we already cease to be the helpless victims of whatever it was that enslaved and diminished us before we began to write. Not the slaves of our predicament nor of our private anxieties; not of the “official narrative” of our country, nor of fate itself. Hence, I will say this from the heart:
The Lebanese people are getting so tired of the Feudal Sectarian Mess and of the so-called March 14th stooges, prisoners of the American/Israeli new-imperialistic and Hegemonistic formulas, which made of them traitors to the real March 14th Spirit, and the whole mess called Lebanon. Despair is in their faces and immigration is on the rise. There is a danger that there will reach a point where no body cares about anything anymore. To avoid this situation, the silent opposition should take action and take it soon. One idea is to ask the UN to put Lebanon under its mandate and send a bigger force to dismantle the Sectarian system for good. The UN mandate, constituted of European forces only, is needed to avoid chaos and bloodshed for many years. After-all, the Lebanese have proven that they are not mature or capable of ruling themselves and thus they need to be governed by an outside authority. It could be that the 30 years of Syro-American inspired occupation, has made the Lebanese so dependent on another country to resolve their problems and they lost their ability to rule. The UN mandate will help to disarm all the feudal elitist entities in Lebanon, apprentice Lebanese in running a modern form of government, reform the constitution to rid Lebanon of the Religious sectarianism. The UN should stay in Lebanon for 50 years till the sectarian generations are turned over and new generations take over to continue the development of good governance in a modern decentralized state, to liberate the energies of the talented youths of Lebanon ounce and for all.
We write. The world is not closing in on us. How fortunate we are. The world is not growing increasingly narrow...???
INDEPENDENCE 07???
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Lebanon's Independence is Falling Apart??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
كيف للأفاعي الزاحفة على الأرض ان تفهم النسور المحلقة في السماء ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summer in the eastern Mediterranean is always hot, wet, and stormy. But in Lebanon, this summer could be bad -- even by last year's standards. The political struggle that has paralyzed Lebanon since the assassination of Rafik Hariri and the departure of the Syrian Army in 2005 must come to a head by September, when a new president must be selected. Under Lebanon's constitution, only the parliament can select the president -- and this parliament is suffocating from deadlock, gridlock and utter incompetence of a Prime Minister, bent on breaking the constitution and laws of the land daily.The opposition -- and for months has prevented parliament from meeting because the constitutionality of the actual government is in question. In all likelihood, Lebanon will be divided between two competing governments by year's end -- and facing civil war again. But this time the war will add the fuel of Islamist terrorism to that of sectarian militias -- a potentially cataclysmic combination. The resolution currently being debated by the Security Council may add fuel to the fire of the future of Lebanon.
The current crisis pits two unlikely coalitions against each other. In the opposition, supported openly by 2/3 of the Lebanese people, are the Shiite Amal Movement and Hezbollah as well as the Free Patriotic Movement of General Michel Aoun, a Christian and formerly Syria's nemesis in Lebanon. On the other side is the governing majority of the "February 14 Alliance," named for the day of the Hariri assassination made in SYRIA, CIA and MOSSAD, which consists of some Sunnis, some Druze, and those Lebanese Christians who are a proxy CIA Militia, trained in Israel and financed by CIA. The opposition controls the presidency and the office of the speaker of parliament, while the majority controls the parliament and the unconstitutional government of the pawn Prime Minister Siniora, a petty politician, a thug and a thief.
Since pulling their six ministers out of the government in January, the opposition demonstrates daily that the government is no longer legitimate, on the basis of a constitutional provision requiring that the major confessional communities be represented in the government. Thus, even though the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora rests on a stolen parliamentary majority, important CIA power stooges within the state -- including the CIA/DIA-installed President Emile Lahoud and the pro-AMAL speaker of parliament -- refuse to acknowledge its legitimacy. The "constitution" of Lebanon, a constantly changing Frankenstein's monster, is full of devices meant to protect confessional minorities. But by defeating majority rule, the only real effect of these devices is to leave the state unable to protect itself.
The government there is too weak even to claim a monopoly of legitimate force, much less exercise one. Several leading Lebanese, including a senior Christian army general and a Sunni cabinet minister, suggested to me that the weakness of Lebanon's institutions is indeed necessary for political stability there. Such thinking, incredible as it may seem, is common in Lebanon. The Lebanese army maintains its power and prestige chiefly by never acting to defend any institution in Lebanon except itself.
As long as both the Lebanese army and the U.N. forces under UNIFIL stay out of the political conflict, Hezbollah will remain the only force in Lebanon able and willing to impose its will. The international community needs to wake up to the fact that neither the tribunal it has called for, nor the government of Lebanon generally, can long survive without popular Lebanese protection. It is vital to expand the mandate of UNIFIL into one that protects Lebanon's key institutions -- its parliament as well as the tribunal -- from its internal as well as external enemies.
Opponents of intervention will invoke Article 2(7) of the U.N. Charter, and argue the U.N. should stay away because the current constitutional crisis is "essentially a matter within the domestic jurisdiction" of Lebanon. But it isn't. The forces currently preying on Lebanon are very definitely coming from the outside -- chiefly USA and ISRAEL -- and have now assumed decisive influence over both the investigation into Hariri's death and the coming presidential election. This is of critical importance, because all the evidence thus far adduced in the investigation suggests that responsibility for the murder of Hariri rests at the highest levels of the Syrian government, CIA and MOSSAD, and that it was carried out by the instruments of an American inspired Syrian occupation.
President Emile Lahoud argues that the government of the prime minister is illegitimate -- but he was himself "elected" by a parliament installed under Syrian occupation, and his term was legally extended by this same rubber stamp for an American inspired CIA extension. Now both he and the speaker of parliament, who is increasingly popular, argue that the current parliament won't be able to select a president with a simple majority vote unless it first achieves a supermajority quorum -- which it can't do without the presence of the opposition. So another defeat for majority rule and for Lebanon is looming.In default of any general agreement on a constitutional means to elect future governments, the international community must leave Lebanon alone, just as it did in the former 1700s. The vacuum of sovereignty that exists in Lebanon needs to be filled, and only the Security Council has the perceived legitimacy to fill it....?
If we don't move to save Lebanon now, we will be handing America's enemies an enormous victory, and the spread of democracy in the Middle East will suffer a deadly blow. After all, if democracy cannot be saved in the one Arab country where it has existed for a long time, what hope is there of democracy surviving among Iraqis, Israelis and Palestinians who have never had it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
البارد يغلي دوليا
بقلم: زينا الخوري
الجيش اللبناني الباسل يدرك ان هناك طريقة وحيدة للتعامل مع العصابات التي تعتدي على الوطن: الحزم للحسم. وهو يتقدم نحو الهدف.
اما الحكومة فتتردد وتتراجع امام ابسط خطوة سياسية للانقاذ!
فضحت الاحداث الاخيرة العمل الحكومي القائم على «البروبغاندا». وكشف النقاش الساخن داخل مجلس الوزراء ان الاسلوب الذي واجهت به عصابة «فتح الاسلام» اجهزة الدولة، تستوجب التحقيق الدقيق ... والمسآلة.
فمراجعة شريط الاحداث بهدوء تظهر ان العصابة كانت مستنفرة ... وجاهزة لمباغتة القوى الامنية. تصرفت العصابة كأنها تنتظر المعركة من خلال كثافة النيران، والانتشار السريع على الطرقات، والمجازر التي ارتكبتها بدم بارد.
كذلك عملية السطو على المصرف في الكورة تطرح علامات استفهام. فالسيارة التي اوقفتها العصابة امام المصرف، التقطت الكاميرا رقمها بوضوح، فقادت الاجهزة الى تحديد هوية السارقين. هل كانت «الطعم» الذي فرض المداهمة الفجرية، ليتفجّر بعدها الوضع داخل المخيمات؟
هل كانت «فتح الاسلام» تتوقع عملية امنية عليها في مرحلة لاحقة، فقررت ان تستبق التوقيت. واتخذت المبادرة بأسلوب معكوس. وضعت «الطعم» امام مصرف في الكورة واستعدت للمواجهة من القلمون الى البارد؟
وسارع الفريق «الاكثري» الى انشاد معزوفته المعهودة، رابطا الانفجار بالمحكمة الدولية.
اعتقد ان الربط الفعلي والموضوعي لا بد ان يكون مع مداخل الاراضي الفلسطينية، حيث تدور المعارك بين الفصائل المتناحرة، خاصة في قطاع غزة.
شرارة نهر البارد كان هدفها الفعلي اشعال النيران في مختلف المخيمات الفلسطينية في لبنان، لكي يرتفع الدخان الفلسطيني عاليا في سماء المنطقة كلها.. مقدمة لحل... لعله الكونفيديرالية التي اقترحها ملك الاردن مع الدولة الفلسطينية...؟!
هناك من يتحدث عن مخطط لوضع المخيمات تحت اشراف الامم المتحدة بعد ان يفشل الجيش اللبناني بضبط اوضاعها ... ومطار القليعات جاهز ليصبح مركز القيادة الشمالية.
أمل الوطن ان يحسم جيشنا الباسل، وتولد حكومة وحدة وطنية ... قبل فوات الاوان
------------------------------------------------------------
A secular defense of human rights,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laic, In Dignity, Rights, and Personal Responsibility.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In today’s Lebanon, we often take for granted ideas like human dignity and human rights. Many of us hold them to be natural, inalienable, or universal. But we would do well to ask: where do human dignity and human rights come from?
... a foundational fiction to which we more or less wholeheartedly subscribe, a fiction that may well be indispensable for a just society, namely, that human beings have a dignity that sets them apart from animals and consequently protects them from being treated like animals ... helps to define humanity and the status of humanity helps to define human rights ... an affront to our dignity strikes at our rights. Yet when, outraged at such affront, we stand on our rights and demand redress, we would do well to remember how insubstantial the dignity is on which those rights are based...
Human dignity is a human construct; its prehistoric roots perhaps lie in the universal human aversion to pain and humiliation. Animals suffer too, but humans, with their superior consciousness and cognition, could act to reduce it. When they collectively did so, they implicitly adopted a notion of human dignity (the birth of civilization?).
The edifice of rights was built upon this foundation of dignity. The right to life is the earliest major human right. The equality of the right to life is a more recent idea and a higher order abstraction still.?
Human rights today include the equality of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But without a 'higher' or objective truth to derive human rights from, all depends on a peoples' gallant embrace of principles. We also know that rights can be easily undermined by centrifugal traits in human nature (rooted as it is in the animal kingdom and worsened swiftly by sociopolitical turmoil), or by autocrats in the name of culture, order, security, or tradition.
‘A secular defense of human rights depends on the idea of moral reciprocity: that we cannot conceive of any circumstances in which we or anyone we know would wish to be abused in mind or body.’ But there is no consensus on precisely what rights all humans deserve in a world with diverse histories. Then there are practical challenges—how do we match the high-minded language of universal rights with equally high-minded enforcement? What do we make of those who consent to being abused in mind or body, cease to think of it as abuse, and settle for other benefits?
The modern age has overseen a great expansion of our rights. Global disparities remain but there is no dearth of people who believe that rights are a good thing (at least for the social group they identify with most, be it based on race, nation, class, culture). Countless rights commissions and tribunals, as well as some NGOs and the media, strive to preserve or enhance them, often on behalf of strangers across the world and often with remarkably heartening results. Clearly, talk of rights is now chic but what about obligations and personal responsibility? What good is the former without the latter? People can demand rights from their government, but who gets to demand personal responsibility from the people? What happens when our exercise of rights and freedom get increasingly divorced from personal responsibility?
As early as the 1920s, in a keenly observant and prophetic work, The Revolt of the Masses, Ortega y Gassett wrote that life in the modern West “as a program of possibilities [for all] is magnificent, exuberant, superior to all others known to history. But by the very fact that its scope is greater, it has overflowed all the channels, principles, norms, ideals handed down by tradition.” Furthermore, our age is stamped by the arrival of the self-satisfied, indocile, mass-man, a drifter without history, saved from the pre-modern age’s harsh life and exacting gods. He now sees no need to make real demands on himself, wants and receives as entitlement all the rights, freedoms and comforts of the modern age but accepts none of the obligations, limits and standards vital to civilized life. Even the modern professional who leads the mass-man behaves no better outside his narrow domain. Ortega y Gassett called this a “vertical invasion of the barbarians ... as if through the trapdoors ... the commonplace mind knowing itself to be commonplace, has the assurance to proclaim the rights of the commonplace and to impose them wherever it will.” This may be why Kierkegaard cynically quipped: “People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they never use.”
This drift in modern culture towards the least common denominator is perhaps why many perceive in it a strong sense of decadence. “We are witnessing the gigantic spectacle of innumerable human lives wandering about lost in their own labyrinths, [because they have nothing] to which to give themselves.”* Fearful of the worst, many artists and activists today adopt humorless, neo-luddite attitudes: modernity has ushered in a more abrasive social milieu; science and technology has given more power to man than he can handle with grace; they glorify the past out of postmodern nostalgia. But the imagined virtues of the past are only phantoms of our mind. We can learn from the past but we cannot go back to reclaim it; our unique age must find its own destiny. Let us recall this cautiously optimistic verse by the sixth century BCE Greek poet, Xenophanes of Colophon,:
The gods did not enrich man with a knowledge of all things from the beginning of life.
Yet man seeks, and in time invents what may be better.
***********************
Blowback in Lebanon
The Islamists at the centre of the fighting were built up by pro-government forces for sectarian reasons
Charles Harb in Beirut
Thursday May 24, 2007
The Guardian
The violence that has engulfed the Palestinian refugee camp of Nahr al-Bared in northern Lebanon over the past few days, started after a night raid by internal security forces to arrest alleged bank robbers in Lebanon's second largest city, Tripoli. That turned into armed clashes between police and a small radical Islamist group, Fatah al-Islam. Within hours, the Lebanese army was pulled into the conflict when more than a dozen soldiers were ambushed and killed. The army surrounded and began shelling the camp where Fatah al-Islam militants are based - home to more than 30,000 refugees - with mounting casualties on all sides, including civilians.
The story of Lebanon's US-backed Siniora government and army battling an isolated al-Qaida-type terrorist group allegedly backed by Syria obscures a complex picture that has been years in the making, and which involves a peculiar social environment, Lebanese political manoeuvring, and the wider dynamics of an increasingly volatile region.
North Lebanon, especially Tripoli and Akkar, contains some of the country's most deprived areas, neglected by successive governments. Tripoli, a traditionally conservative Sunni city, and Akkar, a strikingly poor province, became fertile territory for the proselytising of Salafist and radical Sunni groups. But impoverished conditions do not explain the rapid empowerment of radical Sunni movements in recent years; political cover was needed - and was provided by pro-government forces. In the 2005 national parliamentary elections, Saad al-Hariri, the son of slain prime minister Rafik Hariri, appealed to Sunni sentiment to woo northern voters. Significant efforts were made to bring the Sunnis of Tripoli and Akkar under his wing and away from the area's traditional leaders. Fulfilling an electoral pledge, the new parliament pardoned jailed Sunni militants involved in violence in December 2000. Those clashes in Dinnieh between Islamist radicals and the Lebanese army left dozens dead in a precursor of the violence of recent days.
Courting radical Sunni sentiment is a dangerous game. A major sign of trouble ahead had already emerged in February last year, when a protest against the cartoons belittling the prophet Muhammad turned violent and the Danish embassy was set ablaze in the fashionable Beirut district of Ashrafieh. Most of those protesting came from the impoverished areas of the north.
This picture becomes more complicated when the regional dimension is factored in. The invasion of Iraq has inflamed the Sunni-Shia divide and is changing the dynamics of the Middle East. Fear of Shia influence in Arab affairs has prompted many Sunni leaders to warn of a "Shia crescent" stretching from Iran, through Iraq, to south Lebanon. Several reports have highlighted efforts by Saudi officials to strengthen Sunni groups, including radical ones, to face the Shia renaissance across the region.
But building up radical Sunni groups to face the Shia challenge can easily backfire. While militant Islamist groups are sensitive to appeals to Sunni sentiment, they remain locked in their own agenda. Courted by regional players - Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia - and infiltrated by intelligence services, Islamist radical groups serve the needs of some without necessarily becoming servants to any.
Some perceive the fighting of recent days as a confrontation between regional forces - the US, Syria, Saudi Arabia - vying for control of the Lebanese political space. Others see it as a plan that went wrong, with Islamist groups escaping the control of the pro-government forces that nurtured them. And others perceive it as an attempt to draw the Lebanese army - regarded as the only genuinely national force in the country - into the fray of Lebanese politics.
The Siniora government is enfeebled. Claims that Syria is behind the current conflict have not so far been endorsed by the White House or other Arab leaders. The army, which has tried to remain neutral, is now muddied and its weaknesses made apparent to all.
The plight of thousands of Palestinian refugees trapped in the Nahr al-Bared camp echoes the Israeli bombing of Palestinian camps in occupied Palestine. Radical Islamist activists are moved by the atrocities in the north and attacks on their fellow militants. Palestinian factions are fractious, weakened, and infiltrated by foreign agents, further destabilising security within the refugee camps. The relations between Palestinian groups and Lebanese authorities are strained, and tensions can easily spill outside the refugee camps. The dangers of a conflagration that could spread across the country are serious. The US once nurtured the mujahideen in Afghanistan, only to pay the price much later. In the dangerous game of sectarian conflict, everyone stands to lose.
· Professor Charles Harb teaches at the American University of Beirut
-------------------------
Wednesday, May. 23, 2007
The Link Between Lebanon and Gaza
By Robert Baer
Talk about the heart of darkness: The Israeli army shelling the Palestinians in Gaza, the Lebanese army bombarding the Palestinians in a refugee camp outside of Tripoli. It may take a while for the smoke to clear, but one thing is for certain: neither Lebanon nor Israel fully understands their enemy and the nature of the relationship between the Palestinians and al-Qaeda, which is strengthening. The hope is that overwhelming military firepower will defeat unbendable faith, and, for our part, let's hope they have better success than we've had in Iraq
Lebanon's government would like us to believe Fatah Islam started the fighting there on Sunday on the orders of Damascus. I hope they know better. Whether Syria is providing tactical help or not, at the end of the day Fatah Islam is the Syrian regime's mortal enemy. If the fighting were to somehow lead to an all-out civil war, Syrian stability will be undermined. Lebanon has had a Sunni fundamentalist element in the north for more than 25 years. As I've written before in this column, the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood used northern Lebanon as a rear base to seize the Syrian city of Hama in 1982. Lebanese Sunni, including fundamentalist Palestinians, were instrumental in the attack. In 2000, a Qaeda-affiliated group in northern Lebanon attacked the Lebanese army. Iraq and Afghanistan have only exacerbated the problem.
Spend time in any Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon and you quickly understand that Osama bin Laden is a symbol of resistance. In the run-up to the Iraq war TIME Beirut correspondent Nick Blanford and I visited 'Ayn al-Hilweh, a Palestinian camp outside of Sidon. Two things struck me. A fundamentalist Sunni group, Usbat al-Islam, occupied half the camp, which we didn't enter because we probably wouldn't have made it back out. And, two, the Fatah commander was already recruiting fighters to go to Iraq to fight the occupation. Both sides were signed up for the jihad.
Gaza is a mirror image of what is happening in Lebanon. Last year, Israelis have told me, Qaeda was growing like a fungus there, with both mainline Fatah and Hamas losing followers to it. In Gaza you could see the place was seething. But frankly the notion of bin Laden taking over sounded like propaganda to me. Now, though, watching the growing chaos, and with the kidnapping of a BBC journalist, I think the Israelis were right.
And it's not just in Lebanon and Gaza where Qaeda is poking its head up. In a startling interview with the Financial Times, John Negroponte, deputy U.S. Secretary of State, said Qaeda is on the move in North Africa, as well as in the Sahel region, in such countries as Chad, Mali and Niger. Negroponte also said we should brace ourselves for a merger between Qaeda and the Algerian fundamentalists.I heard the same thing from a Libyan official, who said that one day in the near future Qaeda-associated groups could pose a threat to Libya's stability. Ethiopia's invasion of Somalia left a vacuum Qaeda is quickly filling.
All of this begs the question; are the explosions we are seeing in Gaza and Lebanon a sign that the long-feared Qaeda resurgence is here?
Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East and Time.com's intelligence columnist, is the author of See No Evil and, most recently, the novel Blow the House Down.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1624621,00.html
+++++++++
"The US and Israel Stand Alone"
Former US president Jimmy Carter speaks with DER SPIEGEL about the danger posed to American values by George W. Bush, the difficult situation in the Middle East and Cuba's ailing Fidel Castro.
SPIEGEL: Mr. Carter, in your new book you write that only the American people can ensure that the US government returns to the country's old moral principles. Are you suggesting that the current US administration of George W. Bush of acting immorally?
Carter: There's no doubt that this administration has made a radical and unpressured departure from the basic policies of all previous administrations including those of both Republican and Democratic presidents.
SPIEGEL: For example?
Carter: Under all of its predecessors there was a commitment to peace instead of preemptive war. Our country always had a policy of not going to war unless our own security was directly threatened and now we have a new policy of going to war on a preemptive basis. Another very serious departure from past policies is the separation of church and state, which I describe in the book. This has been a policy since the time of Thomas Jefferson and my own religious beliefs are compatible with this. The other principle that I described in the book is basic justice. We've never had an administration before that so overtly and clearly and consistently passed tax reform bills that were uniquely targeted to benefit the richest people in our country at the expense or the detriment of the working families of America.
SPIEGEL: You also mentioned the hatred for the United States throughout the Arab world which has ensued as a result of the invasion of Iraq. Given this circumstance, does it come as any surprise that Washington's call for democracy in the Middle East has been discredited?
Carter: No, as a matter of fact, the concerns I exposed have gotten even worse now with the United States supporting and encouraging Israel in its unjustified attack on Lebanon.
SPIEGEL: But wasn't Israel the first to get attacked?
Carter: I don't think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon. What happened is that Israel is holding almost 10,000 prisoners, so when the militants in Lebanon or in Gaza take one or two soldiers, Israel looks upon this as a justification for an attack on the civilian population of Lebanon and Gaza. I do not think that's justified, no.
SPIEGEL: Do you think the United States is still an important factor in securing a peaceful solution to the Middle East crisis?
Carter: Yes, as a matter of fact as you know ever since Israel has been a nation the United States has provided the leadership. Every president down to the ages has done this in a fairly balanced way, including George Bush senior, Gerald Ford, and others including myself and Bill Clinton. This administration has not attempted at all in the last six years to negotiate or attempt to negotiate a settlement between Israel and any of its neighbors or the Palestinians.
SPIEGEL: What makes you personally so optimistic about the effectiveness of diplomacy? You are, so to speak, the father of Camp David negotiations.
Carter: When I became president we had had four terrible wars between the Arabs and Israelis (behind us). And I under great difficulty, particularly because Menachim Begin was elected, decided to try negotiation and it worked and we have a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt for 27 years that has never been violated. You never can be certain in advance that negotiations on difficult circumstances will be successful, but you can be certain in advance if you don't negotiate that your problem is going to continue and maybe even get worse.
SPIEGEL: But negotiations failed to prevent the burning of Beirut and bombardment of Haifa.
Carter: I'm distressed. But I think that the proposals that have been made in the last few days by the (Lebanese) Prime Minister (Fuoad) Siniora are quite reasonable. And I think they should declare an immediate cease-fire on both sides, Hezbollah said they would comply, I hope Israel will comply, and then do the long, slow, tedious negotiation that is necessary to stabilize the northern border of Israel completely. There has to be some exchange of prisoners. There have been successful exchanges of prisoners between Israel and the Palestinians in the past and that's something that can be done right now.
SPIEGEL: Should there be an international peacekeeping force along the Lebanese-Israeli border?
Carter: Yes.
SPIEGEL: And can you imagine Germans soldiers taking part?
Carter: Yes, I can imagine Germans taking part.
SPIEGEL: ... even with their history?
Carter: Yes. That would be certainly satisfactory to me personally, and I think most people believe that enough time has passed so that historical facts can be ignored.
SPIEGEL: One main points of your book is the rather strange coalition between Christian fundamentalists and the Republican Party. How can such a coalition of the pious lead to moral catastrophes like the Iraqi prison scandal in Abu Ghraib and torture in Guantanamo?
Carter: The fundamentalists believe they have a unique relationship with God, and that they and their ideas are God's ideas and God's premises on the particular issue. Therefore, by definition since they are speaking for God anyone who disagrees with them is inherently wrong. And the next step is: Those who disagree with them are inherently inferior, and in extreme cases -- as is the case with some fundamentalists around the world -- it makes your opponents sub-humans, so that their lives are not significant. Another thing is that a fundamentalist can't bring himself or herself to negotiate with people who disagree with them because the negotiating process itself is an indication of implied equality. And so this administration, for instance, has a policy of just refusing to talk to someone who is in strong disagreement with them -- which is also a radical departure from past history. So these are the kinds of things that cause me concern. And, of course, fundamentalists don't believe they can make mistakes, so when we permit the torture of prisoners in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, it's just impossible for a fundamentalist to admit that a mistake was made.
SPIEGEL: So how does this proximity to Christian fundamentalism manifest itself politically?
Carter: Unfortunately, after Sept. 11, there was an outburst in America of intense suffering and patriotism, and the Bush administration was very shrewd and effective in painting anyone who disagreed with the policies as unpatriotic or even traitorous. For three years, I'd say, the major news media in our country were complicit in this subservience to the Bush administration out of fear that they would be accused of being disloyal. I think in the last six months or so some of the media have now begun to be critical. But it's a long time coming.
SPIEGEL: Take your fellow Democrat Senator Hillary Clinton. These days she is demanding the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. But she, like many others, allowed President Bush to invade Iraq under a false pretext.
Carter: That's correct.
SPIEGEL: Was the whole country in danger of losing its core values?
Carter: For a while, yes. As you possibly know, historically, our country has had the capability of self-correcting our own mistakes. This applied to slavery in 1865, it applied to legal racial segregation a hundred years later or so. It applied to the Joe McCarthy era when anti-communism was in a fearsome phase in the country like terrorism now. So we have an ability to correct ourselves and I believe that nowadays there is a self-correction taking place. In my opinion the election results in Connecticut (Eds: The primary loss of war supporter Senator Joseph Lieberman) were an indication that Americans realized very clearly that we made a mistake in going into Iraq and staying there too long.
SPIEGEL: Now even President Bush appears to have learned something from the catastrophe in Iraq. During his second term he has taken a more multilateral approach and has seemed to return to international cooperation.
Carter: I think the administration learned a lesson, but I don't see any indication that the administration would ever admit that it did make a mistake and needed to learn a lesson. I haven't seen much indication, by the way, of your premise that this administration is now reconciling itself to other countries. I think that at this moment the United States and Israel probably stand more alone than our country has in generations.
SPIEGEL: You've written about your meeting with Fidel Castro. He appears seriously ill now and Cuban exiles are partying already in the streets of Miami. You are probably not in the mood to join them.
Carter: No, that's true. Just because someone is ill I don't think there should be a celebration of potential death. And my own belief is that Fidel Castro will recover. He is two years younger than I am, so he's not beyond hope.
SPIEGEL: You sought to normalize relations with Castro, but that never happened. Has anything been achieved through Cuba's isolation?
Carter: In my opinion, the embargo strengthens Castro and perpetuates communism in Cuba. A maximum degree of trade, tourism, commerce, visitation between our country and Cuba would bring an earlier end to Castro's regime.
SPIEGEL: You've been called the moral conscience of your country. How do you look at it yourself? Are you an outsider in American politics these days or do you represent a political demographic that could maybe elect the next US president?
Carter: I think I represent the vast majority of Democrats in this country. I think there is a substantial portion of American people that completely agree with me. I can't say a majority because we have fragmented portions in our country and divisions concerning gun control and the death penalty and abortion and gay marriage.
SPIEGEL: As president, your performance was often criticized. But the work you did after leaving office to promote human rights has been widely praised. Has life been unfair to you?
Carter: I've been lucky in my life. Everything that I've done has brought great pleasure and gratification to me and my wife. I had four years in the White House -- it was not a failure. For someone to serve as president of the United States you can't say it is a political failure. And we have had the best years of our lives since we left the White House. We've had a very full life.
SPIEGEL: Do you feel you achieved even more out of office than you did as president?
Carter: Well, I've used the prestige and influence of having been a president of the United States as effectively as possible. And secondly, I've still been able to carry out my commitments to peace and human rights and environmental quality and freedom and democracy and so forth.
SPIEGEL: Does America need a regime change?
Carter: As I've said before, there is a self-corrective aspect to our country. And I think that the first step is going to be in the November election this year. This year, the Democrats have good chance of capturing one of the houses of Congress. I think the Senate is going to be a very close decision. My oldest son is running for the US Senate in the state of Nevada. And if just he and a few others can be successful then you have the US Senate in Democratic hands and that will make a profound and immediate difference.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
السلاح الفلسطيني والمخيمات بين جيلين
29 ايار 2007
ميشال أبو نجم - لا ينفصل بعض تداعيات أحداث مخيم نهر البارد بين وحدات الجيش وآخر إفرازات التقاطعات التكفيرية مع شد الحبال المذهبي - الإقليمي - الدولي، "فتح الإسلام"، عن الزلزال الذي يشهده لبنان ووعي جماعاته الطائفية منذ العام 2005، خصوصاً في ارتفاع الحساسية الكيانية اللبنانية.
فخلف مشاهد الاشتباكات وتقاذف المسؤوليات السياسية عن تنامي ظاهرة "فتح الإسلام"، وصورة الالتفاف اللبناني الشامل حول المؤسسة العسكرية، يندفع إلى الأذهان فضول البحث في صورة السلاح الفلسطيني والمخيمات لدى الأجيال المتعاقبة، والمقارنة بين زمني السبعينات و2007، والتي تظهر عمق الهوة الفاصلة بين جيلين لا يزالان يعانيان التهديدات المصيرية نفسها.
تقزَّمت القضية الفلسطينية التي اجتاحت - بفضل ضخ البترودولار الخليجي والسعودي ونجاح إدارة منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية للمعركة الإعلامية - مخيلات "الجماهير" العربية واللبنانية - الإسلامية وصولاً إلى الإعلام العربي وخصوصاً الأوروبي، واخترقت البنية السياسية والدينية المسيحية.
معاصرو تلك المرحلة يتذكرون حجم الاستنفار السياسي في الصف المسيحي الذي أحدثه مؤتمر يسوع الملك للشبيبة الطالبية المسيحية وشخصيات دينية وفكرية مسيحية بين 28 و31 كانون الأول 1968 تحت تأثير دعمه للكفاح الفلسطيني، ويتذكرون أيضاً أن حرب العام 1975 حملت تأييد مسيحيين يساريين للمنظمات الفلسطينية، تحت شعار "حركة المسيحيين الوطنيين".
تقزَّمت القضية الفلسطينية في بُعدها العسكري في لبنان تدريجاً، سالكةً طريقاً طويلة من المنعطفات والانحدارات المتلاحقة في دهاليز حساسيات الطوائف اللبنانية. فبعد المسيحيين، واجهت المنظمات الفلسطينية الشيعة الذين ساهمت في تسليح حركتهم السياسية والعسكرية الأولى، "أمل"، في "حرب المخيمات" الشهيرة، حتى تحجيم السلاح الفلسطيني وتجميد وظيفته الإقليمية في ثلاجة مصالح النظام السوري وإدارته للوضع اللبناني، مع دخول الجيش اللبناني إلى شرق صيدا صيف العام 1991 بعد معارك مع المنظمات الفلسطينية في تلك المنطقة.
بين صرخة "كلنا فدائيون" لرئيس الحكومة السُني عبد الله اليافي وتصدر كمال جنبلاط للتظاهرات الداعمة للثورة الفلسطينية في اواخر الستينات وأوائل السبعينات، وغليان الساحة السُنية ضد المسلحين الفلسطينيين، وبشكل أدق وأوضح مسلحي المنظمات الفلسطينية الموالية لسوريا - لاحظوا التشديد على السلاح الفلسطيني خارج المخيمات وعبارة "فتح أبو عمار" لسعد الحريري - (ولو أن مدى شمولية هذا الغليان أو انحساره وارتباطه بقابلية التلويح بالسلاح الفلسطيني ضد "حزب الله" يستدعي بحثاً معمقاً ضرورياً لسنا في وارده الآن)، ودعوة وليد جنبلاط إلى التطوع في الجيش من جهة اخرى، عوامل كثيرة تبدلت وطفت على سطح الحدث، وساهمت في شمولية الشعور اللبناني بالتهديد الذي يمثله السلاح الفلسطيني في المخيمات، يمكن المراقب ملاحظة بعضها على الشكل الآتي:
- ارتفاع الحساسية اللبنانية الكيانية لدى السنة إلى أعلى مستوى لها منذ استشهاد الرئيس رفيق الحريري، مترافقاً مع استمرار الارتباط الوثيق لمنظمات فلسطينية أبرزها "الجبهة الشعبية - القيادة العامة" بدمشق التي لم تضع الحرب بينها وبين الأكثرية بزعامة "تيار المستقبل" أوزارها بعد.
- تراكم سلبيات انفلاش المخيمات الفلسطينية وعدم تجفيف بؤرها الأمنية، وتزامن ترسيخ هذه الخلاصة في نهاية الحرب مع بداية صعود الجيل الذي نشأ في النصف الثاني من الحرب.
فجيل الستينات والسبعينات ممن تأثروا بجاذبية القضية الفلسطينية وعدالة قضيتها، انجرفوا في تيارها حتى انتمى العديد من اللبنانيين إلى الحركات الفلسطينية المتعددة، التي كانت تمثل في نظرهم العامل التغييري الحاسم للنظام السياسي اللبناني، قبل أن تصطدم الأحلام الرومنسية بصخرة الواقع ومحدوديتها. أما جيل شباب اليوم فاستفاق على "حرب المخيمات" واستغلال الفلسطينيين داخلياً وإقليمياً (مشاركة مسلحي أحمد جبريل و"أبو موسى" في "حرب الجبل") وعلى اصطدامهم بالجيش اللبناني في معارك شرق صيدا في العام 1991.
وخلال فترة تكريس السيطرة السورية من التسعينات حتى العام 2005، تابع الشباب على اختلاف طوائفهم خروج المخيمات عن سيادة الدولة وتحولها بإرادة أهلها أو من دونها، إلى ملجأ للخارجين عن القانون وتفريخ المجموعات الأصولية التي شُرّع بعضها وتحول مرجعاً للضبط الأمني كلما "فرَّخت" عن يمينه منظمة أكثر تشدداً (مثال "عصبة الأنصار" و"جند الشام" و"فتح الإسلام"، إذ أصبحت "العصبة" عامل استقرار في حي الصفصاف والتعمير في عين الحلوة). وشهد الشباب اللبناني كيف "ذاب" "أبو محجن" المتهم بقضية اغتيال الشيخ نزار الحلبي وكيف لجأ مسلحو الضنية إلى عين الحلوة، وكيف تم العفو عن سلطان أبو العينين بسحر ساحر، وسمعوا بغصّة المتلهف إلى الدولة "الموقوفة" التهديدات الاستفزازية لمسؤولي المنظمات الحليفة لسوريا في صيف العام 2005 والعام الماضي وحالياً، كلما طرح موضوع السلاح الفلسطيني أقله خارج المخيمات، إلى أن كان استشهاد عشرات العسكريين غدراً في يومٍ واحد القشة التي قصمت ظهر البعير، ما دفع بالجميع إلى تأييد أي خطوات حاسمة يتخذها الجيش لضبط الوضع.
إذن، المسألة الفلسطينية في بعدها المسلح هي مختلفة كلياً عن زمنٍ انطوى، بعدما راكمت الذاكرة الجماعية اللبنانية سلبيات السلاح الفلسطيني واستغلاله، وتكرست تالياً نظرة الحذر إلى المخيمات خاصة "النشطة" منها (كعين الحلوة في الجنوب والبارد والبداوي في الشمال ومواقع قوسايا والسلطان يعقوب وحلوى في البقاع الغربي والناعمة جنوب بيروت)، والتباس هذا الحذر مع التعاطف الدائم مع قضية الشعب اللبناني ومعاناته.
العامل الذي يجب أن يظل حاضراً لدى معالجة مسألة السلاح الفلسطيني ومراقبة تحولاتها كما أي مسألة أخرى متعلقة بلبنان، هو العامل الطائفي والمذهبي.
فإرث الحساسية المرتفعة و"النقزة" من الفلسطينيين عامةً متواصلان في أجيال البيئة المسيحية، لا توجد منعطفات أو مراحل تدرج في النظرة إلى هذا السلاح، ما عدا رصد بدايات تعاطف مع مأساة الفلسطينيين في الضفة الغربية وغزة، وتجلى ذلك في المشاركة في التحركات التضامنية مع مواجهات العام 2002 لا سيما ما حصل في مخيم جنين، التي شارك فيها شباب ما كان يعرف بـ"المعارضة المسيحية" آنذاك. السلاح أو تحرك أو عمل تُشتمّ منه رائحة التوطين مرفوض بقوة ومثير للخوف والحذر، والسلاح الفلسطيني هو "أصل البلاء" الكياني.
هذا العامل المذهبي ينسحب أيضاً على الشيعة، أصحاب المعاناة الطويلة مع الفلسطينيين منذ العام 1969 ومن أيام موسى الصدر الذي قال لكريم بقرادوني في جُمل بالغة الدلالة: "ليست المقاومة الفلسطينية ثورة... إنها آلة عسكرية ترهب العالم العربي... منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية سلطة فوضوية في الجنوب. لقد تغلب الشيعة على عقدة المنظمات الفلسطينية. لقد طفح الكيل!" ("كتاب السلام المفقود"، صفحة 118)، حتى حرب المخيمات (85-88) مع حركة أمل بقيادة نبيه بري. وإذا أضفنا الى الحساسيتين المسيحية والشيعية التخوف الدرزي الدائم على صفاء المناطق الدرزية ومنع أي تمدد فلسطيني باتجاهها، تبقى النظرة السُّنية إلى فلسطينيي لبنان وسلاحهم هي التي تستحق قدراً أكبر من التدقيق والمتابعة. والسؤال الأكبر هو: ما هو موقع السلاح الفلسطيني في احتمالات التحسب لمواجهة مذهبية مع حزب الله؟ وما هي الأجوبة الحقيقية عن المعلومات المتداولة بقوة عن علاقة ما بين "فتح الإسلام" كقوة أصولية سّنية و"تيار المستقبل" على خط الزلزال السُّني - الشيعي في المنطقة والحديث الدائر عن خطة مواجهة لإيران والشيعة تتضمن في طياتها التلويح بسلاح المنظمات التكفيرية المتشددة؟ وأخيراً: هل انتفت الحاجة إلى الفلسطينيين كـ"جيش المسلمين السنة"، أم أن هذه الحاجة ما زالت موجودة في زمن تكتل الطوائف الخائفة - المخيفة، وعلى الأخص لدى السُّنة الطائفة الأكثر تمركزاً في المدن، والأقل خبرة في المواجهات العسكرية الداخلية والخارجية على مر التاريخ اللبناني الحديث؟
في انتظار الأجوبة على هذه التساؤلات المشروعة، يمكن التأكيد على وجود الحد الأدنى من الإجماع اللبناني على ضرورة الحسم مع السلاح الفلسطيني وانفلاشه، بغضّ النظر عن تركيبة "فتح الإسلام" المتعددة الجنسية!
زيارتي الأولى إلى محيط صبرا وشاتيلا :
على خط التداخل اللبناني السني - الفلسطيني في الأحياء والشوارع المحاذية لمخيم صبرا وشاتيلا، ترتفع الأعلام اللبنانية واللافتات المؤيدة للجيش والمحتضنة له، في اختلافٍ واضح عن مشهد السبعينات حين كانت مناطق الفاكهاني والطريق الجديدة والجامعة العربية تشكل عقر دار المنظمات الفلسطينية ومقار قيادتها والبحر الشعبي الآمن الذي تسبح فيه.
لم يعد العامل المذهبي والقومي العربي العامل الرابط الوحيد بين السنة والفلسطينيين، ففي حين يستمر التضامن المذهبي عاملاً جامعاً بين الشلل الشبابية الفلسطينية واللبنانية السنية ومحرضاً لها على الاشتباك مع نظيرتها الشيعية، كما بينته أحداث الجامعة العربية، (وطقس الشجارات ستؤديه في كل الأحوال بشكلٍ شبه يومي إذا لم يتوافر "الخصم")، تفرق النظرة إلى أحداث نهر البارد بينها.
الشباب السني المؤيد في غالبيته الساحقة لـ"تيار المستقبل" في تلك الأحياء يدعم الجيش، وفي المقابل تسري في أوساط الشباب الفلسطيني إدانات وانتقادات لرد الجيش الذي يعتبرون أنه يستهدف المدنيين.
ثمة تمايز لا يمكن إلا ملاحظته في الأحياء السنية بشكلٍ عام، والذي يشكل الجو في مناطق الفاكهاني والطريق الجديدة والجامعة العربية نموذجاً عنه، في إطار تمدد "تيار المستقبل" إلى الأحياء الشعبية السنية واستقطابه لفئات اجتماعية كانت خارج اهتمامه النخبوي (رجال أعمال، طلاب جامعات، موظفون، أطباء مهندسون ومحامون...)، كفتية الشوارع المتحلقين حول نوادي اللياقة البدنية وصالات البليارد وصالونات الحلاقة وجلسات النارجيلة، والذين ينفذون عمليات حراسة ليلية تخوفاً من اختراقات أمنية ووضع حقائب متفجرة.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
غباء أو إستغباء؟
29 أيار 2007
بشارة خيرالله - لا جديد، فقد إنتهجت حكومة المستقبل سياسة إستغباء اللبنانيين مدى سنتين لإخفاء إخفاقاتها وتجاوزها القوانين والدساتيروالأن تحاول إستعطاف اللبنانيين من خلال إستدراجهم وكأن الجيش اللبناني جيشهم والعلم علمهم ومن يخالف هذه الحكومة فهو يخالف الجيش ومن ينتقدها يكون حتماً ضد الجيش، هذا ما تحاول هذه الأكثرية تسويقه لإستثمار بطولات الجيش اللبناني المغدور من قبلهم مهما حاولوا تضليل الرأي العام.
هذه الحكومة تتحمل المسؤولية الكاملة لما تعرض له جيشنا من جماعات فتح الإسلام في اليوم الأول حين فوجىء الجيش بعملية أمنية مدبرة ومصورة دون التنسيق أو على الأقل دون إعلامه ما أدى الى إستفراد عناصره وقتلهم نتيجة خطأ جسيم يتحمل مسؤوليته من أعطى أوامر تنفيذ العملية المسماة "مداهمة من إقتحم وسرق بنك البحر المتوسط" في حين أن الهدف الحقيقي تعويم سياسي لتيار المستقبل وحكومته لو نجحت هذه العملية وإلا لماذا دعت الإعلاميين الى تصوير العملية؟
أما ربط الجيش اللبناني بالحكومة فهو قمة الإستخفاف بعقول الناس وخاصة بأن الجيش هو المؤسسة الوحيدة المدعومة من اللبنانيين بأغلبية ساحقة دون منّة هذه الحكومة التي تبحث عن أي إنتصار وهمي للهروب الى الأمام وهذا ما لن يحصل لأن المؤوسسة العسكرية تحظى بثقة المعارضة تحديداً إما الحكومة فهي محط سخرية لما نتج عنها من بدع منذ تأليفها.
سبق وصدرت مئات التصاريح على السن قيادات المعارضة لعدم عرقنة لبنان ومع الأسف لم تلق أي أذان صاغية من قبل مجموعة السراي الساعية الى البقاء حتى لو لم يبق لبنانيين في لبنان فعادت لغة التفجيرات لزرع الرعب في نفوس اللبنانيين الذين ذاقوا الأمريّن من هكذا ممارسات تخريبية يقابلها تصرف لا مسؤول لمن هم في سدّة الحكم ويتبجحون بأنهم " ثوار الأرز".
الف تحية الى جيش لبناننا العظيم والف رحمة على ارواح شهدائه الأبطال يقابلهم مليون دعوة لهذه الحكومة بالرحيل لأنها علة العلل، قمة التأمر حين يطعن الجيش اللبناني نتيجة قرار أمني يكون فيه أخر من يعلم، لهذا عليه إكمال طريقه لتطهير المخيمات من هكذا مجموعات دون أي قرار سياسي لأن الشعب اللبناني وحتى الفلسطيني بأكمله يؤيد ما يفعله الجيش البطل دون إستغلال "الحكومة" لبطولاته وإستثمارها كذريعة للبقاء على حساب اللبنانيين الأبرياء المهددين بأمنهم في كل دقيقة نتيجة الفشل الحكومي في إدارة شؤون البلاد.
